Westminster Hall

Tuesday 10th November 2015 Westminster Hall

Tuesday 10 November 2015

[Valerie Vaz in the Chair]

British Council

Tuesday 10th November 2015 Westminster Hall

09:30

[David Warburton (Somerton and Frome) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the British Council.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. As co-chair, with Lord Bach, of the all-party parliamentary group on the British Council, I am pleased to have the opportunity for this debate. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) for his efforts not only in securing the debate, but in supporting the APPG and the British Council as a whole.

In its founding articles, the British Council was charged with the mission,

“to make the life and thought of the British people more widely known abroad; and to promote a mutual interchange of ‘knowledge and ideas’ with other peoples.”

The phrasing of those aims seems all the more relevant today as the idea of mutual interchange is the crux of the opportunities and the challenges thrown up by globalisation.

The British Council’s work is sometimes seen as divided between English teaching and furthering British interests and influence, but the transmission of our language is in itself an exercise in extending our influence. Of course, George Steiner said that

“when a language dies, a way of understanding the world dies with it”.

Therefore, the work of nearly 9,000 British Council staff—most of them teachers—sprinkled around the globe in conveying our language should be recognised as being of enormous objective value. A language both shapes and reflects a world view, so at a time when both the Alliance Française and the Goethe-Institut have been expanded, it is vital that the huge contribution made by our British Council’s education work is properly appreciated and valued. The British Council’s educational reach is truly staggering and has a projected income of more than £800 million. However, though those educational services might be profitable, they are not only financially driven.

I hesitate to mention opinion polls, because hon. Members will have spotted one or two recent unreliable examples, but research by Ipsos MORI has shown that participation in educational or cultural relations with the UK vastly increases trust in the country and its people. In fact, participants in the British Council’s active citizens programme in Pakistan, in which more than 40,000 people have taken part, said that their perceived trust in the UK increased by a quarter—in so far as such things can be measured. Those same figures show that such increased confidence and trust is not extended to the British Government—sad though that might be—but is centred quite rightly on our people and our culture. That is why the British Council is so ideally equipped to enhance our standing abroad.

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

On that point, does my hon. Friend agree not only that the British Council is a great institution with a great history, but that it makes a valuable contribution to our country’s soft power capability? In fact, Joseph Nye cites the founding of the British Council in the 1930s as the originator of the concept of soft power. Does he agree that funding cuts by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office mean that there is a greater commercial burden on the British Council that risks eroding its credibility and integrity as it tries to become more commercial to make up for those cuts? Does he also agree that those cuts—I include the BBC World Service—are false economies, because money spent on our soft power capability can save on conflict and greater cost further down the line?

[David Warburton]

My hon. Friend reads my mind—obviously he has been looking ahead to what I am about to say. I entirely agree with all those points. Although soft power is a nebulous concept that is perhaps a little overused, I will touch on it shortly. It is crucial that the British Council’s budget is protected in the best possible way and that it does not become a commercial organisation.

I recently had the privilege of chairing an event in Parliament as part of the British Council’s Young Arab Voices programme. I am confident in saying that all the parliamentarians present were enormously impressed by those young people’s articulacy and breadth of knowledge. That programme instils and distils the idea that conflict resolution and decision making should and can be achieved through argument and reason rather than by force. Therefore, by creating alternative pathways for young people, by offering a platform and a voice for young Muslims and Arab leaders, for example, and by changing lives and life chances through sport and a variety of cultural activities, the British Council provides a special, and arguably unique, way to address our security and stability.

I mentioned mutual interchange of ideas, which is not only vital, but something that the British Council is ideally placed and equipped to take on in the UK’s interests. Perhaps soft power, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron), might be considered a bit of a tired novelty, but it is particularly relevant to the debate. I am sure that all hon. Members were delighted by the result of the Soft Power 30 in which Joseph Nye ranked the UK as wielding more of that intangible but critical quality than any other nation on Earth. That is a tribute to the splendid vibrancy of British culture and to those who, like the British Council, work to share the benefits of that culture as widely as possible.

Hon. Members will recall how Nikola Tesla spoke of the ways in which science can annihilate distance. As the world becomes increasingly globalised, that idea possibly terrifies some, but it inspires others to forge links with people and communities whose concerns in the past may have been rather distant from their own.

In reality, few agencies or organisations are better placed or have the reputation or cultural memory to take on the task of forging such links in the interests of British culture and our long-term security. For example, a society that precludes half its population—women and girls—from accessing education or the wider economy is only half an economy. Therefore, with many western and British values perhaps facing something of an ideological challenge, the British Council’s work in providing education for 90,000 refugees in Lebanon, its progressive focus on the role of women and girls in transforming the societies of north Africa and its role in training Iraqi teachers, reaching more than 100,000 children, show how it can change the nebulous currency of soft power into solid, tangible results.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful point about the British Council’s humanitarian work. Does he agree that that is particularly valuable in North Korea, where the English-teaching programme, which will reach about 400 teachers and 200 students this year, is one of the only ways in which there is meaningful contact with the outside world for many people in that repressed country? Should we not ensure that that work continues?

[David Warburton]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend; she makes a good point. By connecting with those countries and offering education and skills for growth through arts, culture, social enterprise and investment, the British Council is able to tease out prosperity and tap vast reservoirs of human potential. All that benefits not only the emerging economies, but the UK’s long-term national interest.

We all appreciate the imperatives of the financial situation that the country faces and the obvious need for a hard look at areas of Government spending, so it is hugely important to put the British Council’s work in its true—it is often hidden—perspective. It provides positive pathways for young people, giving them a stake in society, as we heard in the discussion at the Young Arab Voices event. It strengthens institutions, supports economic and social development, develops creativity and experience of the arts, builds relationships with the UK and enhances our influence and reputation. As I have said, its work increases trust in the UK and, whether face-to-face, or through exhibitions, digital communities, broadcasting or publication, it reaches some 600 million people. In total, the council represents outstanding value for money, and all its work will surely be recognised when decisions are taken on the next financial settlement.

Around two thirds of the British Council’s FCO funding forms part of the ring-fenced official development assistance budget, but the remaining third may well face a squeeze. It is therefore imperative that the ODA portion is structured in a way that compensates for any shortfall if we are to maintain the council’s successful record. As we approach the spending decisions to be taken over the coming weeks, I hope we will see undertakings to that end.

Finally, I must mention that, in the triennial review last year, the Government reaffirmed their commitment to cultural diplomacy, saying that the British Council’s

“strong brand, well established networks and committed staff”

meant it was uniquely well fitted to continue as

“the main official UK body for cultural diplomacy.”

All of us here today will be conscious of the three tenets of the British Council: security, prosperity and influence. By seeing those as working together, the full range of benefits that flow to the UK from the British Council’s work and the exceptional value that it provides globally become clear.

09:41

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I congratulate the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (David Warburton) on securing this important debate.

I must declare an interest. I worked for many years at the British Council, with overseas postings in Brussels, St Petersburg and Sierra Leone. I will always remember my time at the council fondly and with a sense of pride. In Brussels, I saw how British skills and know-how could be deployed to support the transition of the former eastern bloc countries to democracy and the market economy, through the European Commission’s aid programmes. In St Petersburg, I was proud to be the director of an operation offering young Russians the opportunity to learn English and engage in a range of cultural and educational projects. In Sierra Leone, I was honoured to be a part of the huge impact of the council’s work in building the capacity of that country’s Government. It is for those reasons and more that I am such a firm believer in the organisation we are discussing today.

As hon. Members will know, the British Council is the world’s outstanding example of a successful soft power institution. It is the model that all other countries try to emulate when developing their soft power networks. It is respected, professional and diversified and we are fortunate to have such a positive face to present to the world. As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome has already mentioned, the council was founded to create

“a friendly knowledge and understanding between the people of the UK and the wider world”

and has been promoting the values of fairness, democracy, tolerance and dialogue across the world for decades. But the magic of the British Council is that it does not promote those values by way of megaphones or propaganda; rather, it operates through the mediums of exchange and long-term relationship building.

The council understands that communication at its best will be a two-way conversation between the UK and the rest of the world, with each side listening to and learning from the other. It is founded on the principle that the Brits do not have all the answers. It is a vehicle for building trust through honest and open dialogue, as opposed to banging the drum for Britain, which can be so counterproductive. At a time when we are more interconnected as a planet than ever before and trust is a rare commodity, the long-term trust and confidence-building work of the British Council has never been more important; its values are the ones we require if we are to minimise culture clash and the violence that can often result from it.

Through the British Council, we engage civil society in countries where the Governments are not always our closest allies. We propagate a love for our art and music around the world. We can build grassroots understanding of democratic practices, harness the power of sport to inspire and engage young people from all over the world, and promote ourselves as a top-rung tourist destination and trading partner. Through the council, we ensure that the propaganda our enemies disseminate about us is dismantled. Why then is the council facing such huge cuts, when we can all agree that its work is more important than ever?

This year, the council’s FCO grant was increased by £10 million, to reflect its effectiveness in delivering ODA.

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

On the issue of spending and ODA, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the British Council’s valuable work is put in jeopardy by a reduction of more than 50%, looking back just five years, in terms of ODA spend and that that needs to be examined very closely in the forthcoming review?

[Stephen Kinnock]

I do. ODA has been given as a demonstration of the effectiveness of the council’s work in least developed countries. The major challenge the council faces is the reduction in the FCO grant, which has been eroded constantly over the years. As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome mentioned, the fundamental problem is that that increases the council’s reliance on commercially generated funding. We all acknowledge and welcome the council’s ability to raise that type of funding, but the reduction in grant funding reduces its flexibility to operate wherever it needs to in this rapidly changing world. I absolutely agree that the reduction in the grant is having a negative impact on the council’s ability to deliver across the board.

[Mr Baron]

In addition, is not there another concern about the decrease in FCO funding? It will not simply be a case of having to make up the lost income—and with regard to commercial activities, that can be many times the factor of the income required, as a turnover of £100 million may just about produce a profit of £10 million, and the reduction from the FCO grant would be £50 million over five years. As the British Council becomes more commercial to make up the lost revenue, its integrity and credibility could also be threatened. Does the hon. Gentleman consider that a risk as well?

[Stephen Kinnock]

I do. Also, as I will go on to argue later, the council’s English language teaching and exam work is important, makes a big impact and is very lucrative, but it tends to be for the elites in the societies where the council is operating. It is the high end of English language learning and people pay top dollar for it. If we are saying that it is important that we engage with the disaffected, disfranchised youths who are potentially going to become a security risk for us, it is arguable that that section of society will not be able to pay for those English language courses. Looking at the council’s strategic objectives and values, it is important that its reach is wide and that it goes into sections of society that its English language teaching and exams administration simply cannot reach.

The grant represents just 16% of the British Council’s funding. The rest is earned, as we have been discussing, and those earnings are projected to increase. Despite that good news, all is not financially rosy at the council. The FCO grant was reduced to £154 million in 2014-15, down from £201 million in 2009-10, so despite the extra £10 million in ODA, cuts to projects are having to be made. The choice for the council is stark: either a managed decline in its scale and reach, or growing its self-generated income to continue its work. The council has been forced to choose the latter, but should it have to and do we want it to?

Of course, it is truly commendable that the council’s English teaching and exam management can generate enough income from those who can afford to pay to fund projects aimed at those who cannot. Work done administering exams, managing international contracts and fostering corporate partnerships is important, but the more money that is raised from commercial sources, the more the British Council’s core purpose becomes divorced from its soft power potential. My concern is also that language teaching and exams are expensive, and so tend to benefit elites. Grant-funded activity is far more likely to have a wider reach.

We must recognise that, if the British Council is to remain an important wing of British diplomacy, public funding must remain an important element of its financial base. That is crucial for accountability and flexibility, and to supporting the council’s activities in fragile, unstable states, where it is harder for the council to raise the private funds to enable it to build long-term, mutually beneficial relationships with future leaders. It is an important fact that one in five world leaders studied in the UK; we are talking about a brand that we can, and do, export, but without public funding, it stops being linked to Britain as a country and becomes just another product.

ODA money is specifically for British Council work in areas that are of key interest from a security and stability perspective. Those areas are current flashpoints, and the money is crucially needed. In Tunisia, for example, a fledgling democracy is trying to embody all the original hopes of the Arab spring, but more of the foreign jihadists in Iraq and Syria originate there than in any other country. The British Council runs debating clubs across Tunisia—a programme that it wants to grow tenfold and that successfully engages young people at risk of radicalisation. For Tunisia, whose economy relies so much on tourism, the good publicity afforded by successful British Council projects feeds into confidence that the country can move on and rebuild after recent horrors.

ODA funding also goes towards co-operation work with countries such as China and India, where engaging with societies that are growing increasingly prosperous is an investment in our future.

The debate is about how best to build trust between Britain and the rest of the world, and nobody does that better than the British Council. More ODA money would maintain its public funding and consolidate its position as a respected arm of British diplomacy. The Government’s spending review is coming up, and my colleagues and I urge the Minister to communicate that request in the strongest terms to the Chancellor.

During his Grant Park acceptance speech in 2008, Barack Obama famously stated that the true strength of a nation is demonstrated

“not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals”.

I urge the Minister to take note and to ensure that the outstanding nature of the work done by the British Council is adequately reflected in the comprehensive spending review.

09:52

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. It is also a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock). At a time when we are seeing an awful lot of hard power on display in the middle east, it is excellent that we are having this debate about the role and virtue of soft power. As he said, soft power often lasts longer.

I pay tribute to the staff of the British Council. Before I entered this place, I was a practising historian, and I would sell my wares around the world. When I met British Council staff, whether in Dubai, Macedonia or Singapore, they were, to a man and a woman, incredibly professional and committed. They were great public servants, and they presented the best of British, often in quite constrained circumstances.

Those people did not necessarily have easy relationships with our embassies. There were sometimes tensions between the inevitable creativity and dissent that the British Council rightly sought to generate—in a helpful manner—and the sometimes narrow policy constraints of Her Majesty’s Government. Where embassies and the British Council had good working relationships, they could achieve a great deal, but where the embassy—not in a controlling manner—did not regard the British Council as part of a partnership for Britain, not nearly as much was achieved as we might have hoped.

In the past 10 to 15 years, the British Council has been a really successful part of a post-imperial, post-colonial reimagining of the meaning of Great Britain. It is hard to overplay that work, particularly in parts of the world where we have a colonial past. The British Council’s work in shaping the reputation, image and meaning of modern Britain for new audiences has been quite profound. Nowhere is that truer than in our relationships with India, as we will see next week when we welcome India’s Prime Minister to the UK.

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Hugo Swire)]

This week.

[Tristram Hunt]

Things happen so fast these days. We are all looking forward to the remarkable events that will take place in Wembley, and I hope the Minister will be assisting with them. We have a very complicated and long relationship with India, and although many young Indians have a relative lack of interest in the colonial past, they have a great interest in, and passion for, Britain and the meaning of Britain. The British Council has helped to shape some of the debate on that.

Colleagues have rightly made the case for funding and support for the British Council. Its work is profound and important. When I visited its offices, however, I got a sense that the demands of English language teaching and the business model that that involves sometimes overwhelmed the broader functions of those offices. Clearly, we need those offices to be income generators, but we should not lose sight of the British Council’s broader functions and purpose.

I would be delighted to see more money going to the British Council and a return to its previous funding. I have no problem with more of those resources coming from the Department for International Development. It is no secret in Whitehall that DFID cannot get the stuff out of the door quick enough, although it does not always go in the most effective directions. The British Council, however, is incredibly effective.

[Stephen Kinnock]

As my hon. Friend will know, one of the council’s important functions is to manage programmes such as Erasmus, as well as English language teaching assistants going out to other countries, particularly those in the European Union. Does he agree that Britain’s membership of the European Union is an important aspect of the backdrop to the British Council’s work in demonstrating that the United Kingdom is an engaged international partner that, in particular, gives opportunities to young people in other European countries?

[Tristram Hunt]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In a sense, the British Council serves two purposes: promoting an understanding of modern Britain in modern Europe; and providing young people with extraordinary opportunities to learn other languages on the European continent and to see themselves as part of a broader European culture. It is one of the sadnesses of recent years that we have seen the decline of linguistic abilities in our schools, and the British Council is working to counter that.

There are broader trends that pose a risk to the British Council’s work. First, as my hon. Friend said, we have a great tradition of world-class universities in this country and an extraordinary history of people from around the world coming here to take part in higher education. It is crazy that we include those people in the migration figures. That is an example of the dark hand of the Home Office holding Britain back from achieving what it needs and wants to do. We should welcome those young people, who will build up relationships with the British Council and build cultural relationships in the future.

Britain’s cultural footprint is something that we all celebrate. A very good series by Dominic Sandbrook about Britain’s modern cultural power is on the television at the moment. I am afraid that the Government’s education reforms are undermining that. Yesterday I was at a very good school: Burntwood school in south London, which won the Stirling prize for architecture. I was told that as a result of reforms, it is beginning to strip away art, music, drama and photography, so a different Department is progressively undermining the things that we celebrate as elements of Britain’s reach in the world. If a debate such as this happens in 20 or 30 years, will Members be celebrating British cultural achievements to the same extent and will they be able to celebrate British cultural reach in relation to young people’s opportunities in state as well as private education? If we are to feed the British Council and support its work in the future, we should not turn our eyes from our education system.

I am taking part in the debate to support the work of the British Council and the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (David Warburton), whom I congratulate on securing the debate. He has put his neck on the line, and his future career will depend on achieving real-terms increases to the British Council’s budget—we will watch with interest how he achieves that. As ever, I am sure that he will have the full backing of the Labour party.

10:01

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

I was not going to speak in the debate, but given that there is a little time available, I shall contribute briefly—I am grateful for the opportunity. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (David Warburton) on securing this important debate, which is timely, given the advent of the spending review at the end of the month.

I think that all those who have spoken in the debate accept that the British Council is a valuable institution. It does great and sterling work in encouraging co-operation and improving communication, and it makes a great contribution to Britain’s soft power capability. I mentioned earlier that Joseph Nye cited the British Council as the original forerunner of the concept of soft power when it was formed in 1934. The concept has moved on, obviously, and we now talk about smart power as well as soft power, but it is important to bring the discussion back to soft power. Although the term is somewhat abused, the concept is perhaps more relevant today, in this uncertain world, than it has been for a long time. Joseph Nye defined it as

“the ability to get what you want through attraction rather than coercion or payment”.

We are not alone in recognising the importance of soft power. Many other countries, including some—without wishing to name names—whose credibility is far less than ours in this context, if only because they are not democracies, are realising that soft power is an increasingly important part of an effective, full-spectrum response to the threats that they face. We would do well to learn from that in the UK. We have been through a decade, if not 12 years, when we have seen examples of hard power not providing the solutions that the Government hoped for, including our interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan post-2006, when we allowed the mission to morph into one of nation building, and Libya. Another is our positioning on Syria, where initially the objective was to support the rebels, although we have now realised that that is where the greater threat lies, so we have rightly turned on them—or elements of them, such as ISIL, al-Nusra and al-Qaeda.

We should realise by now that hard power solutions are not always what we hope they will be. That should remind us of the importance of soft power in this increasingly complex and uncertain world, yet we are cutting funding to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which is in turn cutting funding for its various activities, including its support of the British Council. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State may disagree with me about one or two aspects of our hard power interventions, but I think that he and I can agree—he may not be able to do so publicly—that we should not cut funding to the FCO in these times. If anything, we should increase its funding, at a time of increasing uncertainty, because we need our eyes and ears on the ground. We need our expertise in foreign policy issues generally to be properly funded as that can save additional costs and prevent mistakes further down the line.

I rail against further cuts to the British Council. We have heard about funding being cut from £201 million to, I think, £154 million. Okay, there has been a £10 million increase since, but that is still a substantial cut of something like £40 million to a budget of £200 million in the past five years. The British Council has been left in a difficult situation because it must either scale back its activities, which cannot be good for many people around the world, or the UK, when it comes to soft power capability, or become more commercial. A sum of £40 million may not sound a lot in today’s world where figures of billions are bandied around, but to generate that £40 million, assuming a profit margin of 10%, the British Council will really have to gear up its commercial activity.

Although there are early indications that the British Council is coping, there is a risk that as it tries to become more commercial and enterprising—I accept that there is always room for improvement in such areas—its activity will begin to feed back against it, in the sense that its commercial activities will begin to erode its credibility and integrity. A great part of its strength is its quasi-independent approach, but if it is becoming more commercial, the danger is that that will be eroded in many respects. Will the Minister address that fundamental point? This concern is shared by not only me and other hon. Members, but many people within the British Council, as well as outsiders and experts.

[Stephen Kinnock]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the effect on the reputation of the British Council and the United Kingdom is an important aspect of the discussion of financing? Is there a risk of a negative reputational effect if the British Council starts to be perceived as a money-making machine in the economies where it works, rather than an organisation concerned with building mutually beneficial partnerships?

[Mr Baron]

I tend to agree, but there is a balance. In defence of what happened previously, I would say that when the funding was £200 million, there were always commercial activities in the British Council, especially through the teaching of English overseas, for which its reputation is second to none. I agree, but I am trying to get across the point that as the British Council must increasingly gear up, in a commercial sense, to make good sizeable funding cuts—something like 20% in the past five years—there is a risk of losing sight of the balance. I ask the Minister of State to consider that and give us his response, because I, like the other Members in the Chamber, worry about the integrity and credibility of the British Council. That needs to be addressed, and it is a concern that has been expressed by those at the top table of the British Council itself.

I am conscious of time, but I will quickly move to another aspect of the funding that worries me. This might be partly the fault of the five-year political cycle, but we lose sight of the longer term when it comes to these sorts of funding issues. I suggest to the Minister that although these short-term cuts might meet a financial envelope set over a relatively small timeframe, there is a real danger that by making them now, we are creating false economies. The very nature of the British Council’s work means that we are talking about intangible benefits: the improvement of communication; fostering good relations with future world leaders when it comes to the UK; and increasing communication and education links. The benefit of all those intangibles cannot, in all honesty, be quantified, but we know they exist and can become more valuable in times of crisis. These short-term cuts could create false economies over the longer term.

Most generations that have preceded us believed that they lived in a safe and stable environment, certainly compared with their predecessors, but if history teaches us one thing, it is that this is an increasingly uncertain world, with variables that need to be catered for and anticipated as far as possible. The value of soft power in helping us to meet and address those uncertainties will increase as time passes, yet what is this country doing? It is cutting funding to its soft power capabilities, and not only the British Council. Although one accepts that funding for the BBC World Service has been transferred to the licence fee, there is still pressure on it, so that is another aspect of our soft power that is having to tighten its belt.

I argue that the FCO itself should be better funded and should not have to face the current cuts. We need a properly sighted foreign policy apparatus with the expertise to face increasing challenges, yet what are we doing? We are making further cuts to that as well. As long as I am a Member of this place, I will continue—unpopular though it may be for certain Front Benchers—to make the case for increased funding for the FCO, in the hope that one day someone will listen. To be better sighted and to have the in-house expertise to ensure that we do not make the sorts of mistake we have made over the past 10 or 12 years in our foreign policy interventions, for example, is a saving that is well worth making. Such an approach would lead to considerable savings further down the line that would far exceed the short-term savings we are achieving by having to cut the FCO budget.

10:13

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (David Warburton) for securing the debate. I was not intending to speak, but I want to make two brief points arising from my personal experiences with part of the British Council.

As other Members have done, I praise the staff of the British Council, who helped me in my former life, before coming to this House, to take a British business—Christie’s—out to China. They enabled us to negotiate with the Shanghai Government and to win the first licence for a British auction house to hold a stand-alone auction in China. That, perhaps, has led me to take a different view from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) about the tangible benefits of the British Council for British businesses operating in the wider education and cultural sector on a daily basis.

It is primarily not UK Trade & Investment or British business councils such as those in China or India but the British Council to which businesses such as Christie’s, or education providers and great universities such as those near my own constituency in Nottingham, turn to for expert advisers and ambassadors when trying to forge links, whether cultural or commercial ones. Those links have tangible benefits for the British economy—in many cases, important commercial benefits—and, of course, are the drivers of soft power in new economies such as China in particular, where Britain’s brand is as much dependent on Christie’s, “Sherlock” or “Downton Abbey” as it is on education opportunities. We have to appreciate the role of the British Council. I hope the Treasury will appreciate that it is providing not only intangible benefits in economies and countries around the world but very tangible ones as well. I hope the Minister will take that up in his negotiations.

The need for a new commercial focus at the British Council requires new skills for its employees, who are not simply providing education opportunities and intangible benefits but negotiating links between British universities and universities in the field, sometimes involving multimillion-pound—and, indeed, bigger—contracts. With the help of the British Council, my own local university in Nottingham has founded one of the UK’s only stand-alone universities in Ningbo in China. It is not a joint venture with a Chinese university, but an independent university—a model that others around the world have sought to follow, which the Chinese Government have in fact prevented because it has been so successful. That is a huge benefit, both financially and in terms of education opportunities, to a UK university. Those are important factors that I hope the Treasury will take into account.

Through my experience at Christie’s, I have seen that there are enormous opportunities internationally for the British cultural sector—the arts and museums—particularly in emerging markets such as China. More museums are being created in China today than anywhere in the history of the world. There are 400 museums looking for new collections; all the auction houses and art dealers around the world are keen to get involved in that, for obvious reasons. The British Council is, again, crucial to that. Primarily commercial organisations but also our own museums, which are strapped for cash with reducing budgets, are turning to the British Council for help. There are huge tangible benefits that make the British Council essential.

Having spoken to my noble Friend Lord Maude, who is now at the helm of UK Trade & Investment, I know he is very conscious that one crucial element of his work in the education and cultural sphere is, in fact, in the hands of the British Council. Funding for the British Council and upskilling its staff, which costs money, is therefore crucial. British Council staff are paid less in general than those who work in the Foreign Office or UK Trade & Investment; if we want the highest-skilled and, particularly, the most commercially-minded employees, we need to pay them.

My second point is perhaps a contrarian one, given other points made today. Despite the fact that our soft power is extremely strong in the world today, I do not think the UK Government give sufficient priority to cultural diplomacy. Some of the UK’s greatest cultural ambassadors, such as Neil MacGregor, the outgoing director of the British Museum, say that the Foreign Office could and should give more priority to cultural diplomacy, particularly in comparison with some of our neighbours, who have systems such as cultural attachés in our embassies and people acting as principal ambassadors, forging powerful links. We see that in the British Council. For example, Carma Elliot, the head of the British Council in China, is arguably—I mean no disrespect—better connected than our ambassador, having spent an entire working lifetime operating in China and forging links at every level, whether those are cultural, political or commercial.

Greater investment in the British Council and in particular giving it greater priority within the Foreign Office are important. I have recently been involved in a campaign to create a greater role for the UK in protecting sites at risk in Syria and Iraq—on which we have made great strides, as I hope will be reflected in the Chancellor’s statement in a few weeks’ time. At an important summit that we held a few weeks ago at Lancaster House, the British Government committed £3 million to a cultural protection fund to support the brave men and women operating in the field through the British Council.

The British Council was integral to the success of that work; it was really the only point of contact in the British Government that those of us campaigning on it could go and see. The Foreign Office, at times, struggled to give us a contact and there was nobody else—neither the Department for International Development nor the Department for Culture, Media and Sport—to be the glue at the heart of our cultural diplomacy. It was the British Council that could take that forward and work with us to reach a point where, ultimately, the British Government will be the world leader in an important element of cultural diplomacy in the world today.

10:20

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

The temptation is to rise to my feet and proclaim the work of the British Council to be a jolly good show—to some surprise in this room, perhaps. Amid the hurly-burly of politics, we sometimes forget to acknowledge the very good work done by many people and organisations, and it is well worth our while taking the time to note that and congratulate them. I therefore very much welcome the debate and congratulate the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (David Warburton) on securing it. I am very pleased to be able to contribute to it under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz.

The British Council represents the kind of international intervention that most of us can support. As we have heard, it exists to create a better understanding between the people of the UK and the wider world—and, it is probably safe to contend, among peoples generally. Much of the comment around the work of the council is concerned with the projection of the UK’s soft power and the contribution that that makes to security. I have to admit to some feelings of unease with that phrase but, as an Australian, I can see how it is infinitely preferable to the form of power that the UK used to project around the world. The talking, listening and engaging of the British Council is very impressive, too; as I understand it, it reaches more than half a billion people every year.

The British Council is clearly a success and its reach continues to extend. It is to be hoped that the ethos of the council remains intact and keeps driving in the right direction. Even as it has had to rely more and more heavily on raising funds, it needs to keep going. Given how successfully it has managed that balancing act so far, we can have a fair degree of confidence that any failure will certainly not be for want of trying.

As has been said throughout the debate, we live in an age when funding cannot always be certain. I join other voices here in asking the Minister to say whether the Government are keeping an eye on how the British Council is doing in that respect, and whether there is a contingency plan to step in with support should it become apparent, at any stage, that the council is facing difficulties.

We should support the British Council’s work around the world and ensure, as far as possible, that its positive engagement with other nations and peoples continues. We should not only consider it a gift to the world, but look on the development of that understanding and co-operation as a gift to our children and to future generations. If we can make peace and discussion the more normal state of affairs, we will have done them a great service.

I turn to the comments made by colleagues. First, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome spoke of the benefits of a mutual interchange of knowledge, saying it is the crux not only of opportunity but of the challenges thrown up by international situations. That was an important point. Importantly, he also paid tribute to the more than 9,000 staff sprinkled around the world, as he put it; their commitment and ability cannot be praised highly enough. He pointed out that given that the Goethe-Institut and Alliance Française are expanding, it is only appropriate that we further recognise the good work of the British Council and the importance that the council is supported properly by Government and does not become a purely commercial organisation, which is a theme that other speakers returned to. He spoke of its progressive focus on women and girls, which is a subject close to my heart, and of its forging relationships with the world’s young people. He also spoke of its ability to turn the nebulous concept of soft power into tangible results.

The hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) spoke of his work with the British Council, his firm consequent commitment to its benefits and the importance of exchange and long-term relationship building. He did not speak of the British Council, however, as banging the drum for Britain, which, as he said, could be viewed counterproductively. He said that it propagates a love of art, music and sport throughout the world—again, subjects close to my heart—and asked why we are thinking about cuts to it when its work is needed more than ever before.

The hon. Gentleman made the point that any reduction in grant funding reduces the flexibility of the council in delivering those very important parts of its work around the world. Continuing the theme from the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, he warned that a commercial edge threatens the integrity of the British Council’s reputation. He pointed out that the grant is only 16% of the British Council’s income; I certainly agree about the importance of the perception of Government support to an organisation of this sort’s reputation. Grant-funded activity is far more likely to have a wide reach.

The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) spoke of his view that a re-imagining of the UK has taken place over the last 15 years. In particular, he mentioned the development of the important relationship with India and the British Council’s role in shaping the debate over its relationship.

[Tristram Hunt]

The hon. Lady is making a beautiful speech. I want to commend her on this celebration of a British identity. Will she expand on that? Do she and her party regard the British Council, which celebrates the notion of the UK and its culture and identity around the world, as inimical to what her and her party wish to achieve?

[Deidre Brock]

The Scottish Government do a lot of work with the British Council; in fact, I have done some work myself in my role as convenor for culture and leisure in Edinburgh council. The tenets that the British Council supports are security, prosperity and influence, and of course we also support those. I also think that such a soft power approach to dealing with other countries that are in difficulty is absolutely the right way to go. Our own Minister for external affairs is very active in that role himself. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Scottish Government support that approach from wherever it comes.

The hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) spoke about the ability, as he quoted,

“to get what you want through attraction rather than coercion or payment”,

which I thought was an interesting point. He said that other countries around the world are learning from the British Council’s approach that soft power, such as it is, offers a better opportunity for the sort of change that they are looking to effect in their relationships with other countries. He warned, therefore, of cutting funding, first, to the FCO, as its work saves additional costs further down the line, and similarly to the British Council. He pointed out that a great part of the council’s strength is a quasi-independent approach and that a commercial approach could, as has been mentioned, erode that. He mentioned a 20% cut over five years and the short-sightedness of creating false economies over the longer term, despite the difficulty of quantifying intangible benefits.

I particularly enjoyed the points made by the hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick)—as I said, I have a background in culture and sport—who praised the British Council staff for their work, particularly in assisting his business in liaising, for example, with the Chinese authorities in the past. He spoke of the very tangible benefits that the council brings to business, cultural, educational and social organisations in forming important links across the world. I also very much liked his point about cultural diplomacy and how important it is to raise that as a priority.

Finally, the message rings out very clearly from the speakers here today that we mess with the successful formula of the British Council at our peril. I look forward very much to the Minister’s contribution.

22:28

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I congratulate the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (David Warburton) on securing this debate on the excellent work of the British Council and the continuing importance of its global exchange of knowledge. We know that the strength of the council lies in its reach and the diversity of the programme that it offers, with over 20 million direct engagements with people from more than 100 different countries.

My first experience of the British Council was in 1996, when I met some teachers teaching in Nanjing; I was also teaching English at the time. It was great fun to go out with them after a day of teaching 30 undergraduates the same lesson 10 times in a row; it was also fabulous to see the soft power going out from the UK and the relationships develop. The benefits go both ways: our young people gain, particularly when they are involved in the work of the British Council abroad, and it makes them better citizens as well.

I had the privilege of joining parliamentary colleagues as part of a delegation of new Members, hosted by the British Council, on a visit to Pakistan in the summer. It was an excellent trip. We had an opportunity to talk not only about the importance of Arsenal football club when it came to running around with girls on the pitch, but about serious issues—particularly the terrible loss of life because of the war on terror, as it is known, and its impact. We were at an incredibly touching musical performance by some children whose teachers had been in Peshawar when the terrible assault occurred. The terrorist who performed that dreadful murder was recorded as saying that he had finished killing all the teachers and students and asking whom he should kill next. That was a turning point in that dreadful conflict because the Government realised they had to redouble their efforts to tackle terrorism.

Throughout that period and following the dreadful loss of life, the British Council was with Pakistanis. Up to 50,000 civilians have died and there has been a post-traumatic impact on young people from not just that dreadful assault, but so many more that we do not hear about in our press because they happen all too regularly. When such experiences occur, the British Council is present daily to deal with the effects of conflict. As we approach Armistice Day tomorrow, we must think about how to contribute to create a world that is peaceful and where prosperity and stability are given a chance. I cannot praise more highly the British Council’s work in moving us towards that.

It is marvellous to see the level of consensus in the Chamber on the importance of the British Council’s work and the creative power of education, language learning and the creative sphere. The hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) referred to Christie’s, whose work in the cultural sphere is important. We do not talk about such things enough here, but the creative industries contribute much more to the economy than we think. We should praise them and think about how to help to build them up, not just here but abroad.

I want to talk briefly about the excellent work with women. The British Council has a vein running through it: a commitment to women’s equality. As this week the world marks Equal Pay Day, which raises the continuing persistence of gender inequality in the workplace, we should reflect on the British Council’s work to support women through key skills training. That is an essential first step in addressing the problem and helping other social groups to be fully included within the economy.

The Springboard programme’s work is a great example. It is a leading UK-based women’s development programme designed by women for women. The British Council is drawing on its close relationship with the Arab world where it has been working for more than 30 years, having adapted the programme to the Arab culture and translated it into Arabic to help women release their potential and achieve success in both their personal and professional lives. The British Council built capacity in Arabic-speaking countries and certified more than 100 professional women as licensed trainers qualified to run its Springboard programme within its organisations. Those of us with an interest in development know that if we educate women, we educate the next generation, which is why the work is so crucial.

I want to draw attention to yesterday’s screaming headline in The Guardian—it is unlike The Guardian to have a screaming headline—

“UK losing clout overseas, warn top diplomats”.

In the same fortnight, we saw question marks about the School of Oriental and African Studies, of which I am an alumna; there were suggestions that some of the courses in those precious languages are so expensive to teach that it is not certain whether they can continue to be taught. Once such things have gone, they have gone, so we must work together to maintain that fragile network. The commitment to language learning and teaching, the creative industries, media, sport and culture is a great way of communicating with one another.

On realpolitik and as we move towards the Chancellor’s autumn statement, will the Minister bear in mind the context of any proposed cut: the deteriorating situation in Israel, Gaza and the west bank; the eruption in the middle east and Europe of the largest global refugee crisis since the second world war; an uncertain and unstable future for many north African states emerging from the “Arab spring”; and a worrying trend of radicalisation that is drawing in UK nationals and citizens from across the world? We must ensure that we continue to provide the necessary funding to the British Council as a clear investment in the UK’s foreign and security policy. It also has a responsibility to ensure that it continues to deliver and expand programmes that deal with those social groups and communities most at risk from modern security threats.

The Hammamet conference, launched in 2011, is one such programme that is leading the way in building relationships through engaging political leaders and civil society organisations in a practical and mutually beneficial series of workshops and plenary sessions.

I look forward to the Minister’s assurances that we need not have a debate such as this. We know that the Foreign Office and the Chancellor will do the right thing and invest in this important area of work abroad.

10:36

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Hugo Swire)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (David Warburton) on securing this debate, and I am grateful for the contributions of all those present. The quality of debate today has been considerably higher than it sometimes is in this Chamber. That reflects the fact that people have come to this debate with knowledge and a genuine interest in the subject—we cannot say that about all debates—but there is an inherent danger in debates when there is virtual consensus on both sides of the House.

This debate underlines the fact that the British Council and its value remains as true today as it was in 1940-41, the year it received its royal charter and when its annual report stated that the council’s aim was

“to create overseas a basis of friendly knowledge and understanding of the people of this country”

and our foreign policy, something that is as valuable in times of peace as in times of war. When that was written, the battle of Britain was raging over our skies and the blitz of our nation’s cities was beginning. Even at that most critical moment, we knew the value of cultural relations and the role the British Council could play in our long-term security and prosperity.

Today, as ISIL’s destructive and intolerant influence spreads across Syria and as Russia continues to undermine the principles of international law and the sovereignty of its neighbours, the British Council, its values and the values it exports are needed perhaps more than ever. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Sir Vernon Ellis, who steps down as chairman next year, for his valuable work. I welcome the efforts of Sir Ciarán Devane, the new chief executive, whom I have met on a number of occasions, and his desire to align more closely the council’s purpose with our objectives: to make Britain safer; to build prosperity; and to expand the UK’s influence overseas.

It is sometimes difficult to communicate the nature of the British Council’s work because its impact on foreign policy in fulfilling its purpose, sometimes goes unsung, so it is worth reminding the House of some of its key programmes. In promoting the English language internationally, the British Council administered 3 million English language exams in the academic year 2013-14. During the same period, it taught 388,000 people in nearly 50 countries and reached an additional 132 million viewers, listeners and readers through print and digital products. Why is that important? It is because the world has a huge appetite to learn English. Almost 1.75 billion people already speak some English, and the United Kingdom publishes more books per capita than any other country. It is arguably our greatest asset—soft power or otherwise.

The hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) mentioned the number of people, including world leaders, who had studied in the United Kingdom. I am sure that if he had had time, he would also have mentioned the main Government scholarship programmes: the Marshall scholarship programme, one of the most prestigious programmes around, which currently has 31 scholars; the Commonwealth scholarship programme—two hon. Members who have spoken this morning have a strong Commonwealth heritage—which now has more than 900 students studying here in any one year; and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s flagship programme, the Chevening scholarship programme, which we have tripled to more than 1,800 students studying here this year.

All the work that I have described has a direct impact on some of our key foreign policy priorities. The British Council has maintained its public teaching operation in Kiev through the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. The council is now scaling up its work with an additional investment of more than £1 million in each of the next two financial years, which will deliver an English for universities programme, helping to transform the ability of 12 leading Ukrainian universities to teach in English and operate internationally. The council’s work is building important links with the people of Ukraine and mutual trust in a country at the very top of our agenda and at a time when they will value our support most.

My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome, whom I congratulate on being one of the architects of the debate, mentioned Young Arab Voices. That programme works, as he knows, in six countries in north Africa and the middle east—Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt and Jordan—reaching more than 100,000 people in 2013 and a further 75 million through broadcast media such as BBC World Service Arabic. Through training and development of skills such as listening and debate, the programme helps young people to learn from others—to connect to their local communities through discussions on the issues that matter most to them, from unemployment and education to the media and women’s rights. I hope that hon. Members in this Chamber agree with me on the fundamental importance of building a stable future in north Africa and the middle east. By creating a space in which meaningful debate can take place without conflict, this work will, I hope, make a valuable contribution.

Looking ahead, next year, to the 400th anniversary of Shakespeare’s death, Shakespeare Lives—[Laughter]—will be a major programme of events and activities, aiming to reach more than half a billion people worldwide. The anniversary is arguably the most significant soft power opportunity for the UK in recent times. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) guffawed when I said “Shakespeare Lives”. Perhaps he is one of those people who thinks either that Shakespeare never wrote anything or that Shakespeare never lived at all, but I hope that he will take part in the activities, which he is well qualified to do.

[Tristram Hunt]

My colleagues and I were just reflecting on having a celebration called “Shakespeare Lives” on the anniversary of Shakespeare’s death.

[Mr Swire]

Well, I had to check the title because at one point I thought it was “Shakespeare Lives”—life plural—which could have meant something completely different, but I have no doubt that we all look forward to that great celebration. It is arguably the most significant soft power opportunity for the UK since the Olympics. My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome and others talked about the British Council and cultural diplomacy. I will return to that in a minute. The British Council is working with the GREAT campaign, British theatres, museums, artists and many others to put on an unprecedented programme of global activity that will include brand-new productions of Shakespeare’s plays, film adaptations, art exhibitions, public readings and educational resources for schools and English language learners of all ages.

The British Council must undertake all this activity in a rapidly changing world. This Government are determined to play a leading role in global affairs and we will continue to influence the international agenda. Our status as an international leader in soft power—something close to my hon. Friend’s heart—is incredibly important. Therefore, the British Council will play a fundamental role in ensuring the UK’s place at the top table.

Incidentally, I think that it was my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) who talked about the importance of science diplomacy.

[Mr Baron]

indicated dissent.

[Mr Swire]

If my hon. Friend did not, I apologise; I thought that he had mentioned science. I would just like to point to the work in the Foreign Office of Professor Robin Grimes and his team on scientific diplomacy. We have a new fund called the Newton fund, which is providing £75 million a year for five years; that is £375 million in total. We have 15 partner countries, including Brazil, China, India, Indonesia and South Africa, and so far £190 million of business wins and £250 million of leveraged funding have been delivered. Further work is being done to combat global issues such as dementia and antimicrobial resistance. Scientific diplomacy—forging links with others around the world—is another key part of soft power.

As hon. Members may know, the British Council went through a triennial review, published last year, which found the following:

“With its longstanding worldwide presence the British Council makes a significant contribution to the UK international profile…Its role is more relevant than ever: the potential return to the UK globally is enormous in terms of ‘soft power’, reputation and prosperity.”

The review also found that activity was not always well aligned with other bodies representing British interests overseas, and concluded that transparency, accountability and clarity of purpose should be improved.

I am pleased to say that the British Council has responded well to the review’s conclusions, taking action to ensure that those issues are addressed. The council is currently moving to a new operating model, so that its finances and commercial operations will be more transparent and accountable to the Government, Parliament and the British taxpayer. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is already chairing a new committee that aligns the Government’s priorities with the British Council’s activities overseas and, as I mentioned, the British Council has rearticulated its purpose in a way that aligns itself more directly with our international objectives to make Britain safer, to build prosperity and to increase British influence overseas.

Later this month, the Government will publish the initial results of their spending review and strategic defence and security review, which to a large extent will determine how we will meet the challenges of the future and adapt to this changing world. The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell), who is now not in his place, and others commented on this. I confirm that we are working with the Treasury to help ensure that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the British Council continue to be funded in a manner that reflects our global ambition.

I will not be tempted to travel into the trap carefully laid by my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay when he spoke so convincingly about the importance of having a Foreign and Commonwealth Office that punches above its weight. He will not hear me dissent from that as an aspiration, although I will not go into the funding implications of it. I will say that, during the past five to six years, within an extraordinarily tight spending envelope, the Foreign Office has been able to increase our international footprint around the world. I myself have opened up a number of new posts, not least an embassy in Asunción in Paraguay, an embassy in El Salvador, most recently a consulate in Belo Horizonte in Brazil, offices in China and so on. I think the Foreign Office is spread wide and punching well above its weight already, but he and others will look with close interest at our fate after the Chancellor’s autumn statement, and rightly so.

[Mr Baron]

I assure my right hon. Friend that no trap was intended, but I will leave him to muse on that. I suggest to him that footprint is one thing, but expertise and knowledge can be quite another. Where the FCO has been caught wanting—for example, during Russia’s annexation of Crimea it had no in-house expertise covering that area so it had to pull in other experts, and it had to pull in middle east experts during the Arab spring—it has been about expertise.

I want to bring my right hon. Friend back to the British Council. When it comes to funding, does he accept that many more cost savings could be made further down the line by avoiding conflict, by being better sighted and by influencing through soft power than will be achieved by the cuts that are being made to the budget? Does he agree, therefore, that we should adopt a much longer-term view of funding for our soft power capabilities, including the FCO and the British Council? Many would argue that the short-term savings are simply false economies, given the greater cost savings that could follow further down the line.

[Mr Swire]

I entirely concur with my hon. Friend’s views about the importance of soft power, or preventive power, and I argue that the United Kingdom is doing well in that respect. I do not share his nervousness about the increased commercial activities of the British Council. In fact, I would argue that the threat from the commercial activities of the British Council has been real. Our concern is that in some ways, particularly in the provision of English language teaching and exams, it can freeze out the private sector. That is why I am pleased that the British Council has introduced a new independent complaints process run by Verita, which will help it better to hear and understand stakeholder concerns, including the concerns of the English language teaching and education sector, and take steps to address them.

Furthering British interests overall, the British Council has agreed with UK Trade & Investment a new business opportunity development process to help British companies to enter difficult markets. I was particularly pleased to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) about his experiences with Christie’s, for whom he worked previously, and the assistance provided by the British Council in Shanghai. That seems to me precisely the sort of work that the British Council should do.

I listened carefully to my hon. Friend’s comments about British cultural diplomacy. I had the honour of working alongside Neil MacGregor for many years in a previous incarnation, and I saw him again the other night at the “Days of the Dead” event at the British Museum. I am delighted that, when he stands down from his role at the British Museum, he will take up an advisory role in Berlin and in India. That is eminently sensible, because although he would hate to be called one of our great icons, he is in danger of becoming one of the most valuable of the British objects that influence the world. He would hate me to say that, so I hope that he does not read the debate.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his work to promote the salvaging of overseas cultural centres and places. This is not new. I refer him to the 2005 Conservative cultural manifesto, of which I was the author, in which we planned to create a fund, if we won the election, to do exactly the sort of thing that he has been doing. When one looks around the world and sees what has being going on in places such as Palmyra, it is clear that the need for such work has never been greater. There is a greater role for British cultural diplomacy.

Britain remains a leader on the world stage, with the networks that are necessary to promote our interests—despite all the pressures on those networks—to protect our people and values, to tackle complex and ever-changing threats, and, to use the words of the British Council’s 1940 report, to maintain our ability to

“create overseas a basis of friendly knowledge and understanding of the people of this country”.

There can, surely, be no safer or more prosperous world for the British people than one that sees Britain as a friend and understands our values. On that subject, I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central, who suggested that he would be taking part in the Wembley event for Prime Minister Modi, along with some 60,000 or 70,000 others—including, probably, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara), who is the Minister for the next debate. We look forward to that visit.

It was interesting to hear what the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central said about a new generation of young Indians who come to the table without so much knowledge, or perhaps even baggage, about our colonial history, but who are interested in what modern Britain has to offer, our values and our culture—particularly our music, our fashion and our literature. That is hugely exciting, and it is why we have increased our diplomatic presence in India. The work of the British Council somewhere like that is a key priority, because I do not think we should just assume that a modern generation of Indians feels anything like the same link to this country as did their fathers and their grandfathers. It is abundantly clear that we have to work at it.

To conclude, I cannot put it better than the report of last year’s exacting triennial review process, which stated that the British Council was a

“valuable national asset and should be retained as the main official UK body for cultural diplomacy”.

The debate has benefited from the knowledge brought by the likes of the hon. Member for Aberavon, who worked for the British Council. It is something of a family business for him, and, as a Conservative, I am keen on family businesses. He may be as well, depending on which wing of the contemporary Labour party he sits. Other hon. Members who have touched on the work of the British Council see its long-term importance in the promotion of British soft power.

The Government are hugely proud of what the British Council does, and we want to continue to work with it under Sir Ciarán and whoever succeeds the chairman. I believe that Sir Ciarán is an ideal new chief executive to take the council forward. It is important to work with the council as it creates lasting friendships overseas and builds an appreciation of the United Kingdom—what it is, what it stands for and what it can offer—and as it helps to challenge some of the warped and hideous ideologies that are creeping up in this extraordinarily dangerous world. Ultimately, we must help the council to promote the values that we all hold dear.

10:57

[David Warburton]

There is not much time left, but I want to thank you, Ms Vaz, for your chairmanship of the debate. I thank all hon. Members for their fascinating contributions and the Minister for his encouraging response. I will not go through the contributions in detail, because the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) has given us a great summation of people’s views, but I will say that I enjoyed listening to the hon. Member for Aberavon talk about his experiences, which, like those of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt), were very interesting. I support the concern raised by the hon. Member for Aberavon about funding, which was echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay. Funding is the key point here, and I am sure that the Minister will go back to the Department and pass on the things that have been said.

It is clear that the British Council’s founding aim of encouraging friendly knowledge and understanding between the people of the UK and the wider world continues to grow. I hope that the debate has emphasised that that work has a powerful effect on the UK and its international standing, influence and global reach. It increases our prosperity and the prosperity of others, and it makes them and us safer. Those are noble aims indeed. Long may they continue and long may they be supported.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the British Council.

Court Closure (Buxton)

Tuesday 10th November 2015 Westminster Hall

10:59

[Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of court closure in Buxton.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I think this is the first time that I have spoken while you have been in the Chair.

I have called this debate on the closure of the court in Buxton, which is in my constituency of High Peak. The proposal is part of a recently concluded consultation on the future of many courthouses across the country. Let me be clear from the outset that I understand the need to look at the situation of courts and to investigate the possibility of rationalising the service. However, there are serious flaws in the rationale that has been applied to Buxton, as is the case for other parts of the country, which was highlighted recently in this Chamber by my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths) in relation to courts in his constituency. My concern today, however, is about my constituency and its court.

First, I will provide some context to the debate. High Peak is a large area covering more than 200 square miles, and the two main towns, Buxton and Glossop, are 15 miles apart. There are many smaller towns and villages in between and around those two towns. The constituency sits in the east midlands, yet much of it faces the north-west, particularly Greater Manchester, for many of its services. Leisure, employment and news are all predominantly accessed from the north-west. Part of the constituency, Hope Valley, faces Sheffield for all of its services. There is very little traction with the east midlands. Similarly, public transport links feed into Greater Manchester and Sheffield, and I will come to that issue later.

Despite High Peak’s proximity to those two great cities of the northern powerhouse, Manchester and Sheffield, we should be in no doubt that it is very much a rural constituency. It therefore faces lots of problems that are common to many such areas across the country, particularly access to and ease of travel. Not that long ago, High Peak was served by two courts—one in Buxton and one in Glossop. The Glossop court was then closed, so there is now only one court serving the whole of this large constituency.

The Minister is aware of my views on the consultation—I have aired them before in this room and the main Chamber—but I wish briefly to reiterate one or two points. I have been involved in public service for more than 15 years, first as a councillor and then as a Member of this House. During that time, I have read many consultations on a variety of subjects. They have varied in their quality and scope, but I can honestly say that I do not think I have seen one so riddled with errors and mistakes as the one relating to this court. I shall run through some of the glaring errors.

The consultation’s biggest error was that it said that there was no public lift in the courthouse, but it is patently obvious that there is. I am absolutely baffled about how such a fundamental mistake could be made. I assume that the author of the consultation did not visit the court because a lift is not an easy thing to miss —it is pretty obvious. I concede that an acknowledgement was sent out about that error, but only after several people protested in response to the consultation. The circulation of the acknowledgement—I was going to say “apology”, but I do not think that that is the right word—of the mistake is still open to question, however, as some people did not receive clarification about the lift.

The consultation claimed that the building was not compliant with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, ironically citing the lack of a lift—we have dealt with that issue—but the building is fully compliant with disability legislation under the Equality Act 2010. It also claimed that the consulting rooms were poor. Those were rebuilt five years ago and have had panic strips installed. There are three consulting rooms, of which two have been redecorated recently, and those three rooms are for two courts. I have visited those rooms and they seem perfectly fine to me, so I struggle to understand what allows them to be termed “poor”. Interestingly, if I look at some of the offices in the Palace of Westminster, including mine and perhaps that of my researcher, William Crook, those consulting rooms stand up very well in comparison.

The consultation claims that segregation is not possible. However, in 2010, the waiting areas were reconfigured to create a separate entrance and waiting room, thereby segregating witnesses and defendants. The consultation writers choose, creatively, to state that vulnerable witnesses have to use a waiting room across the road. The ability for vulnerable witnesses to give evidence via a video link without even having to enter the courtroom is an invaluable asset to Buxton court, not a liability. When vulnerable witnesses attend court, probably for the first time, and have to give evidence, the experience can be traumatic. It is a great reassurance for those witnesses to know that they do not have to go into the same court as the defendant by whom they feel threatened. It seems somewhat bizarre for the consultation to make such comments about a lack of segregation and then to cite segregation, where that exists, as evidence against the court.

The consultation claims that the court is utilised to 27% of its capacity, but I cannot reconcile that figure with what I see. I have never seen it justified anywhere. I am told that the justices’ clerk for Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire has publicly admitted that the figure is wrong. Despite requests from the magistrates—I know they have put requests in—for a justification for and breakdown of that figure, such information is yet to be seen. It appears that the figure of 27% was almost plucked out of the ether. I have spoken to lots of people about this. I am told that the delivery director for the Courts Service has said that, in the case of Buxton, the utilisation and travel figures, which are two key facts in the consultation, act “as a guide only”.

Even if we assume that the figure of 27% can be justified—at this stage it has not been, and I wait for it to be—it is worth noting that a shortage of legal advisers available to the court in Buxton is often the reason for its restricted use. There are no legal advisers on Monday at all in Buxton court—none can be found—so we immediately lose 20% of the working week. However, the Minister should not take that as an indication of a lack of demand, because there is a demand for Buxton court.

There is currently a lead-in time of about 14 weeks before a court listing comes to trial. Effectively, there is therefore a 14-week waiting list for a case to come to trial in Buxton. Again, that situation is created by a shortage of legal advisers to support the magistrates. For any consultation to cite lack of use for any service when there is a 14-week waiting list is completely nonsensical. Those are just a few issues in the consultation, although I could go on about it for longer.

I recently had a meeting at the court with representatives of the Courts Service and two local magistrates, Michael Hilton and Pam Ashton. Officials were still unwilling to hold their hands up and admit that there were mistakes in the consultation document, or even to make a concession that the contents were in any way wrong, other than regarding the mistake about the lift. I would not even call the comments about the lift a full and frank apology—they were almost a begrudging admission. The officials refused to acknowledge all the rest of the facts. They even stood in the consulting rooms, which seemed fine to me, but they just did not seem to like them.

I do not want to dwell on the consultation document, as I have had my say on that here and in the main Chamber some weeks ago, so I shall move on to the actual issue. The court in Buxton provides a valuable service to the whole of High Peak, not just Buxton. The subject of this debate is “court closure in Buxton”, but this is not a Buxton issue; it is a High Peak issue. The suggestion that the court should close is wrong and the case for that has not been made. Furthermore, should the case be made—that is a very big “should”—the proposal that the usage should be moved to Chesterfield borders on ludicrous.

As I have outlined, the court serves the large area of High Peak. There are reasonable public transport links between some of the towns and villages, but such transport is by no means universal. The loss of the Glossop court some years ago made life very difficult for my constituents in Glossop and the north of the constituency, but they manage. Anecdotally, I think that about two thirds of the work that goes through the court in Buxton is from the Glossop area, so closing the court in Buxton will add further burdens to the people of Glossop, as well as having an impact on those nearer to Buxton.

The idea that the work should be moved to Chesterfield will be ridiculous to anyone who has studied carefully the geography of High Peak, which would have been apparent to the author of this lamentable piece of work if they had paid proper care and attention. Chesterfield might look nice and convenient on a map or in a road atlas, but I assure the Minister that it certainly is not. For most people in High Peak, public transport routes to Chesterfield are limited to say the least. I know the area intimately—I was born in the area and have always lived there—so I know every road in and out of both Chesterfield and High Peak, but I decided that I should not rely on my anecdotal knowledge from a mere 53 years of residency. Yesterday, therefore, I went on the Traveline website and found out that to be in Chesterfield for a 9 am appointment using public transport, someone travelling from Glossop would have to get a bus at 6.30 am, with two train journeys on top of that. I am using Glossop as an example because it is the biggest and most populous town in High Peak, and because, anecdotally, about two thirds of the court’s work comes from that area. However, there are many other towns and villages in High Peak, including New Mills, Whaley Bridge, Chapel-en-le-Frith and, indeed, Buxton itself, and getting to Chesterfield from any of those places borders on the impractical.

I stress again to the Minister and his officials that just because the court is in Buxton, they should not think of it as serving only Buxton; it serves the whole of High Peak—all 208 square miles of it. I believe that the court should stay in Buxton, but whatever court is used has to be accessible from all corners of the constituency, not just a small area. It is a fact that more than 70% of the population of High Peak—I think the figure is 73%, so this is almost three quarters of the population—will be more than two hours away from the suggested replacement in Chesterfield by public transport.

I have read many submissions and spoken to a lot of people about this. Buxton Civic Association made many good points in its submission, but the key line in it states that the proposal is not exactly

“access to justice for all”.

That is absolutely right.

[David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)]

As always, my hon. Friend makes a powerful point about the implications for rural communities. There are not only concerns in Derbyshire about having to travel from Glossop or Buxton to Chesterfield, because we have similar concerns in east Cheshire about having to travel from Macclesfield over to Crewe. Does he agree that it is vital for the Minister to consider the implications of added travel costs? When such things are considered, the cost savings, if any, of the proposed closure of the courts in Buxton and Macclesfield will be much lower.

[Andrew Bingham]

My hon. Friend and neighbour makes a good point. I will address the costs in a while, but he is right that moving the courts to different areas will increase expenditure.

I have talked about travelling to Chesterfield from High Peak using public transport, but that is not the easiest of journeys for car owners. The clue is in my constituency’s name. High Peak is high, which means that we probably have some of the worst winters in England, although I would not challenge our friends from north of the border because they have it worse than we do. The road from High Peak to Chesterfield, the A623, is probably one of the country’s highest roads. I have travelled it many, many times, and in the winter it is often closed or passable only with care—it does get the weather. The road will add another barrier to getting to court not only for defendants, but for magistrates and witnesses.

Due to the problems of getting to Chesterfield, there may be the further problem of an increased number of defendants failing to present themselves at the appointed time, which will lead to the issuing of arrest warrants and increased costs. We must also consider the effect on officials who are required to attend court, be they police officers, officers from the council, who often have to attend court for various matters, or any other official. At present, they can attend the court in Buxton as part of their working day, as Buxton town hall is opposite the courthouse and the police station is within walking distance. Officials can attend a court hearing and be back behind their desk or, in the case of police officers, back on the beat, very quickly. We all want to see policemen out on the beat, but there will be implications for that if they have to drive to and from court all day. A journey to Chesterfield for an official from High Peak would effectively remove them from their post for at least half a day and frankly, in many cases, for a full day. As my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley) said, the increased expenses incurred will erode the financial benefits of the proposal, if there are any.

On the subject of costs, let us talk about savings. The consultation claims that the annual operating costs of the courthouse in Buxton are £89,000, which I assume is the savings figure. I ask the Minister to consider such figures carefully because, of that £89,000, £43,000 are the magistrates’ expenses. I am sure that everyone in the Chamber will join me in thanking all those who serve as magistrates. They do it for no remuneration and for little thanks, and we should all be grateful for their valuable work. Magistrates are rightly entitled to claim for their expenses, and they will retain that right wherever they sit. Moving the court to Chesterfield will serve only to increase the expenses of those sitting on the High Peak bench, which chips away at the savings.

If the running costs of the courthouse in Buxton are £89,000, of which £43,000 are magistrates’ expenses, we are looking at a £46,000 saving. If magistrates’ expenses were to increase by 20%, which is reasonable given the increased distance to Chesterfield in terms of both time and mileage, that would reduce the saving by a further £8,000, so we would be down to £38,000. That does not even begin to account for the extra costs incurred by witnesses. In short, I do not see how there will be any significant financial benefit, if any, from closing the courthouse in Buxton.

Another concern we should consider is that the extra travel will prove prohibitive, meaning that we will start to lose our local magistrates, whose local knowledge and background helps them to discharge their important duty. At a time when we all seek to get people involved in public service, we are putting a barrier in the way of people from High Peak who might think, “I would like to do something for the community by being a magistrate.” Faced with having to travel to Chesterfield several times each week or month, they might think, “Actually, I’m not sure I want to do that.” However, they might wish to take up such a role if the courthouse was in Buxton.

If the consultation had suggested moving the court to Stockport, I could have seen the logic, as transport links to the north-west and Greater Manchester are better from almost all parts of High Peak. It is easier to get to and from Greater Manchester for all those who are likely to use the court. I am sorry to say that the real work has not been done. A thorough and proper investigation as part of the consultation would have shown that to be the case, and the reality of the situation would have become apparent. I think that the regional and county boundaries have been allowed to get in the way of common sense. The proposal has been made after looking at the boundaries on a map; no one has considered the unique situation and geography of High Peak. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield will probably concur that it is a lot easier to get to Stockport from not only my constituency, but his.

I have known the Minister for many years, and he is an honourable and reasonable man.

[David Rutley]

Hear, hear.

[Andrew Bingham]

That was only one “Hear, hear,” but I would say “Hear, hear” myself if I could.

The Minister has been very fair and open with me about the proposals. I thank him for the time that he has taken to speak to me, but I am afraid that he has been badly let down by his officials. He has been presented with a consultation document that is so flawed, erroneous and inaccurate that it is driving him towards a decision that appears to be straightforward, but is anything but. I hesitate to use the phrase “stich up”, because those are the words of tabloid newspapers, but this consultation appears to have been written to fit an outcome and the Minister is being driven down that road.

I could have gone into the consultation in greater detail, and I could have detailed all the combinations of journeys to Chesterfield from all the towns and villages in my constituency. I could have taken apart the financial aspects of the proposal even further, but I have already demonstrated that the savings are increasingly coming down and will dwindle to zero. Given the errors everywhere else in the consultation, if the Minister’s officials had bothered to get a breakdown of the usage figures, I am sure that they would be similarly incorrect and that I could very easily dispute them, too.

I want to give the Minister ample time to respond. I will meet him later this month, but I hope that he will take on board some of the points that I have raised today. I conclude by saying that I would like the court at Buxton to be retained. There is a case for it, and very good reasons support that view. I repeat that those are not just my assertions, or those of High Peak magistrates; they are those of the local council, which has considered the proposal and come out against it, of local people and of court users. I speak on their behalf, and I trust that the Minister will take my comments on board. They are factual and accurate, and they are the voice of the people of High Peak.

11:20

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I believe it is the first time that I have done so. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Andrew Bingham) on securing this debate. As he said, we have known each other for many years, and I have always known him to be a diligent and conscientious Member of Parliament. His response to the consultation does him enormous credit, and his constituents should be proud of him. He spoke in the main Chamber when we had a debate there, and he and I have spoken about this issue on several occasions, as well as corresponding. He secured this debate, and there is a meeting to follow. His constituents cannot fault him for his sterling work in representing them.

My hon. Friend referred to a number of inaccuracies, and was unhappy with the apology given. I unreservedly and sincerely apologise for the inaccuracies in the consultation, and I add that whenever such inaccuracies have been brought to our attention, we have sought to clarify them as quickly as possible. I have before me a letter, which is dated 30 July and was sent to a number of people, from Lucy Garrod, the midlands delivery director. She refers to the absence of a lift and the travel times used as a guide, and specifies how the utilisation figures were calculated, simply saying that there were 248 sitting days every year and the calculations were made on the basis of five-hour days.

My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley), who generously said, “Hear, hear” during the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak, made a very good contribution, referring to travel times and costs. We envisage a modern 21st-century court structure in which people do not travel as much as they do now. I will come to that a little later.

Notwithstanding the inaccuracies, which we have sought to clarify as quickly as possible, I believe that there is merit in including these two courts for consideration in the consultation. The world outside the courts is changing rapidly. When we speak of access to the courts, we must acknowledge how the 21st century is progressing. People expect to be able to transact their business online, quickly and efficiently, at a time that suits them, and modern technology allows them to do so. Cheques and paper forms have been replaced by contactless payment cards and smart apps, while shopping for almost anything can be done from the comfort of one’s home. It is such technology that gives us an opportunity to invest in our courts and modernise them to meet the present and future requirements of court users and improve the delivery of justice.

Such improvement cannot be secured without difficult decisions. We must recognise that one third of our courts are used at less than half their capacity. As we have been told, the utilisation of Buxton magistrates and county court in the last financial year was approximately 27%, and operating costs were approximately £88,000, excluding staff and judicial costs. When such utilisation figures incur such costs, we must ask in the interests of the taxpayer whether we are using that money effectively.

We must also appreciate that the way in which the public access our courts is changing rapidly. Access to justice need not happen only by attendance at a conventional court building. For example, we are exploring whether there are opportunities to hold hearings in local buildings, which would help just as effectively to maintain a local presence for justice. There is already proven technology in my hon. Friend’s constituency: a video conference facility is available at Buxton citizens advice bureau, and the police already give evidence via live links to courts in the west midlands. The citizens advice bureau with the video conferencing facility is just across the road from the court, but it could just as well be five, 10 or indeed 25 miles away. Through that facility, the courts can be accessed.

Our reform programme must also be considered in the wider context of our plans to transform how courts and tribunals operate and deliver services to the public. As my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary has said, the reform of the Courts and Tribunals Service offers a once-in-a-generation opportunity to create a modern, user-focused and efficient service.

Many people encounter our justice system when they are at their most vulnerable, when they are a victim or a witness in a criminal case, or as an individual, business or family trying to resolve a dispute. We must ensure that we make better use of technology to provide easier access to a more responsive system, with swifter processes and more proportionate services. Front-line staff work incredibly hard to provide a high-quality service to the public. However, they and our customers are often poorly served by the infrastructure supporting the administration of a system in desperate need of improvement.

Of course we must respect our traditions, and we must ensure that there is a place for the most serious cases in the courts in the traditional way. However, progress towards a more proportionate approach to court attendance would eliminate wasted time and enhance confidence in the administration of justice. We have a duty to offer more convenient and less intimidating ways for citizens to interact with the justice system while maintaining the court’s authority for serious cases.

[Andrew Bingham]

I am sure that the Minister will come to this in his closing remarks, but he mentioned convenience. Will he address the issue that I raised about the potential of going to Stockport instead of Chesterfield? As I said, Chesterfield is completely and totally inconvenient. If the Government are to pursue that path, which I believe is wrong, will he at least give me some indication that despite the regional and county boundary, Stockport will be given serious consideration as an alternative?

[Mr Vara]

I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance, and I can tell him that we are crossing borders and boundaries wherever necessary. He has made a powerful case for Stockport as an alternative. My officials are at hand, and I will personally see to it after this debate that they seriously consider that option.

I am mindful of the time restriction. I will round up by saying that we propose a reform programme fit for the 21st century. It is our intention that modern technology should make it unnecessary for many people who currently go to court to do that. That includes lawyers, who at present can find themselves hanging around at court for hours to have a 10-minute hearing before a judge. We envisage two sets of lawyers booking a 10-minute slot with a judge, who can then have a video conference or a telephone conference.

The world has moved on, and we must move on with it. The Lord Chancellor and I face difficult decisions. Many people have responded to the consultation. Generally speaking, the consultation has had more than 2,000 replies from members of the public and the legal fraternity. It will not be easy to take decisions, but I assure my hon. Friend that all his contributions, including the comments that he has made in this debate, will be considered seriously when we come to those decisions. I congratulate him again on securing this debate.

Question put and agreed to.

11:29

Sitting suspended.

Houses of Parliament (Family-friendliness)

Tuesday 10th November 2015 Westminster Hall

[Fabian Hamilton in the Chair]

14:30

[Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the family-friendliness of Parliament.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hamilton, and I thank all the hon. Members who have come to Westminster Hall today; it is a pleasure to see people from all parties here. In particular, I thank the Deputy Leader of the House and my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn), the shadow Deputy Leader of the House, for attending. Although only one of those women is my hon. Friend, I have experienced sorority from both, and have felt them both urging me and other women forward in this place, and I wish to state very clearly that this issue is not a party political one.

We are here to discuss the family-friendliness of the Houses of Parliament. I wrote and amended this speech last night. Because of the Scotland Bill debate, I once again failed to ring to wish my children goodnight before bed or to check in with my husband, who was ill yesterday. As I typed this speech at 11.29 pm and the chimes of Big Ben began, the importance of this debate seemed incredibly acute.

I am not the first person to raise this issue; there have been champions, male and female, from all parties. As I seem to do every single day, I must give credit to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman). I credit her work over the years in changing Government policy, party policy and this place for the reason that I am standing here today. However, Mr Speaker has also been a champion, and I have just been hearing of other champions, including male champions from the Government Benches. In the spirit of full cross-party support, I must mention that it was a Liberal Democrat MP, the former hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire, who was the first MP to carry her baby through the voting Lobby. Every week now, I see Members with their children walking through the Lobbies, and guess what? Nobody dies. That change is absolutely a credit to her.

People have been campaigning on this issue for a very long time—I think that today we will hear about some people who campaigned on it before I was even born—and progress has definitely been made. We have come a long way from the bad old days of the 1970s. For me, that is best symbolised by the example of what was Bellamy’s Bar. Once, it was no doubt smoke-filled and gin-fuelled; I say that, although I have no experience of it myself. It sounds like quite good fun. Now, however, it has been turned into a nursery, so hurrah for progress. However, we still have an incredibly long way to go before this place is a proper family-friendly environment.

[Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)]

rose—

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

rose—

[Jess Phillips]

In the spirit of gender solidarity, I will give way to the right hon. Lady.

[Mrs Miller]

I thank the hon. Lady, who is a fellow member of the Women and Equalities Committee, for giving way and I commend her for securing this debate. I applaud her focus on a family-friendly Parliament, but should she not also consider a people-friendly Parliament? I want to see a Parliament that is representative of the country that we live in, so does she share my concern that the number of MPs who are from different ethnic, religious and social backgrounds, and the number of disabled people in Parliament, is not as high as it should be?

[Jess Phillips]

I thank the right hon. Lady for her intervention. I could not agree more. The two issues are potentially distinct but have an enormous crossover, and much of what I will go on to say today is about how there are so many barriers to so many different people coming into this place that Parliament is not a particularly healthy working environment for anybody: people with families and people without families; older Members and younger Members. An awful lot goes on in that place that acts as a huge barrier to people working here.

[Tom Brake]

First, the hon. Lady is right to say that things have moved on slightly. When my daughter was born 18 years ago, during Divisions I had to leave her in the Lib Dem Whips Office with members of staff in their early 20s who did not have the foggiest idea of what they were supposed to do with a six-month-old. Things have improved slightly since then.

I apologise for not being able to stay for the duration of this debate, but I would like to take this opportunity to say how appalled I was by the abuse that the hon. Lady received recently. However, the point of my intervention is to say that I sit on the House of Commons Commission and clearly there is work under way, with which she will be familiar, which Sarah Childs is doing in relation to a gender-sensitive Parliament. I will make sure that, on Monday, when the Commission meets, this debate is taken into account, to see if there are issues that the hon. Lady and other hon. Members have raised that the Commission should examine.

[Jess Phillips]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his support in regard to my own experiences during the last few weeks of what it is like to be a woman in this place. I also thank him and the other members of the Commission for its continued work, and for offering to take back to it anything that is discussed here today. I very much hope that this debate and any debates on this subject become part of the bigger picture of the Commission’s work.

I will now say why this issue is so important, before going on to talk about some of the specific problems and some of the possible ways to address them. I am not trying to present any one possible solution as a silver bullet that will make us a family-friendly place. I am contributing to a debate that has been going on for decades and that I am sure will continue in the future.

Next spring is particularly important. As has been highlighted, Professor Sarah Childs will be publishing her final report on delivering a gender-sensitive Parliament, and there will be a parliamentary debate on the implementation of the recommendations of the Speaker’s Conference on Parliamentary Representation, which reported in 2010. That seems to me to be an excellent opportunity to debate this issue, and to build cross-party consensus to achieve real change. I stress again that we will get such changes only when we work hard together and not combatively, so that everyone in this place feels that they have been involved in this process.

First, why is having a family-friendly Parliament so important? I am not sure if I have made it particularly clear yet—I can be a bit shy about it—but I am a feminist and this is a feminist issue. However, that should not make anyone think that it is an issue that affects only women. It directly affects all people in Parliament who have families, and it indirectly affects every single person up and down the country. Parliament not being family-friendly affects MPs and parliamentary staff immediately and directly, but it also has a wider effect and impact in terms of representation.

On Saturday night, I was having a chat with my husband, who is and has always been the primary carer of our children, and a friend of ours, who is a single mum. We mulled over some of the ideas about how to make this place a more family-friendly parliament. Very quickly, they turned to the idea that, “Well, you knew what the job was going to be like. You don’t expect family-friendly oil rigs. It is just the nature of the job.” That is a fair point and one that I am sure will be expressed to me in the below-the-line comment sections of any newspaper that chooses to report this debate.

However, Parliament is fundamentally different. Yes, there are many jobs that are still not that family-friendly. It is the nature of jobs with a predominantly male workforce—something, of course, that we should challenge. However, it is not the job of oil rigs to reflect society; it is not the job of oil rigs to push for laws and regulations to improve families’ lives; and the world does not look at the people who work on oil rigs for an example of what our culture should be. But it is the job of Parliament to do those things.

My friend concluded our discussion on Saturday by saying that, as a single mother and sole provider for a young child, for her to be a Member of Parliament is virtually impossible. That statement alone should highlight the fact that we still have such a long way to go before this place truly represents the world outside.

The immediate impact is easy to see. Think of the large number of MPs who are mothers who stood down at the last election. Often, debate on this issue has mainly focused on female MPs, which is quite understandable, as the current situation is a huge contributor to the under-representation of women in Parliament. However, all too often we do not recognise that it does not affect just women MPs. It affects all MPs with care-giving responsibilities, and not just MPs who are parents. It affects those of us who have sick relatives, including husbands who have been unwell or ageing parents who we have to look after. All those factors should be considered in the round.

Male and female parliamentarians with young children or dependent family members undoubtedly need extra help, but they are only part of the story. The issue does not affect only MPs. Every MP has staff, as does Parliament itself. There are thousands of people who protect the building, work in the kitchens, sort the mail and do the research in the Library—there are even people who write down every word we say. Those people keep this place going. If it were all left to MPs to do, I am fairly certain that the place would grind to a halt in just a few days, if not hours.

Problems with the availability and affordability of childcare, parental leave, unpredictability, and unsocial hours affect everyone in this place who has family responsibilities. When a Parliament is structured in such a way as to make balancing work and family difficult, it excludes people with families, and the wider effects of not being family-friendly are hugely troubling. The best people are put off applying, and we want the best people shaping the laws and opposing and supporting the process. Ultimately, that is what is best for the country, but someone with family responsibilities would definitely think twice about working here.

I come from working in a women’s refuge where all the staff were women and most of the service users were women and children, and I often joke that when I first walked into Portcullis House it seemed to me as though it were staffed entirely by young men called Will, Tom or Ben. I am sure that the huge workforce of young men is absolutely brilliant, but we must be more reflective of society. In my old job, we used to joke that we could employ a full-time obstetrician such was the pregnancy rate among our staff, but here weeks will go by without anyone seeing a pregnant woman walking around the estate. This is about our wanting the best people, and if we want fair competition and to attract the best, we should remove the barriers that prevent those exact people from applying to be Members and to work in this place.

In many ways, normal workplaces are much more family-friendly than Parliament. We have an awful lot of catching up to do. If at some point in the future we go beyond our current work practices, that will be good. We should be leading the way and setting an example. Not being family-friendly sends the wrong message to the country. We are a highly visible workplace—I feel like waving at the cameras now. The only jobs in which there are more cameras and microphones are those on chat shows. So what we do here matters. We should be a beacon of a proper 21st-century family-friendly workplace.

While we are thinking about scrutiny—the eyes and ears of the world on us—no one could fail to notice when glancing up at the benches in the Press Gallery that women are grossly under-represented in the press lobby, and I will wager—I do not have any empirical research—that mothers are even more so. I remember introducing the previous leader of the Labour party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), to the press pack on the day when he talked about how he was going to change the Labour party’s rules and make it so that more people could be involved, so that we could reach out and, essentially, reflect society a bit better. After he spoke, the press lobby grilled him and grilled him: “Do you really think that your party, or any party, or Westminster, is particularly reflective?” After he had walked out of the room, I sat in front of the press lobby—I was not a Member of Parliament then, just a woman called in to introduce the leader of her party—and I chastised them. There was not a single woman among them—these opinion formers, the people who tell others what happens in this place—and they dared to have a go at him about not being representative. The way in which this place is run undoubtedly changes what gets reported here—how the world sees us—and we cannot go on like this.

While we continue with the status quo and push back at any challenge, we are guilty of huge hypocrisy. I have spent all morning with the members of the Women and Equalities Committee discussing, for example, the barriers employers put before women who are pregnant, and thinking about the best strategies for reducing the gender pay gap caused by women having children. But how can we lecture others when our House is not in order? If we look around at this place, with its fancy history and ancient carvings—and the rather glam curtains in this room—we can see that are in a huge glass house. Yet we are chucking stones. We should sort ourselves out so that I and the other members of the Women and Equalities Committee have a leg to stand and do not look like fools when we make recommendations. What business do we have asking big business and big employers to do something we are simply not willing to do ourselves?

Almost everyone in this place, I think, gets this. There are still a few dinosaurs in Parliament, gradually hardening into fossils, but most people in here want this. So, what is standing in the way? What are some of the aspects of Parliament’s dominant culture that hold us back, and what can we do about them?

The week before last, my children ran around these halls and in the canteen. There was a notable singing—or rather screaming—competition between my youngest son and the little boy of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell). It was half-term and, for some reason, the recess in the House does not marry with that occasion. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby has raised the good—and seemingly obvious—idea of making recesses coincide with school half-terms. That idea has been proposed by men and women from all parties, and it is an idea whose time has come.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Jess Phillips]

I will give way first to the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Sir Simon Burns) and then to the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray).

[Sir Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady accept that apart from the October half-term, the progress we have made means that most recesses dovetail with the state holidays and half-terms, except for Scottish MPs?

[Jess Phillips]

I absolutely agree. Progress has definitely been made. The October half-term is somewhat of an anomaly. I imagine that the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts was going to make that exact point about Scotland, as I will go on to do.

[Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)]

The right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Sir Simon Burns) did, in fact, steal my thunder in that the recess dates do not follow the Scottish school holidays, almost at all. That is important not just from a family-friendly point of view but from a representation point of view, and there needs to be some cognisance of that from the House authorities and the Leader of the House. They need to consider whether there can be some movement—a week here and there—that would allow us to perform our duties both as parents and as representative MPs.

[Jess Phillips]

I very much welcome those interventions—they both stole my thunder. I will come on to talk about how our holidays have definitely moved more in line with the UK’s school holidays, except where Scotland is concerned.

Going back to the idea of moving the October recess, I am aware of the well-rehearsed arguments about how that would make it too soon after the conference recess, but I simply bat that back and ask, “Why do we have a three-week conference recess?” This might be a scandalous idea, but why do we not have our conferences a bit earlier or, God forbid, hold them, as the Scottish National party does, on a Friday, Saturday and Sunday so that they do not get in the way of parliamentary business? We could then consider moving our holidays around to fit everyone in this place.

In solidarity with my Scottish colleagues, I must raise the issue of the Scottish education system. As has been outlined, its holidays—all the half-terms and the summer break—run completely out of kilter with the recesses in this place. I am not certain, but I think that Christmas might be at the same time in Scotland—it is a fairly national thing. The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) told me that the overlap between the recess here and the Scottish school holidays is only two weeks, which will allow him only the same fortnight each year to go on holiday with his family. He will therefore miss the same annual events each year in his constituency, which will affect his ability to represent his constituents. That seems completely unfair, given that my summer recess falls exactly in line with my children’s summer holidays. The hon. Gentleman asked me to raise with the Deputy Leader of the House the possibility of a three-week overlap, at the very least, for his family, and for other Scottish Members with children. That is a reasonable request, so it would be crass of me not to make it; this is, after all, the UK Parliament.

There will be push and pull between parents whose children live in London and the surrounding areas and those whose children live elsewhere. I would prefer longer hours in Parliament and to be at home in my constituency for more days of the week, but I know that that would not work for everyone. I was warned by people who have been in this place for much longer than me that if I ever wanted to see my children, I should move them to London, but my kids’ school, their friends and their life are in Birmingham. I could not expect my dad or my parents-in-law to up sticks to help me with the childcare as they do now. We should not want or need to encourage people to live in London, because that would make this place even more divorced from the lives of most of those whom we are here to serve.

[Neil Gray]

Perhaps the hon. Lady will reflect on the fact that Members of the Scottish Parliament do not feel the need to move their families to Edinburgh, despite having to travel great distances, because that Parliament’s Chamber and parliamentary week are structured to ensure that things are more family-friendly. Perhaps we could learn something from that.

[Jess Phillips]

I spend an awful lot of time in this place, particularly with the Women and Equalities Committee, learning that there are many areas on which we could learn from Scotland and how it runs things. There are many, many things about how the Scottish Parliament is run, such as how the Members vote—the Divisions are held in a completely different way—that seem to be much more family-friendly. I encourage any commission that is taking place and the Deputy Leader of the House to consider how we might be able to mirror some of the existing models in Scotland. Scotland, much like Sweden, is some sort of panacea of all the good things that happen in people’s lives.

[Tom Brake]

I hope that I am not stealing the hon. Lady’s thunder, as she might be about to come on to this, but has she considered the idea of job sharing for MPs as a way of ensuring better representation of women, for instance, and people with disabilities?

[Jess Phillips]

It is something that I have considered, and I was going to ask the Deputy Leader of the House what she thought of the idea. I am not entirely sure how it would work. I feel that if I were to job share, I would still end up doing exactly the same as I do now, which incidentally was what happened to me when I worked part time—I was paid for three days a week and worked for five. I therefore have some concerns about the idea. Constituents will want their MP regardless of whether it is their day. I know that Professor Childs has been looking into that, and it should be part of the debate.

When looking at a gender-sensitive Parliament, as opposed to a family-friendly Parliament, there is certainly an argument for considering the idea of job shares for those with Government positions. That would allow people with children—this largely affects women, I suppose—to take up positions in government from which they might otherwise be barred. While there might be an argument for that, I cannot see how job sharing for MPs would work, although I am willing to be proven wrong.

Work on timetabling would be a far less complicated way of making things a little easier. Why do we not find out about future business further in advance? Things have definitely improved in terms of hours, as I am sure we will hear from people who have been Members for a while. If we knew further in advance that we would have to be in Westminster or to stay late, it would make it easier to combine work and family responsibilities. It would make it easier to organise childcare in advance and would stop me constantly making promises to my sons that I often cannot keep when it comes to the day.

What does the Deputy Leader of the House think of giving us more warning in the business statement of future business, albeit recognising that issues can emerge that we cannot predict? Does she think that MPs or Ministers should be allowed to job share? What models could be considered around proper systems of parental leave, maternity leave, paternity leave and carers leave for everyone who works in Parliament, including Members, and what are the Government’s proposals?

The all-party group on women in Parliament produced a report last year that asked the House to reconsider the age at which children are allowed in the Lobbies. I think that some Members might be breaking that rule already, but does the Deputy Leader of the House agree the age should be raised from one year to cover all pre-school children—those aged from nought to four? Childcare costs are recorded and published as individual MP’s expenses, while disability allowances are aggregated, but that effectively disincentivises MPs from claiming for childcare costs, as they will have higher expenses claims than other MPs. What does she think about changing the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority system to deal with that?

[Mrs Miller]

The hon. Lady refers to IPSA. Does she feel that there is any room for a family impact assessment of some of the IPSA rules, especially regarding how children over 18 are not treated as part of the family? Does she have any comments on that?

[Jess Phillips]

There needs to be an overarching look at what IPSA provides and how it reports in respect of families. The right hon. Lady mentions dependents over 18, and while my children are much smaller, I remember how long I was dependent on my parents. We must always be careful in Parliament about making a rule for us that does not reflect the rules we make for those outside. Thinking about IPSA, I suppose this goes back to my point about how the press lobby often reflects some of the issues around this place not being a family-friendly environment.

I often hear of those MPs who are lauded for having lower expenses. My leader is a good example of that, but the truth behind the headline is that those MPs who live outside London, who have dependents and who claim the top-up for dependent children will always be seen to be claiming more, even though in my case that is only so that I can afford a place for my children to sleep when they are with me in London. The headline of “Greedy MP” will never tell that story. As has been suggested, I sometimes wonder whether this relates to how women are treated in the media. The idea of a greedy woman or a woman being away from her children is delicious to the media, and some of the ways in which IPSA reports on childcare costs and our expenses exacerbates the situation for women MPs.

Does the Deputy Leader of the House think that women should be allowed to breastfeed in the Chamber and in Committees? I realise that that would be ridiculously controversial, but I can tell Members from years of experience that putting off breastfeeding a baby makes you feel like you are going to die or explode at any minute. I can totally sympathise with colleagues with new born babies who sometimes need to do that quickly and suddenly.

How can we send out the message that we are family-friendly? The possibility of family days has been raised, when people in Parliament would be encouraged to bring their children to this place and we could discuss issues specifically affecting families inside and outside Parliament. We must be seen to be more like the people outside for them to trust us again. Would the Deputy Leader of the House encourage that idea?

Having a crèche is a lifesaver for many parents who work in Parliament. What does the Deputy Leader of the House think about keeping it open later on nights when officials, security staff, MPs and their staff, Clerks and others have to stay later? I am always wary when I have a deadline to pick my children up from childcare. We must be careful that we do not have one rule for in here and one rule for out there, but until the rules in here look like normal working practice out there, I think that we could get away with having the crèche open later.

Those are just some of the ideas I would like the Deputy Leader of the House to consider, and I look forward to hearing other Members’ ideas. My hero of the week is the Canadian Prime Minister who, when asked last week why he had appointed a 50% female Cabinet, said simply, “Because it’s 2015.” As a mum of two young children, a Member of Parliament and a resident of a different bit of the UK, I say that it is 2015, so let us get on with this.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Fabian Hamilton (in the Chair)]

Order. Before we continue the debate, I need to say that because of the number of Members who have indicated that they wish to speak, I am imposing, with the authority of the Chairman of Ways and Means, a five-minute time limit on Back-Bench speeches. I remind Members that for each of the first two interventions accepted during a speech, the clock will be stopped, with one minute added to the time remaining for the Member who gave way. A third or subsequent intervention will count against the time limit. The clocks on the wall will display the time remaining to a Member.

15:00

[Sir Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to be here under your chairmanship, Mr Hamilton. I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) on securing this important debate.

I will be brief. I am depressed to think that I came to this place when the hon. Lady was in her first year at primary school. The plus, though, is the strides that have been made in this place since then. When I first came here and through into the ’90s—I had two young children—the House of Commons sat from 2.30 in the afternoon, Monday to Thursday. On Monday to Wednesday, we were lucky if we finished at midnight; more often than not, it was 1.30, sometimes 3 o’clock, and very occasionally each Session we would go through the night.

Those were not family-friendly hours at all. Since then, due to work done by the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), John Major and others, as the hon. Lady mentioned, we have improved the situation, but more needs to be done. I personally would like Mondays to start at 11.30 am, like Tuesdays and Wednesdays. I know the argument is that Members of Parliament have to come down to London, but they could get up a little earlier or possibly come the night before, although that might be anti-family-friendly as well if they are not moving up and down with their families.

[Neil Gray]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if we were more efficient in how we dealt with business in the House, perhaps we could get through the week quicker? That would allow us to sit on fewer occasions, be in our constituencies as representatives more often and also carry out our duties as parents.

[Sir Simon Burns]

I could make a snide comment about the Scottish National party stopping its habit of forcing Divisions in the House of Commons, which might be more efficient, but I will resist that cheap jibe. What I will say is no, I do not agree, because we have a job of work to do. We sit 34 or 35 a weeks a year. We have the weekends—Fridays, Saturdays, Sundays if we are so minded—plus about 16, 18, 20 weeks a year to work in our constituencies. There is a job for us to do here. When the House of Commons is sitting, we should maximise the time and do that job rather than constantly whittling away the amount of time we work here. The less time we worked here, the less ability we would have to hold the Executive—the Government—to account, and that would be a big mistake.

We need to look more at the recesses, which have improved dramatically, as have the hours. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley made a point about programme motions. To start with, I was not in favour of those, but they do give a clarity and a consistency to our debates so that we know more about what is happening when, and we make our speeches and judgments on the basis of that. We need to look at all that. Of course, Scotland has a problem with regard to its schools’ summer holidays. We could see whether we could fine-tune when we go into recess in July to accommodate Scottish Members of Parliament. That would be perfectly reasonable.

I am very pleased to see the change in the composition of the House of Commons. Again, in the 1980s, both the Labour and Conservative parties were predominantly white, male and middle class. The situation has now improved beyond all recognition, partly through the efforts of Tony Blair as well as of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, with the A-list from 2005 to 2010. What we have seen is far more women in this place, which is absolutely right, although we need more; far more people from black and minority ethnic backgrounds, which is right because that reflects what goes on in this country; and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) said, people with disabilities. We have got to be a representative Parliament.

[Mrs Miller]

Does my right hon. Friend not agree that the overwhelming majority of Members are still white males?

[Sir Simon Burns]

I would not agree that an overwhelming majority are. I certainly think that a significant minority are female and non-white, and not all white male MPs are middle class. There is a range of backgrounds, funnily enough, in both parties. Everyone stereotypes the Labour party as the party of the working classes and the Tory party as the party of the middle and upper classes, but that is not true if one looks. There are a lot of differentiations both ways. There is even—one immediately comes to mind—an honourable public schoolboy who used to be a member of the shadow Cabinet until the recent leadership election, which shows how some barriers have broken down.

A slightly more controversial subject is the question of breastfeeding. We have to be careful that, in pushing for a more realistic approach, we do not give the tabloid press the opportunity to ridicule us. I may be old-fashioned, but I share the view of the last but one Speaker of the House of Commons, Speaker Boothroyd, who, when asked on a point of order by a Labour MP for Swindon, Julia Drown, whether it would be possible to breastfeed in the House of Commons Chamber, said that when she saw her checkout girl at Tesco’s breastfeeding, she would allow it. [Interruption.] Sorry?

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)]

I was merely making the point that one cannot scan items and breastfeed at the same time.

[Sir Simon Burns]

The hon. Lady is absolutely correct, but I think the point behind Speaker Boothroyd’s comment was right: there is an appropriate time and place for breastfeeding. I am simply offering a word of caution; we do not want this issue to degenerate and the merits of the case to be undermined because we are ridiculed for what is proposed.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Simon Burns]

No, because I do not have much time—I am not sure how much time I have got.

[Fabian Hamilton (in the Chair)]

Order. I call Dr Rupa Huq.

15:07

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

The other day at about 8 o’clock, I found myself heading back from the mother of Parliaments, which is—I still pinch myself—my workplace. I was heading from tube to road with a neighbour of mine from a few doors away, who said, “Late night at work, was it?” I was not fast enough to say no, this was an early night; as all Members know, it can be a lot later than that on a Monday.

Last night I did not even see my 11-year-old, who started high school this year. All the parenting guidebooks would say that that is a crucial time to be with one’s child. Until we get elected to this place, we do not really know what goes on in here. I have been here for six months and I am still acclimatising. We do not know what time we will get away until the day itself, and that unpredictability is part of the problem that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) so persuasively highlighted.

To those on the outside, a debate such as this, as the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Sir Simon Burns) mentioned, will not get a lot of sympathy. We are seen as overpaid and all the rest of it, but, after six months here, I have worked out that this place is many things. It is awesome in the true sense of that word: awe-inspiring. It is traditional and humbling, but one thing it is definitely not is family-friendly, so I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this timely debate today.

A Mumsnet survey from 2011 found that 91% of MPs would not describe their job as family-friendly. One of the early visits that I hosted here was for a school party from Ellen Wilkinson school in West Acton; I am proud that my constituency has a school named after a woman Labour MP who led the Jarrow march. In the Q&A bit afterwards, one of the girls said to me, “Why are there so few women MPs?” Partly, we take that for granted when we are on the inside, and my hon. Friend highlighted well the inside/outside divide on these issues. In my reply, I cited the family-unfriendly hours. On Mondays, I have been getting away at half-past midnight—and I am always the first person to leg it. Even when I was heading home at eight o’clock, and my neighbour thought it was late, I had been trying to get away quickly.

The Speaker’s Conference on parliamentary representation talked of the

“inflexible and unwelcoming attitude of the House towards families”.

That should not be so. However, as my hon. Friend said, we need reform on many levels. We need to be a modern Parliament, to reflect the communities we seek to serve; otherwise, we will have an ever-narrowing talent pool, and the big fish in that small pond will be self-replicating professional politicians. My hon. Friend mentioned that the Labour party’s previous leader—indeed, the three party leaders at the general election—had done nothing other than work for head office; they were backroom boys who had become leader. We need people from outside who have had other adult workplace experience and can bring in fresh thinking.

How would we define the average family in the UK today? The definition would have to take into account 2 million single parents. Gingerbread remarks that, contrary to media reports,

“these days, bringing up children on your own is actually a very normal part of family life in the UK.”

One in four dependent households is now a single-parent family. As a parent, every working mother constantly feels guilt about where their loyalties lie. If they work in a place such as this, that is magnified and multiplied severalfold, and that is even truer if they are a single parent. Flexibility in the workplace has been legislated for, but it seems not to apply to this place. Wherever people work, flexibility has a stigma attached to it, and they are made to feel embarrassed about even asking for flexible arrangements. However, that is even truer in the House. Gingerbread states that 57% of single parents work and that their average age is 38, contrary to the Daily Mail stereotype of their being feckless, teenage, brown-faced people.

All the research shows that mums are under-represented in this place, and single mums even more so. It takes a certain type of person to be an MP—we have to be shameless exhibitionists and a bit megalomaniac, and we must have a sense of public service and an ability to adapt. If all those things stifle diversity, that is a bad thing. We have to balance all these things.

To some extent—we heard this from the right hon. Member for Chelmsford—the idea that we have always done things this way—

[Fabian Hamilton (in the Chair)]

Order. I am sorry, but you are out of time.

[Dr Huq]

Really? There is so much more I could have said.

[Fabian Hamilton (in the Chair)]

There always is. I call Alison Thewliss.

15:12

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

Thank you, Mr Hamilton. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I thank the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) for bringing this important issue to the House. I am glad to have had the opportunity to participate in a number of debates on issues—whether tampons, breastfeeding or whatever—that are particularly important to women across the country.

It is perhaps difficult to ascertain how family-friendly the House is, but I have been able to bring my children down once in the six months I have been here, and that was during recess.

[Neil Gray]

I have shared that experience. I have not been able to bring my one-year-old down terribly often. Part of the problem is that, although there is a nursery here, it does not have a crèche facility. Children have to use it full time. Does my hon. Friend agree that looking at that issue could help?

[Alison Thewliss]

Yes, absolutely. There are 40 places in that nursery facility—it is a nursery, not a crèche, and there is no drop-in. I went to inquire whether it might be possible to bring my children down during the Scottish summer holidays, and it was not. Another limitation is that the nursery is for children up to the age of five; if they are older than that, there is nowhere they can go.

It is unfair of us to ask members of our or the building’s staff to look after our children while we nip off to vote. That is not what they are here to do; they are here to do their job, and childcare does not form part of that—I think we would also find that was true if we looked at their IPSA job descriptions. The nursery is also incredibly expensive, so it is not accessible to the vast number of staff in this building. In addition, there are only 40 places. Given the number of women and family members who serve this building, that is woefully short of what is required.

I was glad that the hon. Lady mentioned the staff in this building, whether they work for Hansard, serve food or work as cleaners. They are required to work when we are required to work, and that is also not family-friendly for them. Indeed, it is even truer for them, because they do not get the benefit of the expenses that we get as part of our duties in the House. We need to be mindful of them and of the family-unfriendliness of the House to the wider staff population.

I want to mention breastfeeding because the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Sir Simon Burns) mentioned it. As far as I am concerned, the appropriate time and place to feed a baby is when it is hungry, regardless of when and where that may be. I have breastfed at Hampden Park in the middle of a football crowd, at bus stops and anywhere else my baby has been hungry. As a Glasgow city councillor, I breastfed my child in meetings, including committee meetings, and nobody had a problem with that. My baby was happy, it was not crying and it was not disruptive, because it was being fed. That was true of both my children. That issue needs to be better understood.

There is also an issue about the culture in this building and the way people behave. As far as the young researchers who come here are concerned, that is perhaps the way things have always been. However, I was at a reception earlier, and there was wine on the table. That was a lunch time. Is that really appropriate? Is the culture we want to encourage in this building that people go for a glass of wine at lunch time or at a dinner reception, or that people stay late and go to the bars between votes? That is not a family-friendly culture either, and it is not a good place for the building where laws are made to be. We perhaps need to consider that as well.

The right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) raised the issue of sharing positions. There are issues around that, and we are elected to serve, so we need to do that. However, I believe the French Parliament has the “suppléant” system, under which those who are elected have someone who follows on behind them. If they become a Minister, that person steps in to cover their constituency duties. We could perhaps look at that example of something another Parliament does as one potential model, although it is not the exact model, because we are talking about something different.

[Mrs Miller]

I have been reflecting on what the hon. Lady has been saying. Many of the working parents listening to the debate will not be able to take their children, including those who require breastfeeding, into work. Does she agree that, by making this place more family-friendly in the first place, the requirement for us to bring children into work would be less acute? I speak as a mum of three, who came into the House in 2005, when my youngest was three, so I have lived the experiences she has talked about.

[Alison Thewliss]

We could set an example as a workplace where children are seen as part of the wider family of the people who work here. For me as a parent, it would be ideal if all workplaces, if necessary, had some way of ensuring children are looked after. That might involve flexible working hours, and there are many workplaces where people can have flexible hours and where that is encouraged. We need to think about the message this place sends out and the way we do our business.

My hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts talked a little about the way the Scottish Parliament works and its debates are conducted. There are stricter time limits there. Members might say that that would mean they did not get to say all they wanted to say in a debate, but it does encourage people to be a bit more focused. For example, we would not have the situation we had during the debate on the Scotland Bill last night, when somebody without a great specific interest in the issue talked for nearly half an hour, eating up all the time for debate. The Presiding Officer in the Scottish Parliament would take a much stricter line on such behaviour, and that is perhaps something we could look at. In the interests of greater efficiency in debates, it would also be helpful to know the business further ahead of time, because we do not get the opportunity to plan for it. When things come up at the very last minute, as they often do, we are forced to rush from one place to another to try to be there for debates.

Having said that, I do not want to take up everybody else’s time in the debate, so I will leave it at that. I thank the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley again for raising this important issue.

15:19

[Jo Cox (Batley and Spen) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) for securing this wonderful debate. The contributions have been of high quality, and I hope that Professor Childs’s inquiry will make substantive proposals on where the reform process should go next.

I want to share a few reflections on my experience as the mum of two children under five. I passionately agree with sentiments that have been expressed about the need for this place to reflect the country. If we do not look like the country and offer working practices that appeal to it, we will never attract the talent and diversity we need or truly represent the United Kingdom. That, for me, is at the heart of the debate.

I pay tribute to past Members, and some who are still in this place, including you, Mr Hamilton, for their hard work and the hard-fought battles they have won. They have made Parliament a far more family-friendly place than it would have been 20 years ago, and certainly 50 years ago. I benefit from that work, but we cannot stop at where we are, and we certainly cannot go back. These debates and the work of Professor Childs are important to make the House of Commons a beacon of best practice. We should be ahead of the game, not behind the curve, which is where I feel that we currently are. After five months here, it does not feel like a very family-friendly place.

[Sir Simon Burns]

I agree with the hon. Lady, but how can we avoid the trap that when we set an example, we will get things that many people in other workplaces will not get, so the changes will be seen just as Members of Parliament looking after their own and getting privileges, for want of a better word, that other people will never get?

[Jo Cox]

That is a great intervention. First, we are behind the curve compared with working practice in much of industry, and the charitable and public sectors, and that is a problem. Secondly, if we act differently and change the culture and working practices here, we can change how others operate. We should do that, because we are here to change and improve the United Kingdom.

Women are already under-represented here, but women with children are even less well represented. Research in 2012 found that 45% of male Members of Parliament had children compared with 28% of women. I do not think that parents of any background are attracted to this place, and that is a problem.

My experience of being a parent—I think that this is true for men and women—is that I have changed beyond measure. I understand how hard it is to be a parent, and to balance trying to earn an income and to be a good mum with caring responsibilities for elderly relatives. Such experiences will make people in this place better law makers, so we must attract women, and both women and men who are parents. I want to be the Member of Parliament for my home town in Yorkshire, but I also want to be a mum, and I do not think anyone in this place should have to make a choice about that. It should be possible to be both, but currently it is quite hard to get it right. I share the sentiments that have been expressed about that situation.

All of us who are Members of Parliament knew the working deal when we applied for the job. People come here with their eyes open, but I had not realised quite how hard things would be. I am desperate to encourage people to apply for this job, but we must make it more appealing. The experience has been quite hard—getting home after midnight and not seeing the kids for four or five nights in a week is tough. The unpredictability of the business of the House is a challenge. I have probably spent five hours in the past couple of weeks trying to organise childcare because there were changes affecting votes and business, and whether something was on or off the Whip. That was such a headache, and while I know that every working parent in the country has headaches, I do not think that we need to do things in that way. We can be much more effective.

I agree with the comments of the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) about not having a crèche here. My kids are regularly dragged here, and then I have to ask a member of staff to look after them when I run in to vote. If there were a nice place for them to go where they had mates and toys, that would be such a relief for me. I think we can be flexible about breastfeeding. I breastfed on demand for four years, probably, and it is doable. It is possible to be discreet about it; there is no need to be overt. Lots of places of work offer that opportunity. We should take on the popular press if it is critical and say, “This is what women do; get over it.” It is good for children, so we should advocate it.

More efficient management of business would be a good thing. I agree that there could be shorter time limits on interventions and speeches, and that points could be made much more effectively and business could be more efficient. The European Parliament also does that. We should look to the best practice in other Parliaments, as well as in industry and the charitable sector, which are ahead of us. I welcome the debate and Professor Childs’s work.

[Fabian Hamilton (in the Chair)]

If the next speaker is brief, we can fit in another.

15:25

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

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Hamilton. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) on securing this important debate. I stand with her against the abuse that was directed towards her recently and praise her courage in standing up to bullies. She is a great example.

As part of being more family-friendly, MPs should be able to be good employers to their staff who have roles as family members and carers. It is vital for MPs to be good employers and to set an example, but the opportunity to do that is being denied to us in a number of ways. MPs’ staff take on a heavy workload with many stresses to support our work. Sometimes they are as stressed as we are, and they are also husbands, wives, daughters, sons and parents, with the responsibilities and occasional emergencies associated with that. A couple of years ago a staff member of mine suddenly needed compassionate or carer’s leave because of a family medical emergency. Of course she took the leave—I told her to take it—but as she was a vital member of my team dealing with case work, I needed to cover her role. I was appalled to learn from the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority that our staff contracts do not cover compassionate or caring leave.

MPs should be able to be good employers and to offer leave to carers. As my hon. Friend said, how can we talk to big business about what it should do if we do not hold ourselves up as a good example? At a recent meeting on carer’s leave, I heard of the good example set by Centrica, which won a best for carers and eldercare award from Carers UK for its excellent policies. It rightly believes that supporting carers reduces turnover and cuts recruitment and training costs. It also has an employee-led carers network. MPs should be able to support the carers among their staff, and IPSA’s policy should allow for carer’s leave. We used to be able to give such leave before IPSA changed that—the old contracts allowed it.

I hope that the House will raise that matter with IPSA and ensure that we can offer what a caring employer should be able to do for its staff who are carers. I ask the Deputy Leader of the House to include that issue alongside the many others that she has been asked to think about, and to help to ensure that it is put to IPSA.

15:28

[Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)]

I am fairly new to the House, having replaced Dame Dawn Primarolo, who came to the House in 1987 as a young woman with a young child. That was unusual at the time, when there were only 44 women MPs. I know from the work she did and led, and the work of the all-party group on women in Parliament, how much progress has been made. I am certainly a beneficiary of that, including in my constituency, which selected another woman, with three dependent children of school age. I hope to follow my predecessor’s example and am delighted to be part of the debate.

I am the mother of three boys aged 16, 13 and 10. I understand that it is quite unusual to turn up here with children already at school. I agree that one of the great things about joining this place has been the reaction among families in Bristol. My children’s friends, and the teachers and support staff from their schools, have stopped them in the street—it is quite emotional—to say, “Isn’t it fantastic what your mum is doing?” Local journalists have said to me on the side, quietly, “How are you going to manage it? That’s quite impressive.” The reaction from wider society to a woman joining Parliament at this stage with growing children has been a real shock to me. It has been a pleasure to take responsibility for making it easier and to say to people, “Actually, a lot of people leave home during the week to do their job.”

[Colleen Fletcher (Coventry North East) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way when time is short. I concur with all the comments made about family-friendliness with regard to children, but looking at it from another angle, does my hon. Friend agree that MPs who are carers of other family members also need time to talk and for family time at the end of the day? For instance, my husband was very ill with cancer last year and needed attention. He does not need a crèche in this place, but other family members certainly have needs.

[Karin Smyth]

I absolutely agree. I will come on to make a similar point about looking after older people.

From the mouths of babes: in the summer, my 10-year-old said to me that a boy in his class told him that he does not see his dad in the morning because he leaves Bristol before he gets up, that he gets back from work late, at 10 o’clock, and that he is away at work five days a week. I have generally been able to get home on a Thursday to pick up my 10-year-old, so I take the point made by others that some people have it worse than many of us. We are sometimes able to flex our working days and to plan around our home life. I think my little 10-year-old suddenly thought to himself, “I’m a bit better off than many others.”

I said that I was going to mention caring for older people. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East (Colleen Fletcher) made a good point about caring for spouses and other family members. That is very important, especially for people in their 50s and 60s.

I concur with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) about the culture here, particularly on a Wednesday, when there is a noticeable difference in the number of photographers, journalists and lobby groups—particularly young men—in this place. That reflects the fact that family-friendliness is about not only MPs and perceptions of privilege, but the wider political culture in which we operate. I praise our journalists, photographers, lobbyists and so on for their work, and I hope that by having this debate, we lend some support to that wider movement.

There are lessons to be learned from the Scottish and Welsh Parliaments about the predictability of the agenda. As the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Sir Simon Burns) said, we should commend political parties. It was only through all-women shortlists that the Labour party was able to force itself to take the issue seriously and to build a weight of numbers. The Conservative A-list has also helped. We must welcome the number of women who have come into Parliament as Scottish National party Members. There is a good opportunity for Parliament to lead on this issue.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Fabian Hamilton (in the Chair)]

Order. According to my calculations, each of the Front-Bench speakers has about nine minutes.

15:32

[Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hamilton. I thank the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), my Select Committee colleague and fellow feminist, for securing this debate.

This building—this institution—was not built with women or families in mind. I direct Members’ attention to the Lady Members’ Room, to which I was introduced in my first week here. It appears to be a place with comfortable chairs that harks back to the days when women were expected to iron and adorn themselves with doilies—lovely, I am sure, but I am quite confident that that would not be seen in the men’s rooms.

This House ought to consider the reality that there are currently more male MPs than there have ever been female MPs. That is an astounding statistic and things cannot continue like this. What does that say to women and girls? What will the gradual effect be on the idea of women in powerful positions in the world? We must educate women and girls, and also men and boys, and show that this place is representative of society as a whole, but we can do that only when it becomes so.

[Barbara Keeley]

One morning I found an SNP MP ironing in the Lady Members’ Room, so the hon. Lady is quite right.

[Angela Crawley]

We all need to iron; it is not gender-specific.

What message does this place send to young people wishing to start families? It is, “Politics is not for you.” This place will be representative of only certain sections of society if we dismiss the role of parenting or undermine it by indicating that the House is only for the big boys or people who can, as the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Sir Simon Burns) said, get out of their beds earlier or travel down the night before. Those attitudes, and many like them, are the very reason—

[Sir Simon Burns]

I do not want the hon. Lady to misrepresent what I said. I was talking about how the hours on a Monday could involve us starting from 11.30 am, as we do on Tuesday and Wednesday. It is self-evident that in order to go to work on Monday morning, Members who are not based in London would either have to come down to London the night before, which is not very family-friendly, or to get up early on Monday morning. That is just a fact of life.

[Angela Crawley]

I recognise the right hon. Gentleman’s comments, but I do not need a lecture on the geography of this country and how difficult it is for Members from rural and urban communities to get here.

[Sir Simon Burns]

But you do on being accurate.

[Angela Crawley]

I will continue. The right hon. Gentleman’s attitude only reaffirms the need for this debate.

To be clear, this is not about questioning the commitment of female Members—or, indeed, any Members—to their jobs. When will this place begin to advocate a greater emphasis on shared parenting or consider additional caring responsibilities?

My colleagues on the Women and Equalities Committee will be all too familiar with my ability to champion Scotland as a beacon, and this is an area in which there has been more progress than in the House of Commons. The Scottish Parliament sits until 5 pm each day, whereas this House can sit as late as 11 pm, or continue for even longer. Voting in the Scottish Parliament takes seconds, while voting in this House can take anything up to 20 minutes. The Scottish Parliament has a crèche that is open until the close of business, and it sits for three days a week, allowing Members two days in their constituency properly to fulfil their roles. The Scottish Government have one of the first gender-balanced Cabinets in the world. All three party leaders in Scotland are female. None of them were backroom boys, and I am sure that they would not like to be known as such, although I am not suggesting that that was what the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) meant. Thirty-five per cent. of Members of the Scottish Parliament are female, and the SNP will go into the Holyrood elections with more female candidates than ever before.

When will this place begin to consider the long-term, sustained impact of juggling professional and personal commitments? How have the strongest relationships surpassed many of the challenges that the job entails? How do we continue as a family-friendly, positive working environment? When will this House consider the reality behind the rhetoric? On gender-balanced Cabinets, smashing the gender pay gap, reducing inequalities and dealing with maternity discrimination, is this place really setting the standard? Let us get this House in order first.

If we present everyone with the reality of long hours, arduous travel and endless hours of debating, the House may never progress. This House must be more family-friendly, diverse and progressive. Most importantly, it must also be representative, so let us get this House in order.

15:37

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hamilton. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) on securing this important debate and thank her for her excellent contribution.

Last night, I left the House at about 10.40 pm, after votes. I understand that that is decidedly early for this place, but it is even earlier than the leaving times of the Doorkeepers, the catering staff, librarians and all the other staff on the parliamentary estate who work around the operations of the political business of the day. The reality is that, when parliamentary life is so unpredictable, neither staff nor MPs can easily plan their real lives outside this place. The concept of family-friendliness is often seen in narrow terms—that it is the women MPs who have children who want a system to suit them. The right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) said we should have a people-friendly Parliament. We should have a system that suits as many people as possible and that suits their lives as much as possible, and that includes the staff who work here as much as the MPs, the men as much as the women, and those with family caring responsibilities other than children.

Making parliament more family friendly is a crucial step towards achieving equal representation for women in politics, which, unfortunately, we are far from achieving. In 2015, only 29% of Members of Parliament are female. The UK is doing worse on female representation than Uganda, Zimbabwe and many of our European neighbours. The good news is that we have increased the number of female MPs since the election in May, and we have now overtaken Afghanistan—just.

Equally important to this debate is the motherhood gap in the House of Commons. That is to say, female MPs are significantly less likely than our male colleagues to have children. My hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Jo Cox) transposed the figures a little, but the studies conducted during the previous Parliament showed that although only 28% of male MPs had no children, the figure for women was much higher—45%—which suggests that women view the life of an MP as incompatible with caring for a child. The system is geared towards the traditional view that parliamentarians are men with a wife at home to look after the children. There is no consideration of modern families that do not fit that outdated concept. The same goes for staff in this place. Are single parents, new parents and carers less likely to consider working on the parliamentary estate as a career when the system is so unpredictable? I do not know; perhaps the Minister does.

The Government have worked hard to present themselves as a modern, representative, “UK now” Government, but failing to take seriously such inherent issues in the system, which present themselves again and again, leaves our great Parliament looking more stuck in the dark ages than the gothic arches under which we sit. This matters, because a House of Commons that is truly representative of the population of the United Kingdom will be more attuned to the needs of the public. For example, it was following a surge in the number of women MPs entering Parliament 20 years ago that the gender pay gap started to be properly measured and began to close. Similarly, some of the issues that most desperately need addressing today are those that parents are acutely conscious of, such as the need for affordable childcare and the need to ensure that the housing market works for our children’s generation.

I thank all hon. Members who spoke today—particularly those who shared their personal experiences of how difficult the House can be for Members with children. I know that there is only a small sample of Members here today, but in a survey conducted by Mumsnet, which another colleague spoke about earlier, two thirds of MPs said that their job has a negative impact on their family life. One MP surveyed said:

“I have a two-year-old daughter and no-one cares if I don’t see her.”

Another senior MP said:

“I never saw my children grow up and I’ll regret this to the day I die.”

I think that is a terrible indictment of a modern working environment.

A number of excellent points have been made by colleagues today about how Parliament is failing to be family-friendly. If, as the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) said, councils can make accommodation to allow new mums to bring their babies into the chamber and, as has been mentioned, the European Parliament allows elected Members to breastfeed babies during debates, is it not time for this place to open itself up to a 21st-century way of working, rather than hide behind Victorian values?

Hon. Members said that the tabloid media might seek to undermine breastfeeding parents in this place. If breastfeeding continues to be viewed as the exception rather than the rule and does not become commonplace then, yes, it is open to ridicule.

[Karin Smyth]

It is not just about elected institutions. I served as a non-executive director of a primary care trust 10 years ago, and I was able to bring my young child along to health authority meetings and breastfeed without any fear of anything going wrong. A wide range of other bodies also manage to do the same.

[Melanie Onn]

There is nothing more to add to that; it is the perfect example of how it can work in different environments.

My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley kindly credited me for proposing that parliamentary recesses coincide with the school holidays, but I do not think I was the first to propose that. We need to take a long, hard look at how we operate. It is ludicrous that we are about to go on recess, but half term was two weeks ago. I am not going to see my son for an extended period. I have been reduced to being a parent for three nights a week, which does not feel very satisfactory. As other hon. Members said, Scottish schools’ summer holiday periods coincide with just two weeks of parliamentary recess. Giving greater consideration to planning our sitting days around term times would greatly benefit not just MPs but House staff, but that does not seem to be forthcoming. The Government still have not announced the House’s recess dates for Easter, which is just four months away. Will the Minister tell us whether there is any justification for that, other than tradition?

This is not just a legislative Chamber but a workplace and, I think, a museum. We welcome visitors from around the world to view the Palace. We invite constituents, businesses and charities to meet us, so where are the signs for the baby changing facilities? Where are the designated areas for breastfeeding? We should be leading by example and showing what a modern working environment can be. How can we lecture employers on flexible working and childcare provision if we cannot get it right ourselves and do not even seem to be trying?

Professor Sarah Childs from the University of Bristol, who is here today, has been appointed to carry out an independent assessment of gender inequality in Parliament. When I last asked the Minister about what changes are being planned to make Parliament more family friendly, she just said that the Procedure Committee had looked at sitting hours and decided not to make further changes. In this debate, we have heard that there is a wide range of other issues that we should consider in the round. I hope the Minister agrees that, once the report is published, it is right and proper to have a debate in the Commons Chamber in Government time so we can properly debate its findings.

15:46

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Dr Thérèse Coffey)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hamilton. I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) on securing this debate. Just six months into being a Member of Parliament, she has certainly made an impression on the House. She is right to say that this is not a partisan issue. I know she is a busy lady. She sits on the Women and Equalities Committee, and she is also a member of the Backbench Business Committee, which I believe is meeting at the same time as this debate, so she has had to sacrifice her presence there to be here. In its previous sitting, it seems that there was a minor fracas about international men’s day, which continued on “Daily Politics”. When I saw it, I wondered whether it had become a parliamentary version of “Snog Marry Avoid?” I do not expect her to say which it is.

[Jess Phillips]

Snog! [Laughter.]

[Dr Coffey]

The hon. Lady widened the debate beyond MPs to the demands on all staff—particularly House staff. I pay tribute to all staff who help us in our roles as Members of Parliament. This issue matters to the House. Perhaps I should encourage the House of Commons authorities to make more widely known what happens in relation to flexible working, nurseries, childcare schemes in our unusual summer holidays, career breaks and so on. That information is useful, and I will ask the House authorities to extend it further and especially to new Members.

We should also recognise that we are employers in our own right, so we must be role models when we work with our staff. I tell my team off—I do not know whether they are watching—if they work later than a certain hour. I give them notice and tell them that if they keep doing it, I will have their keys removed and kick them out at a certain time. It matters that we are role models, as has been said many times already in this debate.

We are unique in a certain respect: although we should and do represent wider society, we are the masters and mistresses of our own destiny from the day we are elected until we put ourselves forward for re-election. We should consider how we perform our roles as parliamentarians. The issue is not about being superwoman or superman, but being conscious that we are representing people when we are in the Chamber, when we scrutinise legislation, when we become Ministers and when we work in our constituencies. Our party leaders expect us to be here to vote on important matters, but, as we have discussed in previous years, to some extent we can work with the usual channels to ensure we have a sensible, proactive family life. Although I do not have children, I believe that such accommodations are often willingly made.

[Neil Gray]

I take the point made by the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Sir Simon Burns), who said that things were more difficult in the past. Thank goodness for technology. Those of us who are parents are able to use FaceTime, Skype and what have you to keep in touch with our children. Would it not be more appropriate for this House to use technology to enable us to work more effectively as representatives, rather than use technology as parents?

[Dr Coffey]

The House is using technology more and more, but the hon. Gentleman may want it to go further. I passed a colleague other day who was on FaceTime celebrating with their daughter the opening of her birthday presents. It was a sweet and charming moment and is something that simply was not available until recently.

I am conscious that I have to give some time to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley, so I will try to get through a few of the issues raised in the debate. Quite a lot has been said about the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority and people’s demands. It is important to ensure that the public understand that decisions about pay, pensions and expenses are made by IPSA, which puts its schemes out for consultation. It is statutorily obliged in the first year of a Parliament to undertake a specific review, to which I strongly urge Members to respond.

I made personal representations in the previous Parliament about colleagues who live on the fringes of London and yet have to dash for the train rather than participate in Adjournment debates, for example. The challenge of maintaining a family while working here and in the constituency is well known, and IPSA has changed following the initial backlash after the 2009 expenses issues. Beginning with a strict regime, I believe that it has made a bit of a journey and I encourage it to consider such matters more.

Specific issues were raised by, among others, the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) and I will take them up with IPSA. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley made a particularly useful suggestion about changing how IPSA reports on childcare. On media responsibility and how expenses are reported, I often say that I claim the expenses necessary in order for me to fulfil my role to my constituents, and my newspaper has finally got that fact.

On timetabling, the hon. Lady suggested that she would probably sit for longer in order to spend less time here. There was an active debate in 2012, about which I had a brief conversation with the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn), about the fact that the Select Committee on Procedure considered the matter in the previous Parliament. Sitting hours are very much a matter for the House, and the Procedure Committee is the right avenue to re-explore them. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Sir Simon Burns) referred to the idea of an earlier start on a Monday, but I am conscious of the fact that people come from the four corners of the United Kingdom and that Sunday as a special family day is important for them. That is a strong argument and is why the House voted unanimously in 2012 to keep the later Monday start, while protecting the current eight and a half hours of sitting time.

On the other Parliaments in the UK, which sit for three days and then have two constituency or family days, I suggest to the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) and the others who made that point that I find amazing what we manage to squeeze into four or four and a half days. There is then the suggestion that the House should sit for more weeks, but I am unsure whether that would lead to the right balance. The way that the parliamentary timetable has evolved allows people to be here for three days a week in most weeks if that that is what they choose to do; the issue is about judging what is best for oneself.

It is important to stress that a recess is not a holiday. Many people use recesses to undertake constituency work, and it is not right to suggest that we are not in touch with our constituents if we are not in our constituencies on a Friday as we have decided to be here for a private Member’s Bill. I have always felt that if Parliament is sitting, the reasons for my being here and not necessarily in my constituency are valid.

On knowing about business slightly further ahead of time, I do not have the Chief Whip’s understanding of exactly what is happening in both Houses, but we do, to be fair, try to give two weeks’ notice of the business being conducted. Some of that is because the timetabling at our end depends on what is happening in other House, and the relationship is not always easy to predict far in advance, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley may recognise following recent debates in the other place.

The decision in the previous Parliament to switch the Tuesday sitting hours from 2.30 pm to 11.30 am was close and was made on the basis of a majority of only 15. There is a strong view that what might work for people who are based in London does not necessarily work for people based elsewhere, and that debate may continue in this Parliament.

On voting, it is important that we keep debates with votes. I understand that the Speaker, in conjunction with the Chief Whips of each party, has made arrangements regarding young children going into the Division Lobbies. I am not aware of any issues. Regarding time limits on speeches, I do not like the Scottish or European Parliaments’ way of allocating time to parties, because it really impacts on the opportunities for Members from smaller parties to contribute to debates.

[Melanie Onn]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dr Coffey]

I will have to sit down in one minute’s time, but I will give way briefly.

[Melanie Onn]

I am grateful. The problem with the Speaker and the Whips making arrangements is that there are no hard and fast rules. Unless such things are laid down, it is not always clear how people can seek to make this place work better for them.

[Dr Coffey]

I will ensure that I speak to the Opposition Whips so that they have a session with their MPs to discuss the matter, as has already happened on our side.

Moving on to breastfeeding, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford referred to the Betty Boothroyd test, which I believe still stands. We may talk about it being the 21st century, but this is a workplace and it is not something that people enjoy wider than that. I do not believe that there is a big view in the House to make the shift at this time.

Probably the most difficult issue is that of recesses, school holidays and so on. I have done quite a lot of work on this and noted that the Scottish and Northern Irish seem to follow similar holiday patterns and the English and Welsh follow theirs. I cannot go into too much detail now as time is against me, but the business managers are listening. Some 10% of MPs are significantly disrupted by this matter, and it so happens that there was a three-week overlap this summer between the end of the recess and the beginning of Scottish schools restarting. That is something that we will consider carefully. Conferences tend to be booked five years in advance, and I understand that conversations are under way to try to see what we can do in the next Parliament.

I am not sure that I have been able to cover quite everything. I agree with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley on job sharing, which would be very difficult. On maternity and parental leave, however, the coalition Government brought in the concept of shared parental leave. We are masters and mistresses of our own destiny, so it is up to us to decide how we address that, but it has always been more than well accommodated by Government. I am sure that the House will continue have further debates on this and other matters, and I appreciate Members’ representations today.

15:58

[Jess Phillips]

I thank all hon. Members who gave their views today. I welcome some of the Deputy Leader of the House’s assertions, in particular around the limited holiday possibilities for the Scottish representatives. The debate will not go away today; it will continue year in, year out. For every push back from the Government Benches, we need to ask ourselves, “Why?” Nobody has died. My mother always used to say to me, “Nothing bad happened if nobody lost an eye,” which did not help me when my son went to have an eye operation. There always seems to be push back on why these things cannot happen.

[Dr Coffey]

The Government would love to control every minute of parliamentary time, which would be bad for Parliament and for the country. Flexibility is often to the benefit of the Opposition.

[Jess Phillips]

I recognise that the Government are not alone in controlling what happens here, but this place is not representative at the moment. That is a simple fact. All of today’s speeches from people with caring responsibilities, be that for their children or elderly relatives or partners who may have been unwell, make that perfectly clear. When I leave this place, I want to see 50:50 representation of women and men.

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

Barnett Floor (Wales)

Tuesday 10th November 2015 Westminster Hall

[Nadine Dorries in the Chair]

16:00

[Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered a Barnett floor for Wales.

It is a privilege to have secured my first Westminster Hall debate, which is on an important topic affecting funding for Wales in general and my constituents in particular. We all know how difficult the funding settlements have been in recent years. The Welsh Government have faced great funding challenges, and local councils, including my own Torfaen County Borough Council, are struggling to make ends meet and doing their best to protect front-line services when less and less money is coming from Westminster.

[Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the losses that local authorities have experienced and will continue to experience. In 2014-15, Neath Port Talbot’s budget was cut by £17 million. It has been predicted that, from April 2016, Neath Port Talbot will lose £18 million or possibly more, depending on the autumn statement. Public services have already been cut severely—

[Nadine Dorries (in the Chair)]

Order. Please make an intervention not a speech.

[Christina Rees]

I am simply making the point that we should not suffer from the Barnett formula.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. The Neath Port Talbot example further illustrates and reinforces the point that I made about Torfaen.

The debate deals with an aspect of Westminster funding, the so-called Barnett floor. As Members are aware, Joel—later Lord—Barnett introduced the Barnett formula in 1978, when he was Chief Secretary to the Treasury, in the context of the devolution debate of that era. He did not originally intend that it should become a permanent feature, yet here, some 37 years later, it still governs the Wales-Westminster fiscal relationship.

More recently, in 2009, the interim report of the Holtham commission, “Funding devolved government in Wales: Barnett and beyond”, was published. It suggested that Wales was underfunded.

[Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, despite the 2009 Holtham report suggesting the implementation of a floor, it is frustrating that six years later we have still not seen it happen?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. I will come to that in a moment.

The report suggested that Wales was underfunded by £300 million a year compared with how much English regions would receive were the Barnett formula applied to them. In 2010, when the final Holtham report, “Fairness and accountability: a new funding settlement for Wales”, was published, the underfunding gap was even wider, at about £400 million a year, using a needs-based formula.

As my hon. Friend has just pointed out, to prevent a further decline in relative funding per head for Wales, the Holtham interim report had called for a Barnett floor as a temporary solution until a new needs-based formula could be agreed.

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

May I take my hon. Friend’s thoughts back to 2008, when I was a Wales Office Minister? The budget for Wales had gone up from £7 billion to £14 billion; by the time we left office, it was £16 billion. It has now decreased significantly. Any false arguments over additional tax-raising powers are nothing compared with the fact that we now need the Barnett floor. When Labour was in government, it was Barnett-plus; we now need a Barnett floor.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Record investment in public services in Wales was made under the Labour Government. Indeed, the Conservatives were so impressed that in September 2007 the then shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer—now Chancellor—adopted our spending plans for the next couple of years. That is how impressed they were, although these days they seem to be taking a different view of that record investment.

The Barnett floor works by multiplying positive funding increments to Wales not only by the comparability factor and population share, but by a further percentage increment. The qualifier is that the formula is not intended to work in reverse, with negative funding increments, because that would simply widen the underfunding gap.

In October 2010, the National Assembly for Wales unanimously endorsed a motion for the implementation of a funding floor, to be followed by wider funding reform. Nevertheless, the coalition Government of 2010 to 2015 did not deliver.

[Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should be acting with greater urgency on implementing the funding floor, given the Holtham commission statement that Wales could be underfunded by between £5.3 billion and £8.5 billion over the 10 years to 2020? Does he also agree that the Government’s lack of action on the matter suggests a lack of interest in achieving a funding floor and fairer funding for Wales?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I agree entirely. The matter is urgent, but we are concerned about the Government’s lack of interest. The coalition’s programme for government in the previous Parliament stated that the priority was to reduce the deficit and that changes to the system could await stabilisation of the public finances, although why exactly the coalition Government were incapable of paying sufficient attention to Wales to deal with the issue—or even to start dealing with it—remains entirely unclear.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Given that the Barnett formula has been in question since 1978, why did the hon. Gentleman’s party not rectify the Welsh funding shortfall while it was in government?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I repeat to the hon. Lady a point made powerfully by my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies): in 1997 to 2010, we had what he called “Barnett-plus”, which was record investment in public services in Wales, to the benefit of both my constituents and hers.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

I had the privilege of succeeding my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore as a Wales Office Minister and I held that post in the run-up to the 2010 general election. One of the things that we were proud of was the firm commitment in our manifesto to address that very issue.—Unfortunately, we lost the election.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. In 2015, we also had a manifesto commitment on the Barnett floor; but unfortunately, we were again not in government after the election.

In 2012, consideration was given to how Wales’s share of future funding would not fall again when public expenditure started to rise—the so-called “Barnett squeeze”. In the autumn of that year, the UK Government formally agreed that there was a squeeze and that such convergence had taken place. They said that they would review the position at each spending review, to assess whether it would recur, and address the issue. Alas, I am afraid that they did not.

On 8 July, the Government’s lack of interest in Wales was perhaps summed up in the Chancellor’s Budget speech. In one short reference, he said:

“In Wales, we are honouring our commitments to a funding floor and to more devolution there, and investing in important new infrastructure such as the M4 and the Great Western line.”—[Official Report, 8 July 2015; Vol. 598, c. 329.]

That promise came five years after the Assembly had voted unanimously on the matter—five years later. Put simply, the people of Wales have waited long enough for the UK Government to deliver.

[Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman warmly on his first Westminster Hall debate. I am sympathetic to fairer funding for Wales in a needs-based system, but should not any adjustment or floor to make things fair come from the financial settlement of any country that has gained under the current, outdated Barnett formula?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that, during this Parliament, we have an opportunity to debate all such matters. The Scotland Bill continued its passage through the House only yesterday. This is the time to look at fair funding throughout the United Kingdom.

I ask the Minister to answer some specific questions. First, the Secretary of State for Wales said in the spring that the Government would deliver on a Barnett floor by the autumn. I would be grateful if the Minister gave us a more exact timescale, given that we are already into November.

Will the Minister confirm whether the proposals on the Barnett floor will be as proposed by the Holtham commission? Will he update us on what the indexation figure is likely to be? I hope that he will give us a cast-iron guarantee that the Holtham recommendation on a Barnett floor will be implemented in full before any further debate on fair funding for Wales. In this Parliament, as I said a moment ago, the Scotland Bill and the Wales Bill provide an ideal opportunity for such a debate to take place.

On Second Reading of the Scotland Bill on 8 June, I said that the Government must not see the different nations of the United Kingdom entirely in isolation; they must look at changes across the board and how they impact on each other. That said, the devolution settlement has become a central part of our constitution and we should not forget the positive benefits that devolution has brought since Labour introduced it in 1999.

The great socialist thinker, R. H. Tawney, thought that dispersal of power was best because

“It makes people more accessible to each other than a system where power is highly centralised and society is a tapestry of authoritarian links”.

That notion of accessibility, with decisions being made closest to the people they affect, has a modern resonance. He also said:

“The only sound test, in the first place, of a political system, is its practical effect on the lives of human beings”.

That is absolutely right and that is why today’s debate is so important.

The idea of a Barnett floor is not an abstract notion; it is a practical step that could make a difference to people’s lives and the services that they rely on. It has a short and medium-term aspect. I accept that it has less impact in a declining budget, but the principle should be implemented as soon as possible for its impact on positive increments. Put simply, the Government should act, and act now.

16:12

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Alun Cairns)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries, for what I think is the first time. I congratulate the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) on securing the important debate, particularly as it is his first Westminster Hall debate. We have had an interesting discussion and I am grateful to the hon. Members for Neath (Christina Rees), for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), for Caerphilly (Wayne David) and for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones) for their contributions. I will do my best to answer all the points made.

I want to underline that the Government remain committed to delivering the St David’s day Command Paper, which will create a stronger, clearer and fairer devolution settlement for Wales. That, of course, includes the funding floor that the hon. Member for Torfaen and others have called for. The St David’s day agreement led to the draft Wales Bill, which was published on 20 October and is being considered as we speak.

The Bill will build a stronger Wales in a strong United Kingdom by devolving important powers over energy, transport and local government and Assembly elections. It will also make devolution work better, as the Assembly and the Welsh Government will be clear about the powers they have and the challenges to which they need to be able to respond.

I reaffirm the Government’s commitment to the introduction of a funding floor alongside the next spending review. It is worth clarifying the current positon of funding, which is an ever-dynamic environment. The Holtham commission’s report, to which the hon. Member for Torfaen and others referred, was established by the Welsh Government to analyse the relative level of needs in Wales compared with England in 2009 and 2010.

The work by Professor Holtham and his commission has had a significant impact on informing the debate in Wales and I pay tribute to him for his work. The report set out a range from 114% to 117% of comparable English funding per head in which it thought that funding for the Welsh Government would be “fair.”

The report also highlighted that the relative levels of funding provided to the Welsh Government had converged towards the average level of funding for comparable activities in England since the start of devolution. It was therefore interesting to hear the hon. Member for Ogmore talk about the increase in the Welsh block grant from £7 billion to £14 billion, because relative funding for Wales in that period deteriorated. It was from the commission’s range that the Welsh Government claimed that they were underfunded by £300 million back in 2010.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

On the Barnett squeeze, the coalition Government conceded that that had happened in 2012. Why has nothing been done in three years?

[Alun Cairns]

I will come to that point in a moment, but it is worth remembering that the Command Paper, which was agreed by all parties, was published earlier this year and that committed specifically to acting within the next spending review period. As I said, the Barnett floor and spending commitments for Wales will be published alongside that.

The £300 million spoken about compared with a budget of roughly £15 billion. It is also worth noting that when Holtham reported, there was total identifiable spending in Wales of approximately £29 billion.

A lot has changed since 2010, both financially and politically. A joint statement in 2012 by both Governments recognised the resonance of this issue in Wales. In particular, it recognised the Welsh Government’s concerns that their funding would converge further towards English levels. However, joint work with the Welsh Government at the previous spending review confirmed that funding is not forecast to converge during the period to 2015-16. That refutes the points made by several Opposition Members; that was joint work agreed with the Welsh Government. Furthermore, Holtham’s logic also illustrated that the relative level of funding per head had risen, or diverged to use the technical term, and it is now in the range that the commission regarded as fair.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

None the less, the Minister cannot ignore the 78% of 10,000 people responding to a YouGov poll who said that Wales should be funded to the equivalent level of Scotland, which would bring in an extra £1.2 billion.

[Alun Cairns]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady, but Scotland’s devolution settlement, and therefore its financial settlement, is naturally different. However, I pay tribute to her for her earlier point, when she asked why Labour did not act in its 13 years in government, when there was a greater divergence between the relative funding in Wales and England, and Wales was getting worse off.

[Craig Williams (Cardiff North) (Con)]

I apologise for joining the debate late and I commend the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) for introducing it. Given Labour’s 13 years of inaction on this issue and the clear commitment the Chancellor has made to dealing with it, may I ask the Minister what the Labour party’s position is on the Barnett funding floor and the Barnett formula in general? I thought that the Leader of the Opposition wanted to tear it up.

[Alun Cairns]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that. I smiled as various points were being made in the Chamber that underlined not only the inaction during that period of Labour Administration, but the differing messages that are coming from Labour in Westminster and in Cardiff Bay.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

On the first point, given the intervention from the hon. Member for Cardiff North (Craig Williams) and the Minister’s response, I assume that they are now praising the last Labour Government’s investment and not trying to make out that it was our spending that caused the crash. On the second point, it is quite clear that we see the Barnett floor as a useful first step towards a needs-based solution in the future. There is no inconsistency in that.

[Alun Cairns]

The position has already moved since the hon. Gentleman’s first contribution to this debate.

To make some progress on the specific points raised, a lot of questions were asked about the timing. I remind hon. Members that earlier this year in the St David’s day Command Paper we committed, for the very first time, to introducing a floor to the level of relative funding provided to the Welsh Government, alongside the spending review. This Conservative Government made that historic commitment and we absolutely stand by it. On the question of urgency, we stand by what we said before the election and will deliver that.

The right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) has admitted that when the Labour party was last in power and he was Chief Secretary to the Treasury he knew that the Barnett formula

“wasn’t fair to Wales and there would need to be changes”,

yet Labour did absolutely nothing about it. I will not accept any crocodile tears from Opposition Members. Although the right hon. Member for Leigh has since made that explicit comment, no action was taken in that whole period other than a diverging funding settlement for Wales relative to the rest of the United Kingdom.

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

It strikes me when listening to the Minister that I am not sure whether we are extravagant spenders or penny-pinching individuals. Whichever it is, the money went up from £7 billion to £16 billion, and that does not sound like either to me. Will the Minister answer one point he has not yet answered: does he not agree with Holtham that Wales is underfunded to the tune of £300 million a year?

[Alun Cairns]

The figures of £7 billion to £16 billion have been repeated time and again, but Holtham identified that during that period Wales’s relative position was worse. As I have said, the changes made over the past five years have put current spending in Wales within the Holtham range, as acknowledged by the Welsh Government.

[Carolyn Harris]

Will the Minister assure this Chamber that Wales will not be further disadvantaged in the upcoming spending review?

[Alun Cairns]

The spending review is a matter for the Chancellor. We, as a Conservative Government, are delivering on our commitment to introduce the Barnett floor, as we have announced, alongside the spending review. That commitment was repeated in our manifesto and the floor will be introduced, as announced.

[Wayne David]

The operation of the Barnett formula and the Barnett floor is complicated, but does the Minister accept—this is fundamental to our whole discussion—that at a time of falling public expenditure, when cuts are being made, the Barnett floor is not really an issue? It is only an issue at a time of increasing public expenditure. It is relatively easy for the Government to introduce the Barnett floor now, and I suggest they should, but its real impact will be in the future, when expenditure increases.

[Alun Cairns]

I find it a bit rich that the hon. Gentleman is complaining that a Barnett floor has yet to be introduced when we are committed to introducing it. We said we would do it last March and in our manifesto, and we will introduce it alongside the next spending review. When he was part of an Administration, although Wales’s relative position was deteriorating, absolutely nothing was done to introduce a Barnett floor.

Hon. Members will be aware that since 2010 significant commitments have been made, beyond the Barnett formula, to back the Welsh economy. Those include a commitment to fund and upgrade the great western main line through to Swansea and a significant contribution to the cost of the upgrade and electrification of the valley lines, reinforcing the UK Government’s support for improving infrastructure in Wales. Two years ago, the Welsh Government were given early access to capital borrowing powers to use for M4 improvements.

[Craig Williams]

That is a very interesting point. Not only have we promised the funding floor—and we will deliver it—but we have given the Welsh Government access to borrow money to fix a horrendous problem in south Wales, namely the M4 congestion, by delivering an M4 relief road, yet they are still dithering.

[Alun Cairns]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I can hardly speak to business people or people who travel the border regularly without their complaining about the delays around Newport. We urge the Welsh Government to take the strongest action possible to complete the job of bridging the M4 around the south of Newport.

A new prison is being built in Wrexham, in a £212 million project supporting over 1,000 jobs. Through tax devolution we are empowering the Welsh Government with further levers to support and encourage the growth of the Welsh economy. Business rates have now been fully devolved, something I hope Opposition Members will acknowledge. Stamp duty and landfill tax will be devolved in 2018, as has already been committed to.

We would like progress on the devolution of a portion of income tax, as specified in the Wales Act 2014. Tax devolution will make the Welsh Government responsible for raising more of the money that they spend. Excluding Welsh rates of income tax, the Assembly will be responsible for approximately 10% of all taxes collected in Wales. The introduction of the Welsh rate of income tax would make the Assembly responsible for twice as much, or approximately another £2 billion in revenue. The Government will implement the commitments of the St David’s day Command Paper to build a stronger, clearer and fairer devolution settlement for Wales.

[Jonathan Lord]

I welcome everything the Minister is saying, but, to return to the Barnett floor, may I ask for an assurance that English taxpayers will not be disadvantaged by any adjustments or Barnett floor, and that any money to accommodate a Barnett floor will come from countries that get more than their fair share on a needs basis?

[Alun Cairns]

The specifics on that point will be outlined in the comprehensive spending review by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

Will the Minister give way?

[Alun Cairns]

With the greatest respect, I need to make some progress in the limited time remaining.

Last month, we published the draft Wales Bill, a key part of providing a clearer devolution settlement. We all want a funding floor for Wales, and it is right that that is accompanied by the devolution of income tax powers, because, by raising more of the money they spend, the Assembly Government will be more accountable to the people of Wales. Since 2010, Wales has recorded the fastest growth per head in the UK outside London, demonstrating the dynamism of the funding and spending position. Wales had the joint fastest growth of all the regions and devolved nations in 2013, with gross value added growing by 3.4%, well ahead of the figure for the UK. It is now time to move the debate forward and encourage the Welsh Government to use both the powers they already have and the new ones they are gaining to drive further growth in the Welsh economy.

Some specific points were raised on funding for local authorities. That is a matter for the Welsh Government—they decide how much money should be distributed to local authorities. I know that many in my constituency complain about how the cake is sliced in Wales, but that is the responsibility of the Welsh Government and it would be improper were this Government to intervene in those sorts of issues.

I underline that this Government are absolutely committed to introducing the funding floor as stated in the St David’s day agreement. We will introduce it as part of and alongside the comprehensive spending review.

Question put and agreed to.

Renegotiation of EU Membership (Devolved Administrations)

Tuesday 10th November 2015 Westminster Hall

16:30

[Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the role of devolved administrations in UK renegotiation of EU membership.

This is the first time I have had the opportunity to lead a Westminster Hall debate—and the first time I have served under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. It is good to see the Minister again. I know he will have had a long day, but I am sure he is as delighted to see me again as I am to see him. The debate is timely; it is fortuitous that it has come about on a day when a great deal of attention has been paid to European Union renegotiation. I am sure the Prime Minister wrote his letter just in time for our debate. I was pleased to see it.

EU renegotiation will have a significant impact on all parts of the United Kingdom. We often forget in this place that the impact of EU laws does not begin and end in this House or in London; it goes out to all parts of the United Kingdom, not least the devolved Administrations. As I mentioned in the main Chamber earlier today, Scottish National party Members think there has been a sore lack of formal consultation. I am glad that the Minister spoke to Fiona Hyslop earlier today and that there is some merit in these Westminster Hall debates—they can prompt such things—but we need more in the way of formal consultation.

What a difference a year makes! Just last year, the Prime Minister told us that independence would risk Scotland’s place in the European Union, and now here we are, closer to exit than ever before. Having reflected briefly on that debate today, let me say that the Minister has his work cut out in keeping his allies on the Conservative Back Benches on side.

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

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on obtaining this debate about the UK’s possible exit from the European Union. There is a potential impact on businesses within the devolved regions. Is he aware that we, in Northern Ireland, are in a unique position because we have a land border with the Republic of Ireland, which will remain within the European Union?

[Nadine Dorries (in the Chair)]

Order. Please keep interventions short.

[Ms Ritchie]

There is also an impact in terms of the euro exchange rate mechanism. Does the hon. Gentleman have any comments on that?

[Stephen Gethins]

I thank the hon. Lady for raising that point. I want to talk today about all devolved Administrations, not only Scotland. I am particularly pleased to see Members here from Northern Ireland, Wales and elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Renegotiation will have a significant impact in Northern Ireland, not least given the particular situation of its land border with Ireland and the large number of jobs that depend on EU membership. That is why I am particularly keen for the UK Government to tell us what they will do to consult with Northern Irish Ministers and Welsh Ministers, not only Ministers in Scotland. The hon. Lady raises a valid point.

There is a key issue here: mutual respect. We should have mutual respect for all democratically elected Governments. The lack of a formal consultation so far has been nothing short of a democratic disgrace, especially given the significant impact that renegotiation will have. The first question I pose to the Minister is not about the consultation that has taken place. What formal consultation process—not a phone call—will there be as we take the Prime Minister’s letter today forward?

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

As a former special adviser who had the privilege of attending Joint Ministerial Committee meetings on Europe and enjoyed the contributions from Fiona Hyslop as a braveheart for Scotland, does the hon. Gentleman agree that that, as a formal structure, is perfunctory? It meets on a three-monthly or four-monthly basis, and no meaningful engagement can take place in that timetabled way when negotiations are proceeding.

[Stephen Gethins]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, as a former special adviser—a noble trade—who has taken part in Joint Ministerial Committee meetings. It is good that the Minister said today that this will be top of the agenda, but it is just not enough, given the immediacy. The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point indeed.

I say to the Minister that he can win friends and influence people, should he just liaise with his colleagues in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. We can look to Richard Lochhead, Europe’s longest-serving fisheries Minister, who has been making the case for farmers and fishermen, Aileen McLeod, who has been promoting Scotland’s world-class climate change action, or Roseanna Cunningham, who has been championing the European Alliance for Apprenticeships.

The EU matters to the devolved Administrations, and the agenda driven by the UK Independence party and Conservative Back Benchers just does not cut it. I will give the Minister a little point of information: UKIP has never saved its deposit in a parliamentary election in Scotland. That will gladden his heart; UKIP is almost as unpopular in Scotland as the Conservatives are.

[Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. By the sound of it, he is not in favour of a referendum, but surely it is about time the British people had a say—and it is the British people. It is not just the devolved Assemblies and Parliaments or just the Scottish, Northern Irish and Welsh people; it is the English people too. This is a reserved matter, and surely it is right that it is taken on a whole-UK basis.

[Stephen Gethins]

Let me give the hon. Gentleman another point of information: the Scottish National party stood on a platform of not having a referendum. We won the election in Scotland—you didn’t. You had the worst election result since 1865. Unlike a number of other parties here, we are quite keen on maintaining our manifesto commitments, so we stuck to them. However, the referendum is taking place, and I will come to that in a minute because we have a few things you might want to listen to.

[Nadine Dorries (in the Chair)]

Order. Can I make the point that no Member in the Chamber or in Westminster Hall is referred to as “you”? Thank you.

[Stephen Gethins]

Thank you. My apologies, Ms Dorries.

The Scottish Government set out renegotiation priorities in their agenda for EU reform, which I make Members aware of once again. I also refer Members to a speech made in June 2015 by Scotland’s First Minister, in which she looked at areas such as more local decision making on health, for example. The fact that the Scottish Government were not able to act on minimum pricing for alcohol was a disgrace: the democratically elected Scottish Government saw it as a particular priority to tackle a particular Scottish public health issue. The First Minister also looked at a single market in energy and digital services—especially our renewables industry, which has taken such a battering recently—and more local discretion in implementing regulation.

As part of our renegotiation, we need to look at how the devolved Administrations work and co-operate with member states. A few years ago, under the previous Labour Administration, a memo was leaked that showed devolved Ministers were not having an impact. In fact, one of them was being sent to the salle d’écoute—for Members whose French is not quite up to scratch, that is the listening room—which is no place for a Minister who oversaw areas such as agriculture and fisheries. Europe matters to the devolved Administrations. It matters in Northern Ireland, as we have heard, given the long land border and the ramifications for the Good Friday agreement and the common travel area. In Wales, up to 200,000 jobs are said to depend on EU membership.

[Ms Ritchie]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for being gracious in giving way again. Is he aware that my local council in Northern Ireland—Newry, Mourne and Down—held a significant conference two weeks ago, which was addressed by the shadow Minister for Europe, the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), on that very point? [Interruption.]

[Nadine Dorries (in the Chair)]

Order. There is a Division in the House. We will suspend the sitting until after the last Division, as we do not know how many there will be. Could Members make their way back here as soon as possible? Thank you.

16:38

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

16:47

On resuming—

[Nadine Dorries (in the Chair)]

As a result of the Division, this debate will now continue until 17.40. Four people have applied to speak after Mr Gethins has finished, so I am going to impose a voluntary time limit of five minutes per speech. If people adhere to that, the Minister and Mr Gethins will have adequate time to respond, but, of course, that is entirely up to you.

[Stephen Gethins]

Thank you, Ms Dorries. Before we went into the Division, I was talking about areas that the Scottish Government have identified where there could be reform, and a lot of that focused on areas for reform where powers could come back. I will come back to this point later, but if there are powers to come back, and if those powers directly relate to the responsibilities of the devolved Administrations, I hope that they will not be devolved back from Brussels just to reside in London and that there will be further devolution to reflect that.

On renegotiation, we often talk about less Europe, but maybe we should sometimes talk about more Europe. The Scottish Government have gone further than elsewhere in the United Kingdom on areas such as climate change or our energy union, where maybe we should be looking at more powers. We could also be looking at more powers in areas of security policy. No one country can possibly deal with the refugee crisis on its own, and the Scottish Government have already set out their willingness to work with European partners and the UK Government to take more refugees.

Let me recap why Europe matters for the devolved Administrations. There are big issues that affect us all in areas such as agriculture policy, fisheries, energy, investment and transport—devolved areas where the EU has a big role and the devolved Administrations have direct responsibility. I have mentioned Northern Ireland. In Wales, up to 200,000 jobs are said to be dependent on EU membership. Even the Isle of Man has a relationship with the EU through the UK as set out in protocol 3 to the UK’s Act of Accession. That is worth bearing in mind.

Key areas for Scotland are set out above, but we often hear about sovereignty. I will read a quote from Professor Douglas-Scott of the university of Oxford and would like the Minister to bear it in mind:

“A UK exit from the EU does not save UK sovereignty. The Claim of Right for Scotland 1989 entrenched the fundamental principle that ‘the people are sovereign’ and that the people have ‘the sovereign right to self-determination and to choose freely the form in which their state is to be constituted’.”

Professor Douglas-Scott’s argument is that

“Therefore, any UK exit of the EU against Scotland’s wishes will create a constitutional crisis rather than save the UK’s sovereignty.”

I leave that with the House to consider.

The hon. Member for Woking (Jonathan Lord), who has not been able to return from the vote yet, referred to the referendum. We were a little disappointed with the European Union Referendum Bill. We wanted to see whether there would be a referendum and we obviously voted against that—that was in our manifesto—but if there is to be a referendum, we want EU citizens and 16 and 17-year-olds to be engaged.

In Dublin yesterday, Fiona Hyslop highlighted the fact that 173,000 EU nationals make their home in Scotland. They made an invaluable contribution to the Scottish independence referendum and make an invaluable contribution to Scotland’s day-to-day life. We want them also to be involved. We want a positive campaign that puts forward a positive vision for Scotland. That is why I was a little concerned about some of the language from the Minister’s Back Benchers on some of these issues.

As we have heard from other hon. Members, Scotland and the other devolved Administrations reap the economic benefits of membership in exports, jobs and so on, but those benefits are not just economic. As Fiona Hyslop said in Dublin last night, solidarity, social protection and mutual support must underpin a modern Europe and we want Scotland to be a part of a progressive European Union with European citizens—despite what we said in the referendum last year, we are all still European citizens—at the heart of decision making. The Scottish Government are committed to making the positive case for reform and I have set that out a little.

I do not want to take up too much time because I know that other hon. Members want to come in, but I want to pose some questions for the Minister to answer in his response. Will he set out the formal role for devolved Administrations in the renegotiations—the formal role; I am not talking about an ad hoc role over the phone? We want to hear about a formal role in the same way as the Prime Minister said today that there should be a formal role for other capitals.

Will the Minister comment on the Scottish Government’s priorities in Scotland’s agenda for EU reform? In future, will devolved Administrations be consulted as a matter of course on decisions that affect them and are made at EU level if we remain part of it? This is not just about changing the EU’s relationship, but perhaps about changing the way we, as a member state, interact. I would like a much more formal role for the devolved Administrations.

In the past, we have seen civil servants or Ministers with no direct responsibility for an issue, such as the Minister for bees, leading fisheries negotiations when the Scottish Minister was present. Will the Minister look again at where Ministers from the devolved Administrations can take a lead, with particular reference to fisheries and agriculture?

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend makes a particularly good point on fisheries, given that the Faroese fisheries Minister—a Minister for 50,000 people—is in a quad situation because he deals with Iceland, Norway and the entire EU. The Faroese fisheries Minister is in a far more powerful position not only than the Scottish Minister but the one based here at Westminster. There needs to be some understanding of the context of fisheries in Scotland, which has the majority of the EU fisheries.

[Stephen Gethins]

My hon. Friend makes a particularly good point. I referred to Richard Lochhead, the fisheries Minister in Scotland who is responsible for around 70% of the fishing industry. He had to sit behind the Minister for bees and an unelected civil servant during common fisheries policy negotiations. Will the Minister deal with that situation when he responds?

In his statement today, the Prime Minister rightly highlighted the Dutch quote:

“Europe where necessary, national where possible.”

If powers are to be devolved from Brussels and back to London, will they, when appropriate, be devolved back to the devolved Administrations where they have responsibility? Will the Minister give that commitment today?

[Mr MacNeil]

On the Dutch quote, one of the problems in Scotland is that we have a middle man in London and we cannot go directly to Brussels.

[Stephen Gethins]

Again, my hon. Friend makes a valid point about Edinburgh having to do its business with Brussels through the middle man of London. While we are where we are and the United Kingdom is a member state, it is in the interests of everyone across the House to make sure that this relationship works as effectively as possible.

Will the Minister respond to my questions? Will he also reflect on the fact that although he may not have many friends on his Back Benches, he has many potential friends in the devolved Administrations? The saltire is the only flag that flies on Scotland House on Robert Schumanplein at the very heart of Brussels. We are in there making friends and influencing. The Prime Minister is struggling with that, but I am sure the devolved Administrations will reach out that hand of friendship.

16:56

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins) for bringing this important matter to the Chamber for our consideration. My flag, the Union flag, is also flying in Brussels and I am proud of that. I say that for the record.

[Mr MacNeil]

There could be confusion.

[Jim Shannon]

Not for me. There is no confusion whatsoever.

We are aware that at Chatham House this morning the Prime Minister outlined his objectives for renegotiation. I am sure his attempts to renegotiate will be followed closely by hon. Members and many members of the public. How much and what the Prime Minister can achieve is one question; how that will that link up with the regions is the other. We wait with bated breath, as the hon. Member for North East Fife said.

This is a truly monumental stage in our country’s history. The questions are: do we stay in the European Union and what will that relationship look like; or do we leave altogether? I come from a region with a devolved institution, so this debate is of much interest to me, my party and my constituents. I am sure that many of them, and indeed the constituents of colleagues across the Province and the whole UK, are keen to hear what will be said, and to see how the debate will unfold between now and the referendum.

Opinion on the UK’s membership of the EU is divided within Northern Ireland, as it is in most places. There are positives and negatives, and the subject is a hotbed of debate. As a region that has emerged from conflict, Northern Ireland has seen the beneficial aspects of EU membership, with extra funding for peace projects that seek to help with the conflict transformation within Northern Irish society. The EU enabled us to come from conflict to conciliation and from war to peace, so we are grateful for its contribution. However, as in other British regions, there are negative aspects of membership, and we have seen our EU membership devastate traditional industries such as fishing.

Membership has had an indisputable impact on Northern Ireland, for better or for worse, and it is imperative that the Province is taken into account. Giving our devolved institutions—not just in Northern Ireland—a say in the renegotiation process would be a positive step because it would ensure that regionally sensitive issues could be taken into account and that any outcomes of the renegotiation could be tailored to best fit the devolved regions’ needs.

When the Minister replied to my question earlier today about the fishing sector, his response was along the lines that the localised control that we hope to have would come through the common fisheries policy. I respect the Minister, as he knows, but we might disagree about how that will happen on the ground. I represent the village of Portavogie and the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie), who has just left the Chamber, represents Ardglass and Kilkeel. We are not convinced that the renegotiation on the common fisheries policy will provide the localised control that is necessary. We want local people to have control—we said that earlier and I say it again now. The bureaucracy and red tape, and the loss of fishing boats, jobs and quota, are all having an impact on the fishing industry.

The farming industry is affected as well. I personally live in a rural community, and although the Strangford constituency contains a port, it is also the milk centre of Northern Ireland. We have large numbers of dairymen who look after pedigree herds. We do not see the flexibility from Europe that would make things easier for us.

[Mr MacNeil]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point that can be expanded further. If the Prime Minister was serious about European renegotiation, he might have opened some sort of consultation across the country to find out what people wanted. What he really wants is four or five points to spin in a newspaper headline prior to a referendum. There is no depth and no thought in what the Prime Minister is doing. He should have gone to consult the hon. Gentleman’s constituents, whether they be fishermen or dairy farmers.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Farmers are not convinced that their future is necessarily within Europe, so the Prime Minister has a job to do to convince them of that. I understand that if the money that we put into the EU was taken out again, we could still help the farming communities and give the assistance that is needed. Perhaps that shows that there is a story to be told.

I make the observation that about 13,000 people from outside the United Kingdom, but within the EU, are in receipt of state benefits in Northern Ireland. The proportion is considerably above the average for those born within Northern Ireland and, indeed, the entire United Kingdom. I am not seeking to demonise anyone, but I believe that that is evidence that illustrates that this issue is having just as much impact on Northern Ireland as it is on Essex, Cardiff, Sheffield or Aberdeen. Consequently, I believe that we should have at least a consultative role in the renegotiation of our EU membership.

I hope that hon. Members will take my comments on board and that the Minister will respond. I look forward also to hearing from the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden). The EU is a thorny subject. There may be division on it in the House, but one thing on which we are united is in wanting input into the process.

17:02

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins) on securing his first Westminster Hall debate. As he said, it is timely that it has occurred on the same day as a ministerial statement on renegotiation and, indeed, on the same day as the Minister was able to have a phone call with his counterpart in the Scottish Government. It would have been very disappointing to come to Westminster Hall to find that there had been no consultation or discussion with the Scottish Government or other devolved Administrations.

The Prime Minister has been at pains to demonstrate how determined and wide ranging his renegotiation strategy has been. He has been jet-setting across Europe to meet almost anyone who will listen to him, forging interesting alliances in the process, but there has been scant evidence of communication, let alone negotiation, with his most important European allies of all—the constituent nations of the UK.

The Prime Minister’s letter to Donald Tusk that was published today states:

“I want to enhance the role of national parliaments, by proposing a new arrangement where groups of national parliaments, acting together, can stop unwanted legislative proposals.”

Well, Ms Dorries, Scotland has a Parliament, and Wales and Northern Ireland have Assemblies. Surely they should be working with the UK Parliament and Government to protect and enhance our position in the European Union. During the referendum in Scotland, as my hon. Friend said, Westminster politicians, led by the Prime Minister, were falling over themselves to tell us that we should lead the UK, not leave the UK, and that Scotland’s only hope of remaining in the European Union was to remain in the United Kingdom. Now it seems that both those propositions were without foundation. Scotland’s membership of the European Union is now at far greater risk, and its opportunity to minimise that risk by being an equal partner in the renegotiation process is also threatened by the lack of consultation with the UK Government to date.

I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to the range of questions raised by my hon. Friend, especially with regard to a formal process. In June, the First Minister called for a distinctive forum in which the views of the devolved Assemblies could be heard in the renegotiation process, so I hope that the Minister will tell us about progress on that.

[George Kerevan (East Lothian) (SNP)]

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Prime Minister has now held talks with every single constituent member of the EU, but that nine of those member states have smaller populations than that of Scotland?

[Patrick Grady]

It does not surprise me at all to hear that. I look forward to seeing the photographs of the Prime Minister. He met the Scottish First Minister to negotiate the Edinburgh agreement in advance of the independence referendum, so I hope that he will sit down with his counterparts in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to—

[Mr MacNeil]

The respect agenda.

[Patrick Grady]

Exactly: to show us respect—the respect agenda—and to forge a platform on which we can all campaign for the UK to remain in the European Union.

The Minister said earlier in the main Chamber that he had spoken to the Cabinet Secretary for Culture, Europe and External Affairs this morning, so he will no doubt be aware of the speech that she made on Monday, to which my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife also referred. That speech laid out the value of EU membership to Scotland, and not just the economic benefits, although they include more than €18 billion of exports and more than 300,000 jobs, but, as we have heard, the solidarity, social protection and support that EU membership has brought to these islands over the decades and the peace that it has brought to the continent throughout its history. In the same speech, she laid out areas in which reform is needed: competitiveness, regulation, climate change and energy. Above all, she spoke about the need to tackle the growing disconnect between individual citizens and the institutions of the European Union.

Too often these days, the European Union is used, especially by this Government, as a useful scapegoat—a useful source of blame for, or disassociation from, policies or practices that people do not like. However, that is a very dangerous game for the Government to play. When it is combined with increasing brinkmanship in the renegotiation process, the Prime Minister and the Government risk provoking a backlash among the wider public. If the Government are not careful, as they were warned in the Chamber today, they risk turning the referendum into a vote on the popularity of the Government, or even the Prime Minister himself, in which case there is a danger that a genuine debate about the importance of the EU to people’s lives will become a surrogate Tory party leadership contest, and voters could opt to leave simply to express their dissatisfaction with the current political leadership. If there is a differential between the result of that kind of vote in traditional Tory heartlands and the rest of the UK, we really will be in uncharted constitutional territory.

We usually talk about a large English majority to leave trumping a Scottish majority to stay and, as we have heard, a UK vote to leave while Scotland voted to stay would certainly violate the Scottish claim of a right to popular sovereignty, but as I said to the Minister in the Chamber today, what if a narrow English majority to leave is trumped by the votes of the other constituent nations to stay? That also takes us into uncharted constitutional territory, and I doubt that many Government Back Benchers would be happy with that kind of result. The answer is to put in place the kind of double majority that the SNP has called for consistently since we got here. The principle of a double majority is good enough for the House of Commons on the question of English votes for English laws, so I am completely unclear about why it is not good enough for this referendum.

The European Union Referendum Bill is in the House of Lords, and the Government are determined to give all those Lords a vote in the referendum. That is very important, because those 800 votes could swing the result. The Government are disfranchising European citizens and 16 and 17-year-olds, but the Lords are to have a vote in the referendum. Why not take the opportunity to put in place the double majority and the other things for which the SNP has been calling since the general election?

I hope that the Minister will see today’s debate as an opportunity to signal his intent to work constructively with the devolved Administrations on the EU negotiations and the case for continued EU membership. As my hon. Friend said, if the questions in the House are anything to go by, the Government will need friends and allies, and they are having difficulty finding them on their own Back Benches. I have no doubt that the devolved Administrations want to work for a positive outcome in the referendum. That means getting a positive outcome from the negotiation process, which in turn means ensuring that the devolved Administrations are heard, because they represent the most important stakeholders in this process—the voters of those constituent countries.

17:09

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Ms Dorries. I congratulate the hon. Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins) on securing his first Westminster Hall debate. I was pleased that he scotched the rumour—forgive the pun—that there was some sort of collaboration between him and the Government regarding this debate. I was glad that he clarified that it is a mere coincidence that the debate is being held on the same day as the Prime Minister’s letter to the President of the European Council has been published.

Consultation is vital. There must be consultation based on mutual respect for devolution as a reality, and for the institutions of the Scottish Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Welsh Assembly. I am slightly concerned, however, about the Scottish National party’s emphasis on the constitution yet again with regard to this issue. Rather than the constitutional relationship, most people in Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom are concerned about bread-and-butter issues.

[Mr MacNeil]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Wayne David]

No, I will not give way. I know that my constituents are not really interested in where, or at what level of government, power resides. They are interested in the quality of their lives, and how the European Union does or does not impact on their lives. Another concern is that the SNP is apparently demanding that it be taken into account and be part of the United Kingdom’s renegotiation process.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Wayne David]

No, I will not give way. My time is limited, as the hon. Gentleman well knows.

My concern is that while the SNP says that it wants to be part of the United Kingdom Government’s renegotiation process, the reality is that the party is yet again giving credence to the Tory Government here in Westminster to which it claims to be implacably opposed. In practical terms, it wants to sidle up to the Government and get as close as it possibly can. We saw that in the debate last night with the collaboration between the SNP and the Conservative Government on the reactionary proposal about abortion rights—

[Mr MacNeil]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Wayne David]

No, I will make my point. The proposal that abortion rights should be devolved to the Scottish Parliament is a totally reactionary measure, and it shows the true reactionary nature of the SNP that it wants to sidle up as close as possible to this Tory Government. We are not seeing the SNP demanding that workers’ rights be maintained. The previous speakers made hardly any reference at all to workers’ right—they are not concerned about workers’ rights.

[Mr MacNeil]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

[Wayne David]

No. I told the hon. Gentleman that I would not give way—[Interruption.]

[Nadine Dorries (in the Chair)]

Order. Mr MacNeil, there has been an indication that you will not be allowed to intervene, so please keep some order.

[Wayne David]

Thank you, Ms Dorries. We are getting used to heckling and barracking from SNP Members. They cannot win the argument, so they try to shout people down and interrupt. That is their style of politics up there. That is, sadly, what nationalism is all about. It is infecting the United Kingdom as well, which is a great shame.

The SNP is today apparently giving credence to the Conservative Government. I believe firmly that this so-called negotiation is an absolute sham. We heard from the Prime Minister in his letter that he sincerely hopes, with all his heart and soul, that he will be in a position to advocate Britain remaining inside the European Union. To ensure that he is able to do that, he will have a superficial façade of a renegotiation to allow him to justify Britain’s continuing membership of the European Union. The SNP should realise that, so why does it want to be part and parcel of that process?

The SNP should be adopting a principled position of arguing in favour of Britain’s continued membership of the European Union. It knows that that is in the interests of the United Kingdom as a whole, and of the Scottish people. At the same time, it should have a long-term perspective on the sorts of radical changes we need inside the European Union. Successful negotiation, if it is to be done properly, cannot be carried out in a matter of weeks or even months. Renegotiation has to be a long-term process, and we have to work with people and to make allies. The Scottish nation cannot stand in splendid isolation; it has to work with other people.

When we come to the referendum, the Labour party will certainly put forward its own campaign, and I imagine that the SNP will do the same. I hope to goodness that the SNP campaigns in favour of our continued membership of the European Union, but I cannot be absolutely certain that that will be the case. The SNP must abandon its inward-looking nationalism for once and work with others across the United Kingdom to make sure that we have a coherent and strong message in support of a yes vote throughout the whole United Kingdom.

17:14

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins) on securing the debate and making it possible for us to take part.

I have a certain amount of déjà vu. A number of us took part in the debate on the Scotland Bill in the Chamber yesterday, where we were treated to a succession of MPs who represented English seats telling Scotland and the Scots what was good for us. Although I am delighted that our good friends across these islands have so much concern for the wellbeing of Scotland, the length of those speeches, and the fact that they often drifted to subjects that were closer to the speakers’ hearts than the subject matter of the debate, suggest that that was perhaps not their primary motivation. At times, I wondered whether Scotland would even get a mention in the midst of the discussion about English devolution, who did what in Parliament in the 1970s and Dicey’s theory of the constitution.

[Nadine Dorries (in the Chair)]

Order. Ms Brock, although I appreciate your comments regarding yesterday’s debate, could you keep your remarks to the subject matter of today’s debate and not make the same mistake?

[Deidre Brock]

Of course, Ms Dorries. My point was that Scotland’s voice was being drowned out even in the midst of a debate about Scotland’s future. I am sure that that was not the intent, but it is a reflection of how politics and political discourse are very different here from the engagement that we see in the Scottish Parliament and throughout Scotland, despite the remarks of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David). The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made it quite clear that the same is true of Northern Ireland. I assume that the same is true of Wales, but the hon. Member for Caerphilly seems to prefer the Conservatives to negotiate on Wales’s behalf in Europe. Each institution has established its own ways of working, which affect the politics of the areas that it serves. In turn, that affects the politicians who operate in each area.

[Mr MacNeil]

My hon. Friend has mentioned the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David), who was not keen on debating or engaging with anybody at all. Did she find his speech, in which we were simultaneously accused of being isolationist and of cosying up to other people, strange? I could not understand which way he was going.

[Deidre Brock]

I have to agree with my hon. Friend.

[Wayne David]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Deidre Brock]

The hon. Gentleman is chancing his arm.

[Wayne David]

On a point of order, Ms Dorries. I have been accused of not taking interventions, but the hon. Lady will not take interventions from me.

[Nadine Dorries (in the Chair)]

Mr David, sit down. That is not a point of order.

[Deidre Brock]

Thank you, Ms Dorries. We have not only different ways of talking, but different priorities and different political and social aspirations, and the people we represent have different needs. Whatever the hon. Member for Caerphilly says, there is no common mindset across the UK driving the thinking on the EU; there are many. The Government have to recognise and salute that multifaceted approach to the debate in the EU negotiations. That is why the Scottish Government should be consulted at an early stage and throughout the process. The same is true of the Scottish Parliament, especially considering the proportional representation aspect of its elections. Equally, the people of Wales and Northern Ireland deserve to have their devolved institutions feeding into any consideration or reconsideration of any agreement that affects our trading and social links to such a depth and degree. Scotland needs immigration to drive economic growth, and that need does not sit so well with the implied resistance to immigration in the proposals that the Government are pushing, some of which seem to be supported by the loyal Opposition.

We have strong and strengthening devolved institutions representing the interests of a wide range of people from across the UK. A Government who were sure of themselves and sure of the future of the UK would surely feel no fear of consulting those institutions at every stage of the process and ensuring that their views were included in the proposals. It cannot be that the Government lack confidence, or that, as some have suggested, they have contempt for the devolved institutions. Neither can it be that there is no time for consultations with the devolved institutions, given that the Government have found time plenty of time to consult other Governments of European Union member states.

The Minister mentioned in answer to questions on his statement earlier today that he was always willing to listen and that he had had a phone call with the Scottish Government’s Cabinet Secretary for Culture, Europe and External Affairs, Fiona Hyslop, this very morning. If that indicates a change in approach, it is very welcome. I understand that Scotland’s First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, and the Welsh First Minister, Carwyn Jones, both recently expressed their concerns that they had not been involved enough in the production of the proposals published today. The Prime Minister has made it clear that his direction is towards the exit if his renegotiations are not welcomed. Might not it be a good idea for the Government at least to attempt to get the support of the devolved Administrations before going into the negotiating room?

Our European allies do not seem to be overly willing to reopen treaties or to give advantages to one member state that are not offered to all. With that before the Prime Minister and the Government, and the Eurosceptic brigade panting at the Prime Minister’s back, surely he could do with all the friends he can muster. It would be a mistake for him to try to sell the devolved Administrations a pig in a poke. Opening up and embracing the assistance that the devolved Administrations could offer is a better strategy. I certainly look forward to a far more collegiate approach from the Government in the coming months, and I look forward very much to hearing what the Minister has to say.

17:21

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I am pleased to sum up for the Scottish National party. I commend my next-door neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins), for securing the debate and for the eloquent way in which he presented the positive case that the SNP will continue to push for our continued membership of the EU.

The events of yesterday and today make me convinced of one thing and very unconvinced of another. I am convinced that in 10, 15 or 20 years’ time, Scotland will still be playing a full part as a member of the EU. I am increasingly convinced that it will not be doing so as a member of the United Kingdom. We may, in fact, see a reverse of the situation described by my hon. Friend. In the not-too-distant future, the United Kingdom’s negotiations with the EU may well have to be done through Scotland because we could be the only part of the current UK that is left in it.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) correctly highlighted the fact that the experts on matters such as fishing and agriculture are very often the people who work in those industries. If we do not listen to them from the very beginning of the process, we will get it wrong. The Prime Minister got it wrong by not even including those important economic drivers anywhere in his list of demands. Possibly, if he had spoken to the devolved Administrations earlier, he would have realised that he had to do that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) presented the positive case and benefits of EU membership. If the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) had been listening, he would not have had to hope to goodness that the SNP was in favour of EU membership. Indeed, if he had spoken to the ambassadors of any one of the 21 EU member states who came to a reception in Portcullis House about a week ago, he would have heard that my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife explained as clearly as possible that the SNP wants to remain in the EU because that is where Scotland’s future lies. The hon. Member for Caerphilly did his country one service because, having listened to him, I am convinced that he has significantly shortened the odds on Leanne Wood becoming First Minister of Wales next year.

My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) highlighted the fact that there are very distinct views, not only on Europe, but on lots of other matters, across the nations that make up this Parliament and this Union. We only have to look at the fact that the devolved Governments are all held by different parties. No party leads the Government in any two of the four nations. Different parties won the general election in each of the four member states of this Parliament.

The separate identity of Northern Ireland is recognised by the fact that it has its own political parties. It does not operate with the same parties as we do. The parties that won the election in Northern Ireland do not exist to any great extent in other parts of the United Kingdom. Having said that, the parties that won the election in England and Wales are in serious danger of ceasing to exist in Scotland if they continue to present the kind of patronising, disrespectful, contemptuous view of our ancient nation that we have seen far too much of over the past couple of days.

The reason for this debate is that we want the Prime Minister’s negotiations to succeed, not because we like the Prime Minister or because we have ever had any intention of running a coalition with the Tories to persuade any nation how to vote on its own future, but because, if the Prime Minister fails—it looks increasingly likely that he will fail—we will go into a referendum based on a promised reform that has not been delivered. That referendum is likely not only to result in us being dragged out of the EU—[Interruption.]

[Nadine Dorries (in the Chair)]

Order. Mr Grant, would you wind up your comments so that we can have a meaningful debate with comments from the Opposition and Government Front Benches?

[Peter Grant]

I will, Ms Dorries. My real concern is not only that a failure by the Prime Minister will lead to a vote to take the devolved Administrations out of the EU against our will, but that it might lead to a debate that is not about the benefits of EU membership but about an antipathy to immigration and an antipathy to anyone who was born outside these islands. It may become a referendum on the popularity of the Prime Minister, and that is a referendum that the Prime Minister cannot possibly win.

[Nadine Dorries (in the Chair)]

Would you keep to five minutes please, Mr McFadden?

17:25

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

Indeed. Thank you, Ms Dorries. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I am reminded of the words of the great Yogi Berra, who said:

“It’s déjà vu all over again.”

The Minister has certainly earned his ministerial stipend today. He took questions for an hour and a half to two hours earlier in the House and is now about to reply to this debate. I do not know if the Prime Minister is a generous man in personal terms but he certainly owes the Minister a drink for what he has been put through today. The only consolation for him is that his colleagues are not here for this debate as they were for the statement earlier. He is at least spared their unstinting support in the endeavours that the Government have set out today.

I do not know whether the debate is well timed or—possibly, more accurately—a few hours late. The horse has somewhat bolted on this. The Prime Minister has made his speech. The Minister has made his statement. The letter to the President of the European Council has been written. I do not propose to go over the exchange that we had earlier or the questions that we exchanged, except to add a point about the negotiation that was perhaps not covered so much in statement. We are seeing this through British eyes and the four demands have been put together by the Prime Minister and the Minister in that sense. The rest of Europe is coping with an unprecedented refugee crisis. An official from another member state said to me last week, “The trouble is that we are in two different movies.” That is one of the issues for the process.

The issue before us is the consultation and involvement of the devolved Administrations, which, of course, should be appropriately consulted and involved. Quite rightly, people have said that different issues are viewed in different ways in different parts of the UK. Not every issue has the same impact everywhere. I want to speak specifically about Northern Ireland because I attended the debate mentioned by the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie), which was organised by Newry, Mourne and Down District Council a couple of weeks ago.

We had an excellent debate about cross-border movement of people, movement of goods, business, trade and farm subsidies—the whole thing. The team for staying in the EU were me and former Taoiseach Bertie Ahern. I am pleased to say that a vote was taken by 300 or 400 people—mostly small businesspeople—at the end of the debate. The proposal to stay in was carried by 92% to 8%. I make no predictions or claims that that was necessarily a representative audience of everywhere in the UK, but the debate should go to every part of the UK. Every part should have the widest possible involvement. Ultimately, the question—all the things that have been raised about representation and so on—revolves around whether we view the situation through nationalist eyes. If we do, we will effectively see the UK as four member states. Those who are not nationalists will see it as one member state. We joined as one member state, we will have this referendum as one member state, and we will make the decision as one member state. The issue about appropriate consultation and involvement should be seen in that light.

17:29

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. I congratulate the hon. Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins) on securing this debate.

I, too, want to avoid reprising the greatest hits from today’s ministerial statement in the House, but it would be remiss of me if I did not start by putting it on the record that today the Prime Minister wrote to the President of the European Council setting out four key areas on which he seeks reform: on sovereignty and subsidiarity; on competitiveness; on eurozone governance; and on migration and welfare. Anyone who examines the Prime Minister’s speech this morning or the text of his letter to Mr Tusk, which was released slightly later, will see that many areas in which we are seeking reform match the views often expressed by members of the devolved Governments of the United Kingdom.

The Scottish Government have published their agenda for reform, which includes calls for greater focus on competitiveness; deepening the European single market, and particularly for the creation of a Europe-wide digital single market; and progress on an internal energy union. The United Kingdom Government have embodied all those things in their approach to European reform. Our proposals for smarter, less burdensome and less complex regulation will be particularly welcome in Northern Ireland, which is overwhelmingly a small and medium-sized enterprise economy.

If we look at previous economic reforms, we find that the EU-South Korea free trade agreement, for example, is worth up to £500 million a year to the British economy. That agreement is already bringing advantages to sectors such as whisky and financial services, which are important in Scotland and in the two other devolved parts of this country. The Scottish Government’s agenda for reform also mentioned a stronger role for national Parliaments and the need to secure a stronger focus at European level on subsidiarity and proportionality—those ideas are meant to be written into the DNA of the way in which the EU operates.

I was asked why certain other matters were not included in the Prime Minister’s letter. Of course, the Government have already delivered quite a lot of effort on securing reform on some of those issues. Earlier, in the House, I mentioned the Damanaki proposals on fisheries reform, which have delivered things such as the ban on discarding, which successive British Governments have sought for many, many years and which have led to a shift towards greater local and regional management of fisheries. It is no secret that British Ministers would have wished to go further, and I am sure there will be an opportunity to return to the charge; but in the meantime, the real priority in fishing is to ensure that we implement those reforms in full.

Similarly, a measure of reform was achieved in the last common agricultural policy round, but, of course, the timing of the agricultural reviews matches that of the multi-annual financial framework, so the next opportunity to seek more thorough reform of agriculture will be in a few years’ time, as we approach the review of the MFF.

Many contributions to today’s debate focused on the negotiation process. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is leading a clear process to secure reform, which is now well under way. He has already met the leaders of all the other 27 member states, as well as the President of the European Commission and the Presidents of the European Parliament and the European Council. In parallel, talks on technical issues have been taking place in Brussels to inform our analysis of the legal options for reform. There will now be a process of negotiation involving all 28 member states leading up to the European Council in December, which will be the next time that Heads of Government will substantively discuss these issues.

We attach great importance to our engagement with the devolved Administrations on this issue, as we do on others. Having said that, all hon. Members will be aware that foreign policy issues, including the United Kingdom’s membership of international organisations, are reserved matters and that relations with the EU are the responsibility of the Parliament and the Government of the United Kingdom as a whole. Of course, Scottish National party Members have a mandate from their electors in Scotland to hold the United Kingdom Government to account for the policies that we adopt on those reserved matters, so the hon. Ladies and hon. Gentlemen from the SNP who spoke this afternoon are doing precisely what it is constitutionally right for them to do on behalf of the people of Scotland.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Lidington]

If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I would like to make a bit more progress. I will try to give way, but I am conscious of the time and wish to try to respond to the points made in the debate.

We try to involve the devolved Administrations as directly and fully as possible in decision making on EU matters that touch on devolved areas. We have held discussions with representatives from the devolved Administrations throughout the renegotiation process, and I will be continuing those discussions when I visit Edinburgh tomorrow. I am actively looking for dates to visit Cardiff and Belfast in the near future. The UK’s renegotiation is now also a standing agenda item at meetings of the Joint Ministerial Committee on Europe, which I chair. The renegotiation will also be an issue for discussion at the next meeting of the Joint Ministerial Committee chaired by the Prime Minister and involving the First Ministers of the three devolved Administrations, which is next due to meet in January.

It has been implicit in a number of speeches this afternoon that it will not be enough simply to rely on a series of formal meetings at set intervals. If the consultation process is to work effectively, it will rely not only on UK Ministers arranging meetings or conversations, but on devolved Ministers getting on the phone when an issue arises that concerns them or when they wish to express a particularly important point of view to a British Minister, so that view is registered and can be taken into account in framing the UK position. That, after all, is how we now work in respect of EU policy generally. There is an agreed position across the Government that every Department, before it seeks collective agreement within the UK Government on a negotiating position in relation to a European issue, should analyse whether that question touches on devolved responsibilities and, if it does, should consult the devolved Administrations. In their written submission to fellow UK Ministers, Departments should summarise the views and interests of the devolved Administrations, so that we can take them into account when making our decisions.

As the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) said, we are one United Kingdom. There will be one in/out referendum, which will be decided on a majority of those who vote. It is the UK that is the member state of the EU, so it is right that the electorate of the member state as a whole has a say on continued EU membership.

I was also asked about the Government’s approach to involving the devolved Administrations in EU business, and I strongly maintain that we always try to ensure that the interests of the devolved Governments and the people of all parts of the UK are defended and advanced. The Scottish Fisheries Minister, Mr Lochhead, is in north America this week, and our embassy in Washington has been active in arranging meetings for that visit. Our officials in the United States have been active in seeking benefits for Scottish business of the kind sought by Mr Lochhead, such as the lifting of the US ban on the import of haggis.

We have a system under which we welcome devolved Ministers to join delegations in Brussels, and I have welcomed a Welsh Minister to meetings of the General Affairs Council more than once when we have been due to discuss cohesion policy, which is of particular importance to the Government and people of Wales. All three devolved Administrations sent Ministers and officials to the fisheries talks, where collectively they usually far outnumbered the UK delegation.

17:40

Motion lapsed, and sitting adjourned without Question put (Standing Order No. 10(14)).