House of Commons

Thursday 21st January 2016 Commons Chamber

Thursday 21 January 2016

The House met at half-past Nine o’clock

Prayers

Thursday 21st January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Thursday 21st January 2016 Commons Chamber

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

[Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con)]

1. What steps his Department is taking to support small production companies based in Cornwall.

[The Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy (Mr Edward Vaizey)]

I hope you will indulge me, Mr Speaker, if I briefly pay tribute to the great George Weidenfeld, who died yesterday. He was a great patron and supporter of the arts.

The Government have taken steps to support small production companies across the UK through tax reliefs and grant schemes. In the last two years, Creative England has supported 51 productions in Cornwall, which has led to 439 shooting days in the county and an estimated on-location spend of nearly £7.5 million.

[Scott Mann]

Tourism in North Cornwall has benefited hugely from the “Poldark” effect, but other television dramas are also produced across our beautiful coastline, including “Doc Martin” in Port Isaac and “Jamaica Inn”, filmed on Bodmin moor. Will my hon. Friend assure me that he will continue to support the film industry in my part of the country?

[Mr Vaizey]

Of course. I am well aware of the “Poldark” effect. In fact, I am often mistaken for Aidan Turner’s body double. There are 13 great production companies in Cornwall. Our film tax relief has brought more than £7 billion of film investment to the UK as a whole, and I can assure my hon. Friend that we will continue to support productions in Cornwall.

[Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Does the hon. Gentleman undertake to question exclusively with reference to Cornwall?

[Ian C. Lucas]

Indeed. Independent production companies in Cornwall and other areas of the country benefit hugely from Channel 4’s unique not-for-profit commissioning strength. Will the Minister please explain why the creation of another business like ITV and Channel 5 is in the interests of production companies in Cornwall, and why it is in the public interest for Channel 4 to be privatised?

[Mr Vaizey]

I feel like I am taking part in an episode of “Just a Minute” where the subject is Cornwall. We have gone from the south-west to the heart of Westminster, where Channel 4 resides, in its headquarters on Horseferry Road. As the hon. Gentleman is well aware—I know there is another question on Channel 4 later—we are considering all options to take this fantastic channel into the future.

[Sue Hayman (Workington) (Lab)]

2. What recent progress his Department has made on the subsidised satellite broadband programme.

[The Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy (Mr Edward Vaizey)]

I am pleased to confirm that all those living in houses unable to get a speed of at least 2 megabits per second can now take advantage of a subsidised satellite broadband installation, which should deliver speeds of about 10 megabits per second or more.

[Sue Hayman]

Connecting Cumbria promised my constituents superfast broadband, but this has not happened quickly enough or to the original programme, which has denied my constituents access to vital services. What assurance can the Minister give that, under the universal service obligation, they will be provided with a minimum of 10 megabits per second by 2020?

[Mr Vaizey]

I am pleased to say that the Cumbrian programme is going extremely well. About £20 million of Government money has been invested, and in the hon. Lady’s constituency we will reach 92% by the end of the programme, which is a fantastic result, considering that, commercially, less than half of her constituents would have got superfast broadband. We will soon be introducing a consultation on the universal service obligation, and we intend to proceed with haste.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

This kind of option is very important in rural areas such as mine, where we have technology issues getting broadband to Longney and Elmore. We have done some good work with BT, but can the Minister guarantee that we will push ahead with all options to make sure everybody has access to broadband in my constituency?

[Mr Vaizey]

Yes, I can guarantee that. We are moving as fast as we can to deliver superfast broadband, and we intend to reach 95% of the country by the end of 2017 and to have superfast broadband for everyone by 2020. We also have to think again about what we need to do in the decade after that.

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

In early December, the Minister cast himself as Santa Claus, announcing a “Christmas present” for UK homes and businesses: £60 million to provide satellite provision for those failed by his super-slow broadband crawl-out. As of Monday, a grand total of £8,000 had been spent and only 24 people had benefited from his supposed gift. Was it the fear of seeing him coming down their chimney that put people off or the fact that this is an inadequate stunt designed to fob off his Back Benchers and leaving millions digitally excluded for many Christmases to come?

[Mr Vaizey]

I thank the hon. Lady for that “Bah Humbug” question. I am delighted that, thanks to our superfast broadband programme, we have reached around 90% of the country. We have cast aside the Scrooge-like 2 megabits target that Labour had for the country as a whole, but we promised everyone guaranteed speeds of 2 megabits, and that is what we have done by providing subsidised satellite services.

[Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)]

I am sure the Minister was busy at Christmas with rehearsals for the “Poldark” Christmas special. I welcome his announcement about enabling those in rural areas to get satellite broadband. This is a particular issue in Rossendale and Darwen where farmers struggle to get broadband. Will my hon. Friend undertake to work with the National Farmers Union and others who are in touch with those working in our rural industries to ensure that farmers find out about this fantastic offer the Minister made before Christmas?

[Mr Vaizey]

I will certainly give that undertaking. I am happy to work with the NFU, just as I am happy to work with the landowners association and the Countryside Alliance.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Since a commitment was given in a Westminster Hall debate to expanding superfast broadband across Northern Ireland, I have been contacted by many constituents who have told me that they cannot increase their business—this is mainly small businesses and people who work from home—or start a business without it. What is the Minister doing exclusively to help people with small businesses in the rural community to advance this issue?

[Mr Vaizey]

We had a very successful broadband voucher scheme, which brought superfast broadband to something like 55,000 businesses. That scheme has come to an end, but we always review what specific help we can give to businesses. The roll-out in Northern Ireland is now picking up pace, which will help both homeowners and businesses alike.

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

3. What recent steps his Department has taken to increase support for grassroots sport in areas of deprivation.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tracey Crouch)]

I fundamentally believe, and it is reflected in the new sports strategy, that sport has the power to change lives and communities, particularly in deprived areas. As a result, we will invest significantly in organisations that deliver programmes in deprived areas, which will make a difference in health outcomes, community cohesion and individual life chances.

[Damian Collins]

As this will probably be the Minister’s last Question Time before the arrival of her new baby, may I wish her and her family well for the next few weeks?

Does the Minister agree that sporting programmes such as Kicks, run by the Premier League, and Hitz, supported by the rugby premier league, do excellent work tackling gang crime and antisocial behaviour and rehabilitating young offenders, and that they should be at the heart of the delivery of the Government’s new sports strategy?

[Tracey Crouch]

I am a huge fan of both those schemes. The Premier League Kicks project, which is supported by a number of partners, including my own Department and now the Home Office, shows that 75% of its participants live in the top 30% most deprived areas in England. Where the scheme has been run, it has seen a 60% reduction in antisocial behaviour. It is exactly those kind of projects that will play a key role in delivering the new sports strategy.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

Will the Minister reflect on the role of apps and digitalisation within the programme she has outlined, and the way in which they can turn the telescope around to project information into the most disadvantaged communities?

[Tracey Crouch]

Certain members of society that we are trying to reach to ensure that they participate more in sport rely on apps and a greater use of technology. It is something that we reference with a great deal of interest in the sports strategy. Having recently met the hon. Gentleman’s constituents, I know that a great deal of work is being done to increase the number of apps and make sure that technology plays a key part in ensuring that we get the nation active.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Kettering Town Harriers, of which I am proud to be a member, is a fantastic local athletics club, which offers great opportunities for boys, girls and adults from across the borough of Kettering and further afield. Does my hon. Friend agree that local athletics clubs are a great way to help people get involved in sport?

[Tracey Crouch]

I certainly believe local athletics clubs can play an important role within their own communities. I know of athletics clubs across the entire country that want to make sure that they reach out beyond their core to ensure that all people who want to get involved in athletics—track and field—can do so. Major events, such as the Olympics coming up this year, will help to inspire others to get involved in the future.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

May I join the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) in wishing the Minister all the best for her forthcoming maternity leave? I am sure that we all look forward to the birth of a budding young athlete.

While volunteers at the grassroots of sport struggle with scarce resources and ever-increasing charges for facilities, we are seeing a growing number of scandals involving those at the elite end of sport lining their pockets with money that could well be invested in the grassroots. That is demoralising for those who work so hard to deliver sport in our communities. Is it not time to insist that people who are found guilty of doping, match-fixing or accepting bribes are given life bans, no matter who they are? Are the Government demanding that all United Kingdom-based agencies, whether sporting, financial or criminal, actively search for evidence of corruption and cheating in our sport?

[Tracey Crouch]

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we need to ensure that as much money as possible is invested in grassroots sport. I am pleased that, as part of the sports strategy, we have managed to encourage the Premier League to at least double its investment in grassroots sport, which will be underpinned by the welcome settlement in the spending review. I was disappointed that the hon. Gentleman did not share our joy over that settlement.

Scandals and allegations of corruption are, unfortunately, ongoing. It is very disappointing when each scandal is reported. We in the Government will see what we can do, and if it is necessary to review existing legislation, we will do so. In the meantime, we are encouraging international federations to root out corruption as quickly as possible.

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

4. What steps his Department has taken to help amateur sports clubs affected by recent floods.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tracey Crouch)]

After the floods became more widespread, Sport England doubled its emergency flood relief fund, which is designed to help finance necessary recovery work for amateur sports clubs that are affected by flooding. That is entirely a matter for Sport England, but the Department and I receive regular updates on issues that clubs in affected areas are facing. The Football Foundation and the England and Wales Cricket Board are providing additional flood funds to assist clubs that are ineligible for Sport England funds.

[Mr Nuttall]

I thank the Minister for her reply, and wish her well for her forthcoming maternity leave.

The grounds of both Ramsbottom United football club and Ramsbottom cricket club, which are in my constituency, were completely submerged during the recent floods, which caused tens of thousands of pounds’ worth of damage. Although the supporters have worked valiantly and they have done what they can to help themselves, the clubs are still struggling to recover. What further help might the Government provide, as a matter of urgency, to help them to do so?

[Tracey Crouch]

I have read about the awful damage at Ramsbottom cricket club and “Rammy United”, as I believe it is known. It seems that the wider community, sporting and otherwise, has done an incredible job in helping with the immediate clear-up. The ECB, the Football Foundation and others have pledged financial support, but if the clubs need assistance with anything else, my hon. Friend is welcome to get in touch, and we will try to ensure that they receive all the help and advice that can be provided.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

5. What recent discussions he has had on the future of Channel 4; and if he will make a statement.

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr John Whittingdale)]

My ministerial colleagues regularly meet a range of stakeholders to discuss issues relating to the work of the Department, including the future of Channel 4. The Government are considering a number of options, including those proposed by Channel 4’s leadership, but no decisions have yet been made.

[Mr Bradshaw]

Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating Channel 4 on achieving a record number of both Oscar and BAFTA nominations this year? Does he agree that it would not be able to deliver its unique and invaluable remit if it had to return a profit to shareholders?

[Mr Whittingdale]

As I have said, my concern is to ensure the continuing success and viability of Channel 4, which is why we are considering a number of options. I understand that the last Labour Government did so as well, and that they also considered privatisation. We have not yet reached a conclusion, but I will adopt whatever policy I believe is best designed to ensure that Channel 4 continues to enjoy the success that the right hon. Gentleman has described.

[Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)]

Does the Secretary of State recognise the inherent tension in the fact that one of the purposes of privatisation would be to raise the maximum amount of money for the Treasury, and the more Channel 4 sticks to its distinctive and successful remit, the less money is likely to be raised? Can he assure the House that, when he makes his final decision, the preservation of the broadcasting and the creative success of Channel 4 will be uppermost in his mind?

[Mr Whittingdale]

I am very happy to give my right hon. Friend exactly that assurance. The reason why we are looking at different options for the future of Channel 4 is to ensure that it can continue to deliver the remit in what is going to become a very fast-changing and challenging environment. However, as I have made clear before, it is the remit that matters, and I want Channel 4 to continue to deliver it into the future.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Has the Secretary of State had an opportunity to consider the “One year on” report on Channel 4’s 360° diversity charter? Does he recognise that, while diversity is a pronounced feature in Channel 4’s particular vocation, increasing diversity is not only the job of Channel 4, and will he value diversity when he considers the BBC charter renewal?

[Mr Whittingdale]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. The challenge of increasing diversity applies across all broadcasters. It is something that I know my hon. Friend the Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy has paid close attention to—and indeed he was speaking only this week with Idris Elba, who is another person who competes with him in terms of his own attraction.

[John Nicolson (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

Can the Secretary of State confirm that the Chancellor of the Exchequer now believes Channel 4 privatisation will bring the Conservatives much public opprobrium for a relatively small financial return and that the Conservatives are now backing away from the idea of privatising this much loved public institution?

[Mr Whittingdale]

I hate to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but, as I said earlier, no decisions have been taken. I have not had an opportunity to discuss the matter with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because we have not yet reached our own conclusions on it, but I look forward to doing so in due course.

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)]

6. What plans his Department has to commemorate the first world war.

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr John Whittingdale)]

There are two key first world war events to commemorate this year. On 31 May, national events will be held in Orkney to mark the battle of Jutland and the wider war at sea, and on 1 July national events will be held both in Manchester and at the Thiepval memorial in France to commemorate the battle of the Somme. These form part of wider national commemorations over the next two years, and I would encourage all hon. Members to read details of the latest 14-18 NOW culture programme, which was announced yesterday.

[Dan Jarvis]

I thank the Secretary of State for the work he and others, including the hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), have been doing in ensuring the smooth running of these commemorations. They will have seen the great success of the Tower poppies installation at the Yorkshire sculpture park, which reminds us all of the importance of ensuring that the commemorations extend to every corner of the country. Does he agree that in this important year of commemoration we should also find a moment in this House for Members to come together and pay their respects in this place? Will he use his good offices to ensure that such an opportunity is forthcoming?

[Mr Whittingdale]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his words, and in turn thank him for his support. We may argue over many matters in this House, but I think all parties can come together in memory of those who sacrificed so much. He mentioned the weeping window and the wave sculptures, and I was delighted that the Chancellor has made more money available to allow us to take that sculpture to more parts of the country, including St Magnus cathedral, as part of the commemoration of Jutland. The hon. Gentleman’s suggestion that we should have an opportunity here to commemorate those who gave their lives is an excellent one. It is not entirely one I can deliver, but I am very happy to pursue it.

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

Can my right hon. Friend say how Devonport is going to be included in the battle of Jutland commemorations, since my grandfather was a gunnery officer and wrote an eyewitness account of it?

[Mr Whittingdale]

I entirely understand my hon. Friend’s wish to see the commemoration, given his own personal connection, and I pay tribute to his grandfather, and indeed all who served at that time. He will know that a series of events is being planned, including the ceremony at the Orkney islands. Descendants of those who served at the battle are invited to take part in the events and I hope he will apply—although he will need to be rather quick since the closing date is tomorrow. He may also be interested to know that the Royal Navy will be marking the centenary at memorials in his constituency at Devonport and also at Portsmouth and Chatham.

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

7. What plans he has to ensure that all children and young people have access to sporting activities.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tracey Crouch)]

A positive experience of sport at a young age can create a lifelong habit of participation. It is therefore important that all children have the opportunity to engage in sport and physical activity in a way that interests them, and that sits at the very heart of the new sports strategy.

[Huw Merriman]

I thank the sports Minister for her question and I wish her well with her maternity. I am aware that she will have other notable diary commitments, but I would like to invite her and other parliamentary colleagues to join me, the BBC and ITV on 2 February for the parliamentary launch of the Six Nations rugby season. Does she agree that free-to-air sports, underpinned by the listed events regime, are crucial to inspiring young people to take up sport?

[Tracey Crouch]

I am conscious of the fact that my hon. Friend’s injury is sport-related and that at this moment he might therefore not be the best advert for encouraging people to get involved in sport. On his specific question, I understand that the Secretary of State is hoping to attend the event on 2 February. Alas, I shall—I hope—be otherwise engaged. However, I do of course agree that sport on free-to-air TV, underpinned by the listed events regime, is crucial to inspiring youngsters to take up sport. Like so many others, I am looking forward to the Six Nations, even though I shall be watching it from my armchair.

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

May I gently point out to both Front-Bench teams that I do not seem to have heard the words “England”, “cricket”, “South Africa”, “Joe Root” or “Yorkshire” this morning? Can we congratulate the English team on what they achieved in South Africa, as we have not already done so? On young people’s access to sport, is it not a question, in this age of childhood obesity, of young people getting out into the countryside and walking as well as engaging in sport? As the chair of the John Clare Trust, I know how difficult it is to get children from poorer areas into the countryside so that they can learn about it and learn to love it.

[Tracey Crouch]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to congratulate our England cricket stars on their sporting success in South Africa. We should also congratulate our English men and women down in Australia, who appear to be doing incredibly well in the Big Bash tournament. Of course, ensuring that children are involved in sport is incredibly important and we need to ensure that they are inspired by all the different sports that are available to them. The sports strategy is very much designed to encourage people who want to do all sorts of sports and physical activities, whether traditional sports or other outdoor activities such as mountaineering or climbing, and to ensure that they have access to them.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

8. What plans his Department has to increase the level of tourism in Yorkshire from domestic and foreign visitors.

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr John Whittingdale)]

The Government are supporting an increase in visitor numbers to Yorkshire through the work of VisitBritain, VisitEngland and the GREAT campaign. Yorkshire received record inbound tourist numbers in 2014, and we are continuing to work hard to attract domestic and international visitors to the county. That is why the Prime Minister has published his five-point plan on tourism and why at the recent spending review we secured a new £40 million Discover England fund.

[Sir Greg Knight]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that when a heritage item is movable, there is a case for occasionally placing it on display outside London and the south of England? Is he aware that Hull is our city of culture next year, and that many people in Yorkshire have been expecting that the aeroplane used by the Hull-born aviator Amy Johnson will be on display in the region? However, the London-based Science Museum has refused to give its permission, saying that the plane must stay in London. Will he join me in asking the London-obsessed Science Museum to think again, and will he agree to meet me to discuss this matter?

[Mr Whittingdale]

I am very much aware that Hull is to be the next city of culture; I recently had a meeting with the organisers, as did both my ministerial colleagues, to discuss that. I quite understand why Hull should want to celebrate the life of Amy Johnson, who was born in the city. I know that there has been a lengthy dialogue about the specific issue that my right hon. Friend has raised and that the Science Museum is concerned about the delicate state of the aeroplane and the potential cost of the move, but I am happy to look into the matter further and I am of course willing to meet my right hon. Friend to discuss it.

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

I am sure the Secretary of State will be delighted to know that Hull now ranks in the top 10 cities of the world to visit, according to the “Rough Guide”. On that basis, I am very pleased that one of my constituency neighbours, the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight), has supported the bid to bring Amy Johnson’s plane to Hull. Also on that basis, will the Secretary of State press the Treasury to fill the £5 million gap that has resulted from the Arts Council turning down an application for funds to refurbish the New theatre in the city? That refurbishment needs to go ahead in time for the 2017 celebrations. I make this request in the light of the fact that the Treasury has found £78 million to pay for a new theatre in Manchester.

[Mr Whittingdale]

The hon. Lady is quite right to highlight the autumn statement and the settlement that was achieved, which included money for arts institutions across the country. I am aware of the issue relating to the New theatre in Hull, and of course I am keen to support as much as possible in the city during this very important year approaching. I am happy to continue to press the case, but obviously she will understand that there are a lot of competing bids. We are determined to make Hull a success as the UK city of culture.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

9. What progress has been made on the BBC charter renewal process.

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr John Whittingdale)]

Good progress is being made on the BBC charter review programme. The consultation launched in July received 192,000 responses. We are, of course, committed to reading and analysing all of them, and we reached 150,000 earlier this month. In addition, I have commissioned further reviews and research, including an independent review of governance and regulation led by Sir David Clementi. In the coming months, my Department will work towards publishing proposals for the future of the BBC.

[Patricia Gibson]

Does the Minister not accept that the huge number of responses to the consultation—the second largest response to any Government consultation—shows the concern for and interest in the BBC? In the interests of full transparency, will the Secretary of State now give, as my constituents are demanding, a specific timetable for the Government publishing their full response to the BBC consultation?

[Mr Whittingdale]

As I say, I am very pleased about the volume of responses we have had, although approaching 150,000 of them came in within 48 hours; 38 Degrees has boasted of its success in generating all those responses. That does not mean they are not valid expressions of opinion; it just means that perhaps they are not wholly representative of public opinion at large. However, we are committed to reading every one. That is proving a logistical challenge and it has taken longer than we anticipated, but we will be publishing both a summary of the consultations and our proposals as soon as we are able.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

There have been persistent reports that, as a part of cost-cutting, the BBC will downgrade news coverage and its parliamentary coverage. Does the Secretary of State agree that the public reasonably expect a news channel and comprehensive parliamentary reports to be essential parts of a public service broadcaster’s remit?

[Mr Whittingdale]

My hon. Friend will understand that it is not for me to tell the BBC how to spend its resources. However, I agree with him that a core part of the BBC is that it should provide news, and that includes coverage of the proceedings of this House.

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

My constituents tell me that they do not want the BBC dismantled or diminished, and they certainly do not want its remit narrowed. This Government have flogged off more of our national assets than almost any other, so can we really trust them with the BBC?

[Mr Whittingdale]

The BBC charter expires at the end of this year, and that provides an opportunity to look at all aspects of the BBC in what is a very fast-changing media landscape. That is the purpose of the charter review. We have not reached any decisions yet and we are listening to all expressions of opinion about the future of the BBC, of which there are very many.

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

13. How does the Secretary of State explain the worrying discrepancy between the amount raised via licence fees and the amount spent in Scotland? There is a mismatch between the £335 million in income for the BBC from Scotland and the £190 million spent there. Does he not agree that a fairer share of that income would boost our broadcasting sector and provide funding for the restructuring of BBC Scotland?

[Mr Whittingdale]

Of course, viewers in Scotland, just as elsewhere in the United Kingdom, benefit from the national programming of the BBC. She will be aware that the director general recently gave evidence to the Scottish Education and Culture Committee, in which he pointed out that in 2014 £108 million was spent on local content and that that rose to more than £200 million when central support and distribution costs were included.

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

Ninety-seven per cent. of the adult population of the UK use the BBC services for an average of 18 hours every week, and their perceptions of the BBC have improved over the past 10 years. According to the BBC Trust, 85% of the public support the BBC’s main mission to inform, educate and entertain. Those figures are a remarkable endorsement of the public service ethos of the BBC. The consultation on charter renewal of the Secretary of State’s Department closed on 8 October last year, and he has now spent more time considering the responses to that consultation than he allowed for the public to respond. When will he get his act together and publish the results? Can he just give us a date today, please?

[Mr Whittingdale]

May I begin by welcoming the hon. Lady to her new position? I have been doing this job for a relatively short time—just eight months—and she is now the third Opposition spokesman I have faced. I do hope that she survives a little longer than her immediate predecessors. In relation to her question, I am keen that we should publish our proposals, but we did not anticipate 192,000 responses. She will understand that, if I were to get up and publish our conclusions, she would quickly be at the Dispatch Box claiming that we had not properly analysed them and that this was a cosmetic exercise. It is not a cosmetic exercise and we are reading the responses carefully.

[Maria Eagle]

I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman sounds as if he is procrastinating. The BBC charter expires at the end of this year, but he has not even got around to publishing his White Paper because the consultation is taking so long. Will he guarantee that his Department’s time wasting will not result in some kind of debilitating short-term charter extension beyond the end of the year? Will he be clear today that the next charter will be for a minimum of 10 years?

[Mr Whittingdale]

Charter review comes round once every 10 years and I am determined that we should get it right. We will take however long it takes to ensure that we fully consult and consider the options, and we will publish as soon as we are ready. We are currently considering the length of the next charter, which was one of the questions in the Green Paper, and it will form part of our conclusions when we come to publish them.

[Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr John Whittingdale)]

Since the House last met for these questions, the Minister for sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), has launched the first Government sports strategy in more than a decade and the Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy, my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey), has become the longest serving arts Minister in history. We have also seen the sad passing of some of our great cultural icons. I am sure the whole Chamber will join me in extending our sympathies to the families, and indeed the fans, of David Bowie, Jimmy Hill, Alan Rickman and Lemmy, and also in celebrating the enormous contribution that each made to the sporting and cultural life of our country.

[Mike Wood]

The success in attracting the “Star Wars” trilogy to the UK underlines the terrific talent available in our creative industries as well as the incredible variety of filming locations. What assessment has my right hon. Friend made of the impact of tax credits on the film and other creative industries?

[Mr Whittingdale]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the success we have had in attracting international investment in film to this country not just in “Star Wars”, but in a huge proportion of the major films now being made. Part of the reason for that is indeed our creative industry’s tax credits. In 2013, the creative industries accounted for 5% of the economy, and our tax credits are one way of our supporting them. The film tax credit has been responsible for nearly £7 billion of investment in the UK, and our high-end TV tax credit has helped to support more than £800 million of investment.

[Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)]

T5. What assistance will the Department give to local authorities to keep their regional museums open following the recent Museums Association report, which stated that one in five regional museums has closed in part or in full and that one in 10 expect to introduce entrance charges to cover reductions in local authority funding?

[The Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy (Mr Edward Vaizey)]

I read the Museums Association report, and I welcome the fact that 60% of museums have seen their visitor numbers increase and that 40% of museums have seen their museum outreach increase. We want to work with local authorities and to work through the Arts Council with local authorities. I urge Labour authorities such as Lancashire to look again at their horrific plans to close their museums.

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

T2. Nuisance phone calls—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I have never known a situation in which Mr Nuttall has not been fully heard, and he will be fully heard.

[Mr Nuttall]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Nuisance phone calls continue to blight the lives of many of my constituents. Will the Minister explain how quickly the latest proposed action on caller line identification will be introduced and enforced?

[Mr Vaizey]

I am very pleased that we have now issued a consultation on caller line identification which will, we hope, allow receivers of nuisance calls to screen the calls so that they take only calls from people from whom they want to hear.

[Mr David Crausby (Bolton North East) (Lab)]

T7. What progress has been made in securing at least 5% of the Premier League TV deal for grassroots football? Children’s football is virtually unplayable at this time of year, yet the Premier League continues to throw money around as though it is going out of fashion.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tracey Crouch)]

The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that through negotiations and discussions with the Premier League I have managed to secure at least double what it currently invests in grassroots football. That will be more than £100 million per annum from the domestic TV rights, which equates to about 6.5% of the total.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

T3. The long-serving Minister responsible for arts and broadband will share my disappointment that despite his welcome promise to ensure that no home in the country has broadband speeds of less than 2 megabits per second, there are apparently parts of my constituency in Gloucester that have still not reached that speed. I have raised one particular area and problem with BT since 2013. First BT promised to upgrade the cabinet, then it failed to do so, and now it says that it is commercially unviable. Will the Minister meet me and celebrate his long tenure by resolving this problem?

[Mr Vaizey]

I will happily meet my hon. Friend at any point. I am pleased that at least 93% or 94% of his constituents have superfast broadband. Of course, it is more difficult because of state aid rules to subsidise broadband in cities, but I will certainly meet my hon. Friend and discuss the particular issues he faces.

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

I, too, wish the Minister well on maternity leave. I hope that it all goes well and that we see her back in her role.

A recent response from the Gambling Commission to a freedom of information request has revealed 633 possible incidents of money laundering in betting shops in the past 12 months alone. Not only that, but online we are seeing videos of fixed odds betting terminals being smashed up with chairs and hammers. What are the Government going to do to protect lone staff and vulnerable people in betting shops?

[Tracey Crouch]

I take the issue of money laundering in gambling very seriously and the Gambling Commission is currently consulting on proposed regulatory changes to strengthen the fight against that crime. I understand that the Treasury will be consulting on the EU directive on money laundering, which will include gambling. On the issue of violence in betting shops, there has of course been an increase in the number of police callouts to high street shops. Whether the callout is related to FOBT machines is not recorded, but as a keen campaigner on BT machines I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be interested to know that today I have published on the gov.uk website the evaluation of the £50 regulations introduced last April, and I expect a triennial review of stakes and prizes to begin soon.

[Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)]

T4. Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating the many towns across the UK that will be laying on cultural experiences in the coming year? In Horsham, that varies from a brand new cultural festival we are putting on in the summer to pancake racing next month. The Secretary of State would be very welcome to join me at either.

[Mr Whittingdale]

I am very happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating all those towns holding arts festivals, which include not just Horsham but Maldon. I am particularly pleased that there are plans in my hon. Friend’s constituency, as part of a festival, to commemorate the 400th anniversary of Shakespeare’s death, which will be marked not just across the country but around the world. I would be very happy to visit an event in my hon. Friend’s constituency, although I cannot promise to participate in the pancake race.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

Despite the Secretary of State’s earlier bluster about national programming, people in Scotland were shocked by the £145 million differential between income and expenditure as regards the BBC licence fee. That could free up £100 million for direct production in Scotland, which would support 1,500 jobs and add a boost of £60 million to the economy. Will he commit to full devolution of broadcasting to make that happen?

[Mr Whittingdale]

I am aware of the concerns in Scotland about this, and, as I said earlier to the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock), it is something that the director-general discussed with the Select Committee last week. I shall be seeing the director -general later. It is important that the BBC should serve all parts of the country, but I do not think that we can simply sit down and allocate spending precisely in proportion to the licence fee. It is a national broadcaster.

[Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)]

T6. I, too, wish my hon. Friend well in her imminent personal sporting challenge. As she knows, Faversham and Mid Kent is rich in fascinating tourist destinations, such as Leeds castle and the historic market town of Faversham itself, so I welcomed the recently announced £40 million Visit England fund. Will organisations such as Visit Kent have a chance to bid for a share of this fund?

[Tracey Crouch]

As a fellow Kent MP, I am proud of the tourist attractions across the county. I reassure my hon. Friend that all parts of the country, including Kent, will have an opportunity to bid for the Discover England fund.

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

I am proud that “Downton Abbey” was made in Ealing—the below-stairs servants quarters were in my constituency—but the series has now ended, so what are the Government doing to increase representation on and off-screen of the nation’s ethnic, regional and gender diversity so that the airwaves are not all dominated by the classes upstairs?

[Mr Vaizey]

I fully support the sentiment behind the hon. Lady’s question. We have worked closely with the broadcasters to have stretching targets. We have put the Creative Diversity Network on a permanent footing and we have clear guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission on what broadcasters can do—but they need to get on with it.

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

T8. Destination Staffordshire recently submitted its bid for funding from the European regional development fund. In the interests of brevity, will my right hon. Friend encourage Ministers in the Department for Communities and Local Government to look favourably on the bid—yes or no?

[Mr Whittingdale]

My hon. Friend is right to stress the importance of tourism to Staffordshire as it contributes to the economy of so much of our country. He will know that this is a matter for my colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government. I understand that discussions have taken place and my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (James Wharton), the Minister with responsibility for local growth and the northern powerhouse, would be happy to set up a meeting to discuss the position.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Over 20,000 jobs depend on tourism in York. What support can the Minister give to ensure that attractions such as Jorvik and the merchant adventurers hall are quickly restored, following the floods?

[Mr Whittingdale]

I am very conscious of the challenge to ensure that we get the message out that Yorkshire and other parts of the country affected by flooding are open for business. We will be looking closely at what we can do to support those businesses affected by flooding. I hope we will be able to say more about that quite soon.

[Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)]

Did I just hear the Minister confirm that there would be a triennial review this year, and will she comment on exactly when and what that will be?

[Tracey Crouch]

My hon. Friend is right—he did hear me say that. The triennial review is expected to be in 2016. It will be in 2016. Precise timings are to be confirmed.

[Steven Paterson (Stirling) (SNP)]

Andy Murray, who hails from my constituency, won again last night. He is a hero and the epitome of integrity in sport. He made some comments this week about matchfixing. We have had the International Association of Athletics Federations report and the FIFA fiasco. Can the Minister assure me that we will do all we can to make sure that we are a shining example of promoting integrity in sport, as epitomised by Andy Murray?

[Mr Whittingdale]

I am happy to join the hon. Gentleman in that call. I have spoken this week with the Lawn Tennis Association, the All England tennis club and the Association of Tennis Professionals. We are determined to do all we can to support them in ensuring that the game is absolutely clean, and I know they are committed to that as well. We will be holding a summit later in the year, looking at the challenge of tackling corruption across all sectors, including sport.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Given the imminent demise of the largely unsuccessful Arqiva mobile infrastructure programme, what can now be done to improve the “not spot” situation, which is wholly unsatisfactory in relation to the £400 billion rural economy?

[Mr Vaizey]

I am pleased that we should have 75 sites erected as a result of the mobile infrastructure programme. Thirty-two people living in Wales have benefited from a new mobile site that has just been erected. I am pleased that under the deal that we negotiated with mobile operators, they will increase their coverage to 90% geographic coverage.

[Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)]

I congratulate my local team, East Kilbride football club, on reaching the last 16 of the Scottish cup for the very first time. Does the Minister agree that it is unfair that while English fans can watch their national team free of charge, Scottish fans have to pay? Will she meet the Scottish Government’s sports Minister to discuss and resolve the situation?

[Tracey Crouch]

That is a matter for the home nation football associations, so the Scottish FA should negotiate with UEFA, under its central sales strategy, which broadcasts qualifying or friendly matches. We have a listed events regime whereby we can see home nations compete in the European championship and, of course, world cup final tournaments, but home nations need to qualify to be able to do so.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

The hon. Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) has a nerve trying to claim to be the champion of betting shop workers. If his policies were adopted there would be far fewer of them, because many betting shops would close. Does the Minister agree that if we want to see more staff employed in betting shops—I certainly do—they need to have a viable financial future, particularly in relation to negotiations on machines and the levy?

[Tracey Crouch]

There are some very strict rules and statutory requirements, particularly on the number of staff in betting shops. They are subject to health and safety regulations, and voluntary minimum standards are required across the industry. I expect all operators to adhere to those standards in order to protect their staff on the high street.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

1. What steps the Commission plans to take to ensure public and parliamentary scrutiny of the restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster after a decision on the options for that project has been made.

[Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)]

2. What steps the Commission plans to take to ensure public and parliamentary scrutiny of the restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster after a decision on the options for that project has been made.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington)]

I anticipate that both Houses will have an opportunity to debate the matter once the Joint Committee on the Palace of Westminster has reported. The question of future scrutiny will be aired in those debates and the House of Commons Commission will listen carefully to the views expressed before making any decisions.

[Peter Grant]

Many of my constituents find it difficult to understand how we can consider spending billions of pounds on a palace—literally a palace—for parliamentarians when so many of them can barely afford a roof of any kind over their heads. Can we have an assurance that the Joint Committee, which so far has met entirely in private, will soon meet in public and that all documentation relating to its considerations will be made public?

[Tom Brake]

I am sure that the Joint Committee and the Leader of the House will have heard the hon. Gentleman’s comments and will want to respond positively. It is worth underlining the fact that we have neglected the upkeep of this building for many decades and that we do need to make investment in what is, after all, a world heritage building.

[Dr Cameron]

I would like to thank the House of Commons Commission for contacting me, as chair of the all-party group for disability, to ensure that we are involved in plans to restore the Palace of Westminster. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that all restoration and renewal work fully addresses issues of accessibility for people who have disabilities?

[Tom Brake]

I do not want to pre-empt what the Joint Committee will come up with, but I am sure it will carefully consider that matter. I think that every Member of the House will agree that it would be a completely missed opportunity if these works did not also ensure that the Palace is fully accessible to anyone with disabilities.

[Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)]

As well as having an opportunity to debate the R and R programme, it is hugely important that Members have an opportunity to promote businesses in their constituencies that can take part in the works. For example, Crown Paints, based in Darwen, would be a fantastic company to provide paint and to advise at this early stage to ensure that costs are reduced.

[Tom Brake]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. Clearly, a project on this scale will require the participation of small, medium and large businesses from all over the country. When the project comes forward, I hope that the initiatives used to promote opportunities for businesses in the run-up to the Olympics will be deployed for the restoration of the Palace.

[Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)]

Could the House of Commons Commission and the Joint Committee consider the idea of an historic trust into which the estate could be placed in order to separate the politics of renewal from the restoration of a national asset?

[Tom Brake]

Again, I cannot speak for the Joint Committee, but the Leader of the House, who is one of its big players, will have heard the hon. Gentleman’s point and I am sure will want to give it due consideration.

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

I am all for scrutiny, public and parliamentary, but can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that a decision will definitely be reached before the end of this Parliament and that we will not waste any further time or public money debating this very important issue in the next Parliament?

[Tom Brake]

I am not in a position to give the hon. Gentleman that reassurance because it is for the Joint Committee to decide what it recommends as a way forward. I think that everyone in this place knows that this work must be undertaken, and it is in our interest and that of the taxpayer that it is pursued vigorously. The longer we delay, the greater the costs associated with the works.

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

May I urge the right hon. Gentleman to look seriously, and imaginatively, at how this reconstruction is going to be funded—perhaps by public subscription through a form of crowdfunding? May I warn him not to enter into a careless public finance initiative like the one in Halifax, where £770 million has been paid back on a hospital that cost £70 million?

[Tom Brake]

I hope that everyone in this place has learned the lessons of PFI. Again, it is not for me to work out what the financial arrangements are going to be, but clearly PFI may well be one of the more expensive options. I hope that the Treasury will look at something that is perhaps more straightforward in funding these improvements.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

3. What steps the Commission is taking to promote gender equality on the Parliamentary estate.

[Tom Brake]

Equality, diversity and inclusion are core to the way in which the House of Commons service works. The Commission agreed a diversity and inclusion strategy that promotes gender equality, and receives regular updates on its delivery. Key measures include targets for the number of women in the senior pay bands, fair and open recruitment, and promotion of flexible working.

[Mr Hollobone]

If gender equality is core to the way in which the House of Commons works, why are only two members of the 12-member House of Commons Commission women?

[Tom Brake]

That is a good point, and in terms of the party appointees, it is for the political parties to respond to it. I am pleased, however, that the two lay people on the Commission are women, as the hon. Gentleman indicated.

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

The right hon. Gentleman may remember that in the previous Parliament I raised the issue of the representation of women, both as politicians and authors, in the Parliamentary Bookshop. When perusing its bookshelves, visitors from all over the world, potential MPs among them, would gain the impression that the House was almost exclusively male and white—as they would, for that matter, when viewing the walls in the Palace of Westminster. What steps is he taking to ensure that, superficially at least, the Palace of Westminster better represents the people and diversity of this country?

[Tom Brake]

Again, the appropriate authorities will have heard the hon. Lady’s question. Like her, I think it is important that we recognise the very important role that women have played, and continue to play, in politics, and I hope that will be reflected in what is on offer in the bookstores.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is very important that the House of Commons sets the agenda for gender equality. The right hon. Gentleman has outlined some of the things that have been done, but what more is being done to let people outside this House know that we are leading the way and setting the examples in raising gender equality issues?

[Tom Brake]

Independent assessments are carried out of how Parliament addresses the issue of equality. For instance, members of the public could look at Stonewall’s assessment. That puts Parliament nearly in the top quarter, so progress is being made. More still could be done, but that is a very good way for members of the public to assess the progress we are making.

House of Commons Commission

Thursday 21st January 2016 Commons Chamber

The right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), representing the House of Commons Commission, was asked—

Business of the House

Thursday 21st January 2016 Commons Chamber

10:35

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Will the former leader of the Out campaign give us the business for next week?

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Chris Grayling)]

The business for next week is as follows:

Monday 25 January—Remaining stages of the Childcare Bill [Lords], followed by a debate on a motion on foreign policy and development aid in central and east Africa. The subject for this debate was picked by the Backbench Business Committee.

Tuesday 26 January—Motion to approve a Ways and Means resolution relating to the Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Bill [Lords], followed by the remaining stages of the Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Bill [Lords].

Wednesday 27 January—Opposition day (17th allotted day). There will be a debate entitled “Housing benefit cuts and supported housing”, followed by a debate on prisons and probation. Both debates will arise on an Opposition motion.

Thursday 28 January—Debate on a motion on the NHS and a social care commission. The subject for this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 29 January—Private Members’ Bills.

The provisional business for the week commencing 1 February will include:

Monday 1 February—Second Reading of the Bank of England and Financial Services Bill [Lords], followed by a debate on a motion on the future of the Financial Conduct Authority. The subject for this debate was picked by the Backbench Business Committee.

Tuesday 2 February—Second Reading of the Enterprise Bill [Lords], followed by a motion relating to the House of Commons Commission.

Wednesday 3 February—Opposition day (18th allotted day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.

Thursday 4 February—Business to be nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 5 February—Private Members’ Bills.

[Chris Bryant]

I apologise for the state of my voice, Mr Speaker. I gather that when people heard about that yesterday, several hon. Members rushed to the Table Office to table an early-day motion calling for a national day of celebration.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. One by-product of the hon. Gentleman’s losing his voice is that we can be sure he will not exceed his allotted time of five minutes today. It will be a five brilliant minutes, but I am sure it will not be more.

[Chris Bryant]

Brevity is, of course, something you are yourself used to, Mr Speaker.

What a week it has been! As we debated psychoactive substances in this House, the American Republican campaign seemed to be on psychoactive substances. Sarah Palin’s endorsement of Donald Trump must be the ultimate case of Tweedledum and Tweedledumber. Two Tory MPs have confessed to taking poppers in the Chamber. I do not mean that they actually took the poppers in the Chamber—I do not know whether they did—but they made their confessions in the Chamber. We also learned that the Leader of the House is going to be out-outed by the Work and Pensions Secretary, who is not only an outer as far as the EU is concerned, but so determined to be out that he wants to be out of the two Out campaigns. Talk about two bald men fighting over a comb. As P. G. Wodehouse wrote in “The Small Bachelor”,

“if men were dominoes, he would be the double-blank.”

To be serious, Mr Speaker, may we have a debate about the operation of English votes for English laws? EVEL seems to be descending into farce. Last Thursday, a Committee considered the order abolishing student maintenance grants. You certified the order as an England-only one, yet two Scottish MPs and one Welsh MP were selected to sit on the Committee, in which they voted. That was fair enough, but on Tuesday, when the Labour party ensured that there was a vote of the whole House, two English MPs—the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon)—were excluded from the lists.

I have several complaints. First, last week the Leader of the House said of this measure:

“If it is prayed against, it will not pass without a vote of the whole House”.—[Official Report, 14 January 2016; Vol. 604, c. 1002.]

Either he meant that a vote would happen automatically, in which case he does not know the rules of the House and, frankly, he should go and get himself another job, or he meant that he would make sure that the measure was put to a vote of the whole House, in which case we have been sorely disappointed because he did no such thing and, frankly, he should go and get himself another job. Which is it? Does he not know where the Table Office is—it is just out there—or did he never intend to table a motion?

What is particularly bizarre is that because the Government used the negative process and failed to table their own motion, as they had promised, it was virtually impossible for the measure to be defeated. Even if English MPs had wanted the order to be annulled, the whole House could have overruled them because the annulment required a double majority under Standing Order No. 83P. So much for EVEL—it is nothing but an elaborately farcical pretence at democracy and we should get rid of it as fast as possible.

When are we going to have a debate on the Strathclyde report? They have had one in the House of Lords, but we have not had one here. We have seen a dramatic increase in the use of statutory instruments since this Government came to power. They are now churning out 3,043 a year, compared with 1,891 a year under Labour. That is a 60% increase. And they are on more important matters: fracking in national parks, slashing working tax credits and cutting support for poorer students. Surely it is wrong to limit the powers of the Lords in relation to statutory instruments, when 3,000 such measures are being pushed through the Commons on unamendable motions every year.

The latest of these instruments is the Recall of MPs Act 2015 (Recall Petition) Regulations 2016—a very catchy title. This is no minor piece of legislation, as I am sure you are aware, Mr Speaker. It is 174 pages long—nearly three times longer than the original Act. Yet the Government are allowing only a 90-minute debate in Committee on Tuesday. I think that we should have a proper right of recall. That is what I voted for in the last Parliament, rather than the damp squib the Government introduced. Surely such an important measure should be considered by the whole House, line by line.

Next Wednesday is Holocaust Memorial Day. This afternoon, we will have a debate on the memorial day and remember the millions of Jews who were exterminated, the trade unionists, the Roma, the gay men, the so-called asocials, the Jehovah’s Witnesses and, of course, the people with disabilities who were killed under the T4 forced euthanasia programme, which saw 9,722 men and women gassed at the Brandenburg centre in 1940 alone.

But genocide is still happening today. Daesh slaughters Yazidi women and children in Syria and Iraq. In Darfur, the Sudanese Government have been engaged in genocide for more than a decade. I am sure that the Leader of the House would agree that we must always take sides, because looking the other way helps the oppressor, encourages the tormentor and perpetuates the crime.

That brings me to Russia. Sir Robert Owen has delivered his judgment on the murder of Alexander Litvinenko. The Home Secretary will make a statement in few minutes and my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) will respond. I fully understand why the Government want to engage with Russia—she is a key player in Iran and Syria—but the one thing we know for certain about the murderous, kleptomaniac regime in Russia is that it walks all over the weak. Putin has no respect for those who let him do what he wants.

On 7 March 2012, this House declared unanimously that it wanted the Government to introduce a Magnitsky Act to ensure that nobody involved in the murder of Sergei Magnitsky or the corruption that he unveiled was able to enter this country. The USA has such an Act. Is it not time that we made it absolutely clear that Russian murderers are not welcome in this country, and that the likes of Andrey Lugovoy and Dmitry Kovtun may enter the country only if they are prepared to stand trial?

[Chris Grayling]

May I start with the English votes for English laws vote? I thank everyone among the House’s officials who has been involved in introducing the new system. Barring the minor glitch on Tuesday, it has been done very effectively and I am grateful to all those who have been involved in making it happen. The glitch was clearly a minor human error. I, for one, do not think that it is right to start blaming those who set up the new system for that minor human error; I am surprised that the shadow Leader of the House would make that suggestion. I am grateful to all in the House who have been involved in making the new system work.

A couple of points were raised about the restoration and renewal project. Regardless of what we as a Parliament choose to do, that work would have to be carried out anyway. This is a grade I listed building and a world heritage site, and the work we are talking about has to happen regardless. The Committee will report soon, probably in spring, and it will hold sessions in public, probably after the consultation period, which—I remind hon. Members—finishes next week. I encourage everyone to take part.

I echo the comments about Holocaust Memorial Day, and I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for marking it. It has always been an important point in the parliamentary calendar, and I am grateful to the Committee for continuing the tradition.

I have announced two more Opposition days. The shadow Leader of the House has asked for debates on a variety of subjects. He will clearly have a lot of different bids for Opposition day debating time, so let me try to help him, particularly with things that he may not have time for. He did not ask me for a debate on his party’s extraordinary new defence policy of sending our nuclear submarines out to sea with no missiles. Despite his comments on Daesh, he did not ask for a statement on Syria, so that his party leader can set out his plans for negotiations with the brutal murderers in that part of the world. He did not ask for a debate on his party’s new policy of reopening discussions on the future of the Falkland Islands with Argentina, or for a debate on trade union law so that his party can argue for a return to the days of flying pickets and secondary strikes, putting companies out of business and workers out of jobs. If he wants additional time to debate those issues, I am sure we can look carefully at that.

I am certainly willing to provide extra time for debate on the backbone—or lack of it—of members of the shadow Cabinet, who are not brave enough to put their own jobs on the line when it comes to standing up to a Leader of the Opposition whose policies pose a real threat to this country.

The shadow Leader of the House has left the Church of England because he believes that its policies are unacceptable, but he will not do the same for the shadow Cabinet, even though its policies are clearly unacceptable. He and his colleagues have abandoned the red flag. By scrapping our defences and doing deals with our adversaries, today they are about keeping the white flag flying here, and the hon. Gentleman should be ashamed to be still sitting on that Front Bench.

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

The House may wish to know that following the non-violent demonstration at Fenchurch Street station regarding c2c timetable changes, the service is now even worse. Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on matters affecting the Showmen’s Guild? I have the honour to chair the all-party group on fairs and showgrounds, and I would like the House to consider issues relating to that, such as admissions and the distinction between Travellers and traveller-showmen.

[Chris Grayling]

My hon. Friend is one of Parliament’s great characters, so I am not in the least surprised to discover that he fulfils that position in the all-party group. He is right: there is a world of difference between those who travel this country bringing fairgrounds and entertainment to our communities, and a great time for young people, and those who occupy public land illegally and leave behind a vast amount of mess to be cleared up at huge public expense. We should always be proud to make that distinction in this House. My hon. Friend does a great job with his work, and he is right to say that that distinction is enormously important.

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

I thank the Leader of the House for announcing next week’s business.

Another week, another EVEL shambles—this week the now infamous iPad malfunction. How could they possibly do that to the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), the most English of all English Members in the House? A man who sits proudly in his Union Jack underpants and whose ringtone is, “There’ll Always Be an England”, has been treated as mere and meagre Scot and subject to the second-class status that we have in this House. “Reinstate the hon. Member for Romford” is the call from the SNP Benches. Seriously, the confusion around EVEL continues, and the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee West (Chris Law) deserves a better response than we got from the Deputy Leader of the House—perhaps the Leader of the House can help us with that.

The Leader of the House has always characterised the double majority and the Scottish veto—or the English veto, as we call it—as something that would give consent to a particular instrument. This week we had a measure that withheld consent but that was subject to the EVEL mechanism and the double majority vote on which we were obviously subject to a English veto. What is the response of the Leader of the House to that? When we start to distinguish Members according to geography and nationality, that will always be reinterpreted and extended. By the end of this Parliament, we will have a real divide in this House. That may be the Leader of the House’s legacy as he goes off to fight one of his Euro-battles to get the country out of Europe.

Are the Government prepared to respect the House of Lords vote on the Trade Union Bill? I am not a great supporter of the House of Lords, but I note what it did this week. More important to me is whether the Leader of the House will respect the recommendation of the Scottish Parliament’s Devolution Committee that Scotland be excluded from the scope of the Bill. We do not want the Bill to destroy the very good trade union relations that we enjoy in Scotland. This is a deeply ideological Tory Bill and the Government are trying impose it on a country that does not do Tory. Can we leave it at the border and not have this Tory Trade Union Bill in Scotland?

Growing numbers of people are concerned about the situation in Yemen. Our role in equipping and advising the Saudi air force in its bombing campaign was rightly raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Angus Robertson). We have sold £10 billion-worth of aircraft to the Saudi air force, yet the Arms Export Controls Committee has lain dormant since the general election. Will the Leader of the House now pledge to get the Committee up and running as quickly as possible, so there is at least some form of scrutiny and oversight of arms exports to countries such as Saudi Arabia?

We heard all sorts of rumours yesterday about a possible maingate vote on Trident, which I am very disappointed to see is not in the Business statement. We are now in a situation where all of us could make a decision about maingate. All the major parties have now got their positions, which are apparent for everybody to see. The Conservatives—the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) is nodding—want to spend billions of pounds of our money on useless obsolete weapons of mass destruction. The SNP is implacably opposed to that spending. The Labour party, of course, has the yellow submarine option, which is maybe for and maybe against, while at the same time sending submarines out without any weaponry whatever. So we are all in a position to make a decision. Will the Leader of the House now get on with this, so we can have a proper decision and see how the parties respond?

[Chris Grayling]

I wish all our friends in the Scottish National party a very enjoyable Burns night next week. I do not know whether they will be piping in the haggis in quite the traditional way after our discussions last week—they should perhaps be piping in the black pudding from Stornoway; whether my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) would agree with that is a different question—but I wish them all a very enjoyable evening of celebration next week.

On the English votes for English laws vote earlier this week, yes there was a mistake. However, I do not believe we should condemn human error in a project that has gone pretty smoothly. I do not think anybody would wish to exclude my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) from anything, nor would he allow himself to be excluded. As the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) says, he is the ultimate English nationalist. He is also a United Kingdom nationalist as well. That, I think, is the point the hon. Gentleman misses about the Trade Union Bill. He talks about imposing something on the country. We are all part of one country. That is what the Scottish people decided in the referendum. I know it is difficult for the SNP to accept that, but the reality is that this is a United Kingdom Bill. I appreciate that SNP Members may disagree with it, but it will be voted on by the United Kingdom Parliament and I expect that it will be passed by the United Kingdom Parliament.

On Yemen, in Prime Minister’s questions the Prime Minister made it very clear, in response to the leader of the SNP at Westminster, the right hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson), exactly what the position is in Saudi Arabia and exactly what our role—indeed, non-role—is in the conflict taking place in Yemen. We all want to see a solution: a proper Government who can represent all the people of Yemen. The hon. Gentleman talks about the Arms Export Controls Committee. It can, of course, meet whenever it chooses. It is a partnership of a number of Select Committees. It is not for the Government to instruct Select Committees to meet.

The hon. Gentleman was right to highlight, as I did earlier, the chaos of the Labour party’s policy on Trident. I do not know where it stands now. Does it want to build submarines but send them to sea empty? That is probably the case. At least the SNP has a clear position. The fact is that the Labour party is all over the place on this issue. When we bring it to the House, I suspect our parties will have an interesting time exposing the Labour party’s fraudulent position.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I must advise the House that no fewer than 47 right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. I am always keen to accommodate colleagues, but there are two ministerial statements to follow and two debates under the auspices of the Backbench Business Committee. There is, therefore, a premium on brevity. What is required from each Member is a single, short supplementary question without preamble and a characteristically pithy reply from the Leader of the House.

[Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

Derby City Council has granted planning permission on vital green wedge land in Oakwood—land that prevents the city from being an urban sprawl—in spite of substantial local opposition. The site contains very old and diverse woodland, but will become totally surrounded, preventing wildlife from entering and leaving. May we have a debate on providing corridors for wildlife in planning applications on green spaces to ensure safe havens for wildlife and to allow that wildlife to travel to and from established habitats?

[Chris Grayling]

I understand the concern, which was raised recently by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) with regard to his own campaign, and I know that the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government has considered it carefully. We always wish for local authorities to provide a balance between the necessary development to provide housing for the people of this country and wildlife protection.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Leader of the House for advance notice of the Back-Bench business debates on Thursday 4 February, but I note also that we have time allocated on Monday 25 January and Monday 1 February after Government business. Will he again consider protecting time for those debates so that we have at least three hours? I also point out to right hon. and hon. Members that the Backbench Business Committee is very much open for business.

[Chris Grayling]

That latter point is important because we want the Committee to have a good range of debates to consider. As I said last week, I will give careful consideration to the hon. Gentleman’s point about time.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Will the Leader of the House be good enough to give us a debate on how we can get back our country? On the immigration question, the voters absolutely have to understand how the Dublin regulation is being bulldozed, with the connivance of the Commission, through Angela Merkel’s own policy, and how human rights laws are being extended to allow people in Calais to come over here. These matters go right to the heart of the referendum. Can we have our country back please?

[Chris Grayling]

First, as my hon. Friend knows, the broader issue will be extensively debated in both the House and the country over the coming months. On the more immediate issues, it is important, in the interim, that, when the EU takes decisions about what happens right now, it does not forget the interests of the UK simply because we are not in the Schengen area.

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

May we have a debate on the lack of accountability of transport bodies, at regional and national levels, when they do not work together? We recently suffered hours of gridlock because of an accident on the motorway and a football match at the Etihad stadium—events likely to happen on the same day from time to time. The agencies involved find it impossible to work together or come up with any solutions.

[Chris Grayling]

It is important that transport bodies are mindful of such events. Occasionally in recent years, major national events have coincided with major engineering works—on the railways, for example. The hon. Lady makes an important point, and I am sure the Transport Secretary will listen. He will be here to take questions next week, when she might wish to make that point again.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

Is the Leader of the House aware of the heartless cuts to local library services by Labour-led Telford and Wrekin Council, and may we have a debate on the vital role that library services play in communities such as Donnington, Hadley and Newport in my constituency?

[Chris Grayling]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Library services remain of enormous importance to people in this country. It is striking how Conservative councils have faced the financial challenges, which all local authorities face, innovatively while still managing to deliver quality services, while Labour councils, all too often, cannot provide the efficiencies we need while protecting those services.

[Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)]

Last week in Women and Equalities questions we could not ask any direct questions about the Select Committee’s report on the transgender issue. Will the Leader of the House consider allowing time for Topical Questions as part of Women and Equalities Question Time?

[Chris Grayling]

I am happy to consider that. We review the structure of questions from time to time. The hon. Lady might also wish to take the matter to the Backbench Business Committee to secure a debate. We now make a substantial block of time available to the Committee, as we have heard today. It is a good opportunity for Select Committees to seek time for debates about reports.

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

We have heard today that the Leader of the House wants a debate on the future of Trident, that the spokesman for the Scottish nationalists wants a debate on the future of Trident, and I know from personal experience that the leader of the Labour party is never afraid to have a debate on the future of Trident, so why have we not been given a date for the maingate debate and decision? Surely the Prime Minister cannot be so occupied with considerations of European negotiations as to delay this issue once more, when it was outrageously delayed for five years as part of a grubby coalition deal in 2010.

[Chris Grayling]

As we have heard, my right hon. Friend feels strongly that we should have such debates. He may be right about the Leader of the Opposition, but I am not sure that the rest of those on the Labour Front Bench want to have that debate any time soon. This is a matter under consideration and I hope to be able to indicate in the not too distant future the Government’s plans for future debates about defence matters.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

The International Association of Athletics Federations has recently acknowledged the widespread doping in world athletics. This morning, UK Anti-Doping has asked to see Arsène Wenger because of his long-term brave outspokenness on doping in football. What are the Government going to do about this issue, and may we have a debate?

[Mr Speaker]

Wenger is a great man!

[Chris Grayling]

I think we now understand where your footballing sympathies lie, Mr Speaker. Sadly, I fear my team, Manchester United, are unlikely to overtake yours this season, but we can but hope and keep our fingers crossed. We have, of course, just had Culture, Media and Sport questions, and I am sure that the Secretary of State has already thought carefully about the issue and will continue to do so. I will make sure that the hon. Gentleman’s concerns are raised. He makes an important point—doping in sport, in whatever sport, is to be roundly condemned and dealt with with the strongest possible force, when appropriate.

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

Pursuant to yesterday’s Adjournment debate, sponsored by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), may we have a debate on the entirely unsatisfactory situation whereby international banks treat Members of Parliament as persons of interest in organised crime?

[Chris Grayling]

I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) for bringing forward yesterday’s debate and I offer my strong support for the comment that has just been made. On behalf of Members of all parties, I say that it is absolutely inappropriate for international banks to look upon Members as anything other than normal customers. The fact that they pursue a line that is, I believe, often intrusive, inappropriate and unnecessary is something that we should all clearly state we believe to be unacceptable.

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)]

We were all delighted in October last year when the Foreign Secretary’s visit to Saudi Arabia led to the release of Karl Andree from a Saudi jail, which the Foreign Secretary attributed to the strength, breadth and depth of UK-Saudi relations. The Prime Minister said at the time:

“We have always acted on…British prisoners overseas, with all countries, not just Saudi Arabia”.

We surely have strength, breadth and depth in our relationship with India, so I ask the Leader of the House for a statement outlining exactly why we could secure the release of Mr Andree from Saudi Arabia, but seemingly not of my constituent, Billy Irving, from five years’ vigorous imprisonment in Tamil Nadu in India.

[Chris Grayling]

Let me first commend the hon. Lady for her diligence in pursuing this case. Since she last raised the matter, I have raised it with the Foreign Office and the Prime Minister. After today, I will pursue it further and try to ensure that she receives an early reply to the representations she has been making on behalf of her constituent.

[Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)]

The Government have been told by the insurance industry that all businesses are offered flood insurance for their businesses, but we know after devastating floods in Calder Valley over Christmas that that is not the case—and where it is, we know that the premiums and excesses are often extortionate, unaffordable and unfair. May we have a debate on flood insurance for business and on whether the Government will begin negotiations with the insurance industry on behalf of business, as they did with domestic properties and Flood Re?

[Chris Grayling]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I know that the county he represents as well as his own area has been affected, and we all want to see continued progress being made in the areas affected by flooding to try to get businesses and homeowners back to normal. He knows that Flood Re was set up as a residential system in the first place, but I can assure him that Ministers are currently in discussions with the insurance industry about how to address precisely the concerns he has raised today.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

May we have a statement on criminal legal aid to clarify whether the Government still intend to go ahead with their disastrous two-tier contracts for criminal solicitors? I realise that the Leader of the House will not welcome a sixth high-profile U-turn on policies he championed when he was Lord Chancellor, but the current chaos is, in the words of the Law Society this week,

“undermining access to justice for the most vulnerable in society.”

[Chris Grayling]

Let me remind the hon. Gentleman that the Law Society endorsed the package in the first place, two years ago. Let me also remind him that we have had to make tough decisions in a variety of areas of government—including legal aid—from 2010 onwards, because we have had to sort out the right royal financial mess that was left behind by the Labour party.

[Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)]

Dudley council is banning dogs from the parts of Himley Park that are most easily accessible to people with visual and other disabilities. May we have a debate on facilities to allow guide dog owners and puppy-walkers to exercise their dogs properly?

[Chris Grayling]

It is important, as we rightly do the right thing for people with disabilities, for us to try to ensure that they are given the support that they need throughout society. My hon. Friend has made an important point about his constituency. I am sure that his comments will have been heard by his local authority, and that it will be considering whether it should, and how it could, act on them.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Some Members’ votes can now be void. Chamber votes on substantive issues such as women’s pensions have been voided, and votes on serious issues are increasingly avoided, by means of statutory instruments. Which of those does the Leader of the House take most pride in?

[Chris Grayling]

The House has followed the Government’s current ways of working for decades. It did so under the last Labour Government, and it did so under the coalition Government. We have made no major changes, barring the very necessary change to provide the fairness in our devolution settlement that the English votes for English laws system represents.

[Craig Williams (Cardiff North) (Con)]

It is with great delight that I update the House on a matter that has been raised in the Chamber many times by my predecessors. Llanishen and Lisvane reservoirs have now been taken over by Welsh Water on a very long-term lease, and I praise both Welsh Water and Celsa for signing the deal. The nub of the question, however, is how we can recognise community groups such as the Reservoir Action Group, which has been campaigning for more than two decades with MPs and councillors. The honours system could, of course, give awards to some of its members, but how can we honour such community groups more broadly? The RAG, for instance, has made a huge contribution to Cardiff and to the reservoirs.

[Chris Grayling]

I should like to praise the volunteers in my hon. Friend’s constituency for the work that they have done. Last week I suggested to the Backbench Business Committee that it might wish to hold a day-long debate at some point this year so that Members could praise and reflect the work done by voluntary groups in their constituencies. As my hon. Friend says, the honours system can be used to reflect the exceptionally good work done by individuals in all our constituencies, and I am sure that many of us have used the system in that way, appropriately, in the past, but the Prime Minister runs the Points of Light awards on a daily basis, and my hon. Friend might like to consider that option as well.

[Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)]

I am sorry to say that Sheffield remains extremely vulnerable to flooding, as it has few and inadequate flood defences. So far the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has allocated only £23 million of the £43 million that Sheffield needs to protect existing homes, businesses and prime development land, to enable new homes to be built, and to promote job creation and growth. May we have a debate in Government time on DEFRA’s grant in aid programme, so that we can ensure that it recognises the substantial economic benefits of our flood defences?

[Chris Grayling]

The hon. Lady has made an important point. In all the areas that have been either directly affected by or threatened by flooding, there is now a real determination among local communities—as well as at Government level—to focus on doing all the sensible things that can be done to prevent flooding. I will ensure that the hon. Lady’s concerns are passed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. She will be back in the House shortly, and the point could be put to her directly then .

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

Huddersfield Royal Infirmary, which is in my constituency, serves our growing university town. Yesterday the clinical commissioning group announced a 12-week consultation on closing our accident and emergency department and moving it to Halifax. The backdrop to that is a ruinous private finance initiative deal under which we will pay £774 million for a hospital that cost £64 million to build. May we have an urgent debate on this appalling situation?

[Chris Grayling]

I well understand my hon. Friend’s concern about A&E services in his constituency. No doubt he will make strong representations locally, to the CCG, general practitioners and local decision-makers, but the appalling structures of PFI are, of course, a legacy that was passed to us by the last Labour Government. We look back and ask, “How on earth did they ever think those deals were a good idea?”

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

Last week I described the Leader of the House as a Brexit mini-beast, but this week I should like to extend the hand of friendship to him, and invite him to join me on a Southern train. I will buy the lattes. I hope that, at the end of the journey, he will want to make time available for a debate in the House to discuss my proposal that passengers should be entitled to compensation when their trains are delayed by 15 minutes, rather than the 30 minutes that currently apply.

[Chris Grayling]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. He does not need to invite me on Southern rail; I was on Southern last night—indeed, I am a regular traveller on Southern and on South West Trains. He makes an important point and one of the things I find frustrating is that I personally believe we should be tighter on the statistics around delays to services as well, because they can get away with being a few minutes late and that will not show up in the statistics. So the right hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and he and I will continue to argue for better services on behalf of our constituents. I am sure his comments will be listened to.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

May we have a debate on the Prime Minister’s very sensible proposals this week about the importance of immigrants learning English, which is certainly an issue in Bradford among many Muslim women, to help them integrate into British society? In such a debate, perhaps we could discuss who should pay for these English lessons, because many of my constituents think it should not be the taxpayer who foots the bill; it should be the people themselves. If I decide to go and live in Spain, I would not expect the Spanish Government to teach me Spanish.

[Chris Grayling]

My hon. Friend makes his point eloquently, but the key to this is that it is absolutely essential that people who come to live and work in this country speak English, and our communities have ended up more divided than they should be because of the fact that so many people who come here cannot speak English. That really has to change.

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

We learned from the Evening Standard just over an hour ago that the Government intend to devolve local metro train services in London from the Department for Transport to Transport for London, something that was dismissed by the Leader of the House as renationalisation when I pressed him on it last year. In the light of that welcome decision, can we now find time for a debate on the details of the Government’s proposals, and in particular what can be done to compel operators like Southeastern, which will lose their franchises as a result, to improve their services in the interim?

[Chris Grayling]

Changes of this kind would be a matter for detailed discussion in this House. I have not seen what is in the Evening Standard so I cannot tell whether it is a rumour or otherwise. What I would say is if this Government are going to bring forward changes that affect Members of this House, we will set out details to them and listen to them.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Weetabix is a delicious and nutritious breakfast cereal the wheat for which is sourced from farms within a 50 mile radius of the Weetabix factory at Burton Latimer in the borough of Kettering. The agriculture Secretary is there this morning to launch the new great British food unit to promote the export of British foodstuffs around the world. Will the Leader of the House make sure that at all his breakfast meetings, and at all the breakfast meetings arranged by the House authorities, Weetabix is made available?

[Chris Grayling]

Mr Speaker, I am sure that you and I, as members of the Commission that ultimately looks at catering matters, will give careful consideration to that representation. However, we may have to have a two-course breakfast as my hon. Friend will have heard from both sides of the House the call to have a cooked breakfast with black pudding afterwards.

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

I hope the Leader of the House is in good health and has been enjoying some of that superfood that is Stornoway black pudding as recommended in my early-day motion 936, and which is easily ordered on the internet.

[That this House welcomes the recognition of black pudding, Marag Dhubh in Gaelic, as a superfood; notes that its calcium, iron, magnesium, potassium and protein-rich nature make the black pudding an excellent addition to a healthy, balanced diet; expresses pleasure at the economic benefits to Stornoway butchers of its EU Protected Geographical Indication, one of the many great benefits of EU membership; and encourages everyone to discover the great taste of Scottish food.]

With his health suitably fortified, will the Leader of the House look to have a debate on the suggestion of a new Act of Union in the UK by Peter Hain and other ennobled gentlemen, and maybe the Government and these gentlemen could get behind my ten-minute rule Bill on Scots votes for Scots laws and engage with Scotland’s democratic representatives?

[Chris Grayling]

Hopefully the Stornoway superfood will provide an appropriate counterbalance to the glass of the other product that comes from the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, which I suspect will be drunk in copious quantities next week on Burns night. What I would say to him is if the Scottish National party is now calling for a new Act of Union, that is definitely a new departure and one we should perhaps consider very carefully.

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

May we have a debate on the export value and potential of Bury black pudding, which was raised with me when I visited the Bury Black Pudding Company last week? This will enable me to dispel the suggestion raised by some hon. Members that the black pudding made in their constituencies is in the same league as Bury black pudding. This is clearly a scurrilous suggestion that needs to be dealt with as quickly as possible.

[Chris Grayling]

We are clearly going to have to hold a black pudding tasting contest in this House. We will not be inviting the shadow Leader of the House to take part, because we know that he does not like black pudding—

[Chris Bryant]

No you don’t!

[Chris Grayling]

But as we know, the shadow Deputy Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn), does like black pudding, so she can take part.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

Following the point made by the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), may we have an urgent debate on cuts to funding for English for speakers of other languages? Walsall Adult Community College has had £380,000 cut from its budget for doing what the Prime Minister asked it to do. The Prime Minister has now allocated £20 million, so please can the college have its money back?

[Chris Grayling]

The hon. Lady makes a strong representation on behalf of her local college, and I am sure that the appropriate Minister will take that into account as he looks at how we use this money to the best possible effect.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

Last weekend saw the celebrations of Thai Pongal and Lohri, with thousands of British citizens celebrating the winter harvest in the Indian subcontinent. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is a great cause for congratulation and that we should have a debate in this House on the variety of different community festivals that are held in this country, given that they are never debated in this Chamber?

[Chris Grayling]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the work he does with the different minority groups in his constituency. He raised the issue of groups in Kashmir, a part of the world in which we would all like to see a peace settlement and a lasting solution. In the meantime, he has made an important point about the different community festivals that add richness to this country and provide a fantastic means of spreading community understanding between different parts of our society.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

I was disappointed to hear the Prime Minister’s triumphalism on the question of employment yesterday, because unemployment has once again gone up in my constituency, as it has in many others. Of the 75 constituencies in which unemployment has risen the most, just seven are in the south of England. May we please have a debate on the continuing north-south divide, before the northern powerhouse goes the way of the big society and hug a hoodie?

[Chris Grayling]

I am sorry; I simply do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. Over the past five and a half years, we have seen a steady fall in unemployment and a steady rise in employment in this country, and the economy of the north is growing faster than the economy of the south. I am proud of this Government’s achievement in turning around the situation: when we came into office, unemployment was forecast to rise to 3 million, but it is now around half that level.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

The Government invested £15 million of regional growth fund money to establish the largest enterprise zone in the country in order to further their ambition to make the Humber the energy estuary, which is vital to the economy of my constituency. Progress on this seems to be rather too slow, however. May we have an urgent statement on how we might pursue this matter?

[Chris Grayling]

We all want to see continued economic growth in Humberside. The enterprise zone that my hon. Friend talks about is one part of our strategy for continued improvement and a continued fall in unemployment. I will ensure that the Secretary of State is made aware of his concerns and look into how we might possibly help my hon. Friend to achieve what he is trying to achieve.

[Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)]

Last night, I met the mum and dad of Matthew Bass, who had a 15-year career in cabin crew before his sudden death in January 2014. Matthew, aged 34, was found to have died from chronic exposure to organophosphates. It is believed that that was caused by contaminated cabin air. Will a Minister come to the House to make a statement to ensure that air passengers are made aware of the situation and of the steps the Government are taking to ensure that air passengers are safe?

[Chris Grayling]

The hon. Lady raises an issue that has been brought up in the House on a number of occasions over the years. It has also been debated on occasions, but she might like to consider bringing forward a further debate on it. I will ensure that her concerns about this tragic death are passed on to the Secretary of State for Transport, who will be back in the House next week. She might like to put this point to him as well.

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

In 2014, the railway line at Dawlish was cut off for six weeks because of severe storms. The Secretary of State for Transport asked the taskforce and his own Department to report in the summer on resilience in the south-west, so that we should never again be cut off. May we have a statement on how that is proceeding?

[Chris Grayling]

I am aware of the huge disruption that the damage at Dawlish caused. I hope that my hon. Friend believes that the Government and Network Rail responded as quickly as possible to restore the existing route, and I assure him that work is ongoing to find alternatives and to provide a contingency plan for any such event in the future. The Secretary of State for Transport will be here in the next few days, and my hon. Friend will certainly be able to raise that point with him then, but I will also ensure that his concerns are passed on and that we get that statement soon.

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

Earlier this week, the Prime Minister appeared to back a ban on the Muslim veil in some circumstances but not in others, and seemed to stop short of an outright ban on the facial veil. This has caused some confusion and concern among the Muslim community in my constituency. May we have a statement from the Prime Minister to clarify exactly what the Government’s policy is? Will he clarify that it will not apply in devolved Scotland?

[Chris Grayling]

Of course the Prime Minister will be back here next week to take questions, but it is the case that there are places in our society where it is not appropriate to wear a face veil, for example, when somebody is giving evidence in court. That issue has appeared before the courts in recent years. It would be completely wrong to have somebody giving evidence in court while wearing a full face veil. That is just one example of where it is not appropriate in our society and where it is sensible to have a balance.

[Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)]

May we have a debate about the provision of in vitro fertilisation? The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence’s 2013 guidelines recommend that three full cycles be provided, but many clinical commissioning groups still impose restrictions. Two of my constituents have had to raise £10,000 to fund a second and third cycle. Will the Leader of the House raise with Health Ministers the need to ensure that the NICE guidance is followed?

[Chris Grayling]

I am happy to raise that point, but I would say that we have taken a conscious decision that the provision of services should be taken by local doctors, rather than by officials in Whitehall. That was a very conscious policy decision. It does mean that different decisions may be taken in different areas. I think that is the right thing, but I will make sure the hon. Lady’s concerns are raised.

[Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Ind)]

Dozens of Rochdale businesses have been without phone lines since the floods. BT Openreach is dragging its feet with the problem, so may we have a debate on whether BT is capable of delivering this essential service?

[Chris Grayling]

If BT has still not been able to restore phone lines to businesses, that is a matter of serious concern for all of us. I will make sure that that concern is passed on to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport this morning, as both have responsibilities in this area and this needs to be rectified pretty quickly.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The prosecution of kids who post indecent images continues to cause great concern. In Northern Ireland last week, investigations into dozens of youngsters considered for prosecution over indecent images of children have been halted because of the sensitivity of the issue and the need, I believe, for decriminalisation. Children will come forward to get help, and fewer will self-harm and commit suicide, if we look at decriminalising this. Will the Leader of the House agree to a statement on this very important issue?

[Chris Grayling]

One very much hopes that the prosecuting authorities, both in Northern Ireland and elsewhere, apply a degree of common sense. We have rules that are designed to protect young people from inappropriate exploitation and from revenge porn, but I think we would all take the view that if a teenager does something stupid, we would not wish to see them criminalised without good reason.

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

May we have a statement from a Department for Work and Pensions Minister, because over the Christmas period a number of families in my constituency could not get any benefits or tax credits? The procedure seems to be very slow and delayed. This is a serious issue and we should have either a statement or a debate on it.

[Chris Grayling]

Of course tax credits are normally paid directly, through a different route from the benefits system. This will therefore depend entirely on the individual cases, but if the hon. Gentleman wishes to write to me with some more detailed examples, I will make sure that I pass his comments on to the Secretary of State so that he gets a response.

[Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)]

My constituent Naheed Kausar Ali was tragically killed during the crushing incident at the Hajj in September. The Saudi authorities committed to an investigation, on which they have yet to report back. May we have a statement on what pressure can be applied and what assistance can be given to the Saudi authorities to ensure that they report back rapidly and publicly, so that lessons are learned and British pilgrims can travel to the Hajj in safety?

[Chris Grayling]

This was, of course, a great tragedy, and the hon. Gentleman makes an important point. By coincidence, a Minister of State at the Foreign Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington), has just arrived in the Chamber. Although he is not directly responsible for relations with Saudi Arabia, I will ask him to pass on that concern to his colleague in the Foreign Office so that the issue can be addressed. This was a tragedy for the families involved and they will want to see answers.

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

Pursuant to the answer given to the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard), may we have a debate on local government finance, as that might give Ministers a chance to explain why cautious, prudent, Labour-run Cheshire West and Chester Council, having achieved a £2 million underspend this year, has seen that wiped out by incompetent Ministers applying a formula error that has lost our local council £2.3 million?

[Chris Grayling]

If there is a formula error, the Department will look at it. The hon. Gentleman will undoubtedly have made representations already, as will other Members from the Cheshire West area. I will ensure that the Department responds appropriately to him and to them.

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)]

Greater Manchester’s bid for enterprise zones in its town centres was refused by the Government. May we have a debate about the importance of town centres to our economies?

[Chris Grayling]

May I start by congratulating the hon. Gentleman on his election to this House? I am sorry that he was caught up in the glitch on Tuesday, but, as I said earlier, it was a human error and one that I am certain will not be repeated. Again, I congratulate him on his arrival in this House and say to him that he makes an important point about the town and city centres of the north-west. I am pleased to have seen the way in which the centres of Manchester and Liverpool in particular—but not just Manchester and Liverpool—have been transformed in recent years. I take his point, and I will ask the Treasury to respond to him accordingly.

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

The steel crisis rumbles on. Government policy is very much pro China’s market economy status, irrespective of whether or not this country remains in the European Union. May we have a statement on the Government’s argument for China’s MES, or are we to believe that the Chinese communist red flag flies above No. 10?

[Chris Grayling]

The hon. Gentleman knows, as this issue was addressed in this House a couple of days ago, that the steel industry internationally faces enormous challenges. The problems that we are experiencing are not unique to this country; they are a factor of change around the world. We believe strongly that this country benefits economically from having proper and solid economic ties with China, which does not mean that we are not putting serious effort into trying to address the problems that the steel industry faces, but he will understand that it is an international challenge that is not easy to resolve.

[Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)]

Within the past week, the Secretary of State for Scotland has made a departmental statement and then a U-turn counter-statement on post-study work visas while being fully aware that there was an ongoing investigation into this matter by the Scottish Affairs Committee. That has enraged both the Scottish media and the people of Scotland. Will the Leader of the House issue a statement saying that such behaviour undermines the cross-party work of the parliamentary Committee, the evidence submitted from the many who come before the Committee, and subsequent reports that are published? Will he also assure us that this UK Government made an abject error and will not undermine parliamentary democracy in the future?

[Chris Grayling]

This is an area that was not in the Smith commission report. It is also one on which we seek to do the right thing and to provide the right balance. We think the system that has been put in place provides that right balance, even though the hon. Gentleman and his party do not agree.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

May we have a debate, or even one of those nice little statutory instruments, advising local authorities of the sense of installing a small shelf in disabled toilets so that people who have ileostomies or colostomies can effectively change their bags without having to scrabble on dirty floors?

[Chris Grayling]

The hon. Lady makes an important and sensible point. The Under-Secretary of State for Disabled People will be here on Monday week when she can put that point to him. It is something that I will also ensure is passed on to the Department, as she makes an interesting and valuable point.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

May we have a debate on the Government’s decision to cut public health in-year budgets by £200 million, given that Simon Stevens’ “Five Year Forward View” predicates that in year 5 £5 billion will be freed up from prevention? Is it not short-sighted of this Government to cut the very budgets that will allow that to happen in the future?

[Chris Grayling]

We face different challenges in the health world, but we continue to increase the amount of money that we spend on health in this country, and will continue to do so.

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

In Prime Minister’s questions on 4 November, the Prime Minister agreed to meet my constituents, Tina and Mike Trowhill, to discuss the very sad case of the baby ashes scandal. The Prime Minister said:

“I am happy to arrange that meeting.”—[Official Report, 4 November 2015; Vol. 601, c. 964.]

Subsequently, Downing Street has transferred that meeting to a junior Minister whom the Trowhills have already met. On 11 November, I wrote to the Prime Minister expressing my concern, but to no avail. It does the reputation of this House no good when commitments given in this House and reported in good faith by the media are not kept. Will the Leader of the House see what he can do to arrange that meeting?

[Chris Grayling]

I will take a look at the point the hon. Lady has raised.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Further to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), may I impress on the Leader of the House the urgency of the matter? May we have an urgent statement on aerotoxic syndrome, as there were 251 incidents of toxic gas escapes into cabins last year?

[Chris Grayling]

I absolutely accept the hon. Lady’s point. We heard earlier from the Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee, who controls a large block of the time we have in this House for debates on such subjects, that he is short of topics for the coming weeks. I urge both the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) to put that request to the Backbench Business Committee, as that would bring a Minister to the House to discuss the serious issues that they raise.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

This week, the Leader of the House made comments that again insinuated that the SNP over-predicted the price of oil. Before the referendum, the Department of Energy and Climate Change had predicted an upper forecast of $135 a barrel for oil for this year alone. Low oil prices affect workers all over the UK and I have a constituent who at Christmas did not know whether his son would get back on to the rigs. Will the right hon. Gentleman make a statement apologising for gloating while people lose their jobs?

[Chris Grayling]

What the SNP cannot understand is that it is precisely because we are one United Kingdom that we can provide support to parts of our economy that are affected by such unexpected changes. If Scotland had become independent, a new Scottish Administration would right now be facing a massive financial gap because of the falling oil price. That is why Scotland was and is better off as part of the United Kingdom.

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

Is the Leader of the House aware that 11 March marks the centenary of the birth of Harold Wilson, one of our great Prime Ministers? Will he join me in ensuring that the House recognises the life of that great Yorkshireman, who was born in my constituency of Huddersfield, and will he try to persuade the Speaker’s Art Fund and perhaps even Mr Speaker that it is about time we had a proper statue of Harold Wilson on the Westminster estate? I have been in touch with every Member of Parliament, and across all parties there is an overwhelming majority in favour.

[Chris Grayling]

Mr Speaker will have heard the hon. Gentleman’s comments, which are important. Harold Wilson, although not of my political persuasion, was one of the major figures of 20th-century politics. I think that everyone in this House, from all parties, would wish to extend to Harold Wilson’s widow our congratulations on the milestone that she has just celebrated of her 100th birthday.

[Steven Paterson (Stirling) (SNP)]

I am sure that the Leader of the House will wish to be consistent and fair—he is a reasonable guy, after all. So, when will he introduce measures to implement Scottish votes for Scottish laws to address the democratic deficit that he has created with EVEL?

[Chris Grayling]

I can give the hon. Gentleman an absolute assurance that we will see new developments in Scottish votes for Scottish laws this May, when we have elections to the Scottish Parliament, which delivers those Scottish votes for Scottish laws. I am confident that our strong Conservative team in Scotland will be working to make real progress and I am equally confident that the Labour party will have a difficult night in Scotland.

Litvinenko Inquiry

Thursday 21st January 2016 Commons Chamber

11:32

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the death of Alexander Litvinenko on 23 November 2006 and the statutory inquiry into that death, which published its findings this morning.

Mr Litvinenko’s death was a deeply shocking event. Despite the ongoing police investigation and the efforts of the Crown Prosecution Service, those responsible have still not been brought to justice. In July 2014, I established a statutory inquiry to investigate the circumstances surrounding Mr Litvinenko’s death, to determine responsibility for his death and to make recommendations. It was chaired by Sir Robert Owen, a retired senior High Court judge, and it had the Government’s full support and access to any relevant material regardless of its sensitivity.

I welcome the inquiry’s report today and would like to put on record my thanks to Sir Robert Owen for his detailed, thorough and impartial investigation into this complex and serious matter. Although the inquiry cannot assign civil or criminal liability, I hope that these findings will provide some clarity for Alexander Litvinenko’s family and friends and all those affected by his death. I would particularly like to pay tribute to Mrs Marina Litvinenko and her tireless efforts to get to the truth.

The independent inquiry has found that Mr Litvinenko died on 23 November 2006, having suffered a cardiac arrest as a result of acute radiation syndrome, caused by his ingesting polonium-210 on 1 November 2006. He ingested the fatal dose of polonium-210 while drinking tea at the Pine bar of the Millennium hotel on the afternoon of 1 November 2006. The inquiry, which in the course of its investigations considered “an abundance of evidence”, has found that Mr Litvinenko was deliberately poisoned by Andrey Lugovoy and Dmitry Kovtun, whom he had met at the Millennium hotel on the afternoon of that day.

The inquiry has also found that Lugovoy and Kovtun were acting on behalf of others when they poisoned Mr Litvinenko. There is a strong probability that they were acting under the direction of the Russian domestic security service, the Federal Security Service or FSB. The inquiry has found that the FSB operation to kill Mr Litvinenko was probably approved by Mr Patrushev, the then head of the FSB, and by President Putin.

The Government take these findings extremely seriously, as I am sure does every Member of this House. We are carefully considering the report’s findings in detail, and their implications. In particular, the conclusion that the Russian state was probably involved in the murder of Mr Litvinenko is deeply disturbing. It goes without saying that this was a blatant and unacceptable breach of the most fundamental tenets of international law and of civilised behaviour, but we have to accept that this does not come as a surprise. The inquiry confirms the assessment of successive Governments that this was a state-sponsored act. This assessment has informed the Government’s approach to date.

Since 2007 that approach has comprised a series of steps to respond to Russia and its provocation. Some of these measures were immediate, such as the expulsion of a number of Russian embassy officials from the UK. Others are ongoing, such as the tightening of visa restrictions on Russian officials in the UK. The Metropolitan Police Service’s investigation into Mr Litvinenko’s murder remains open. I can tell the House today that Interpol notices and European arrest warrants are in place so that the main suspects, Andrey Lugovoy and Dmitry Kovtun, can be arrested if they travel abroad. In the light of the report’s findings the Government will go further, and Treasury Ministers have today agreed to put in place asset freezes against the two individuals.

At the time, the independent Crown Prosecution Service formally requested the extradition of Mr Lugovoy from Russia. Russia refused to comply with this request and has consistently refused to do so ever since. It is now almost 10 years since Mr Litvinenko was killed. Sir Robert Owen is unequivocal in his finding that Andrey Lugovoy and Dmitry Kovtun killed him. In the light of this most serious finding, Russia’s continued failure to ensure that the perpetrators of this terrible crime can be brought to justice is unacceptable. I have written to the Director of Public Prosecutions this morning asking her to consider whether any further action should be taken, in terms of both extradition and freezing criminal assets. These decisions are, of course, a matter for the independent Crown Prosecution Service, but the Government remain committed to pursuing justice in this case.

We have always made our position clear to the Russian Government, and in the strongest possible terms. We are doing so again today. We are making senior representations to the Russian Government in Moscow. At the same time we will be summoning the Russian ambassador in London to the Foreign Office, where we will express our profound displeasure at Russia’s failure to co-operate and provide satisfactory answers. Specifically, we have demanded, and will continue to demand, that the Russian Government account for the role of the FSB in this case.

The threat posed by hostile states is one of the most sensitive issues that I deal with as Home Secretary. Although not often discussed in public, our security and intelligence agencies have always, dating back to their roots in the first and second world wars, had the protection of the UK from state threats at the heart of their mission. This means countering those threats in all their guises, whether from assassinations, cyber-attacks, or more traditional espionage. By its nature this work is both less visible and necessarily more secret than the police and the agencies’ work against the terrorist threat, but it is every bit as important to the long-term security and prosperity of the United Kingdom.

The House will appreciate that I cannot go into detail about how we seek to protect ourselves from hostile state acts, but we make full use of the measures at our disposal, from investigatory powers right through to the visa system. The case of Mr Litvinenko demonstrates once again why it is so vital that the intelligence agencies maintain their ability to detect and disrupt such threats.

The environment in which espionage and hostile state intelligence activities take place is changing. Evolving foreign state interests and rapid technological advances mean it is imperative that we respond. Last November the Chancellor announced that we will make new funding available to the security and intelligence agencies to provide for an additional 1,900 officers. In the same month, I published the draft Investigatory Powers Bill so that we can ensure that the intelligence agencies’ capabilities keep pace with the threat and technology, while at the same time improving the oversight of, and safeguards for, the use of investigatory powers.

In the Government’s recently published national security strategy and the strategic defence and security review, we set out the range of threats to the UK and our allies, including from Russia, and our comprehensive approach to countering these threats. Since publication of the previous SDSR in 2010, Russia has become more authoritarian, aggressive and nationalist. Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea and its destabilising actions in Ukraine have directly challenged security in the region. These actions have also served as a sobering demonstration of Russia’s intent to try to undermine European security and the rules-based international order. In response, the UK, in conjunction with international partners, has imposed a package of robust measures against Russia. This includes sanctions against key Russian individuals, including Mr Patrushev, who is currently the Secretary to the Russian Security Council.

The Government are clear that we must protect the UK and her interests from Russia-based threats, working closely with our allies in the EU and NATO. This morning I have written to my counterparts in EU, NATO and “Five Eyes” countries, drawing their attention to both the report and the need to take steps to prevent such a murder being committed in their streets.

We will continue to call on President Putin for Russia, as one of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, to engage responsibly and make a positive contribution to global security and stability. It can, for example, play an important role in defeating Daesh and, together with the wider international community, help Syria work towards a stable future. We face some of the same challenges, from serious crime to aviation security. We will continue to engage, guardedly, with Russia where it is strictly necessary to do so to support the UK’s national interest.

Sir Robert Owen’s report contains one recommendation that is within the closed section. Right hon. and hon. Members will appreciate that I cannot reveal details of that recommendation in this House, but I can assure them that the Government will respond to the inquiry’s chair on that recommendation in due course.

Finally, I would like to reiterate the Government’s determination to continue to seek justice for the murder of Mr Litvinenko. I would like to repeat my thanks to Sir Robert Owen and, in particular, Marina Litvinenko. As Sir Robert states in his report, she has shown “dignity and composure” and

“has demonstrated a quiet determination to establish the true facts of her husband’s death that is greatly to be commended.”

Mr Litvinenko’s murder was a truly terrible event. I sincerely hope that for the sake of Marina and Anatoly Litvinenko, for the sake of Mr Litvinenko’s wider family and friends, and for the sake of justice, those responsible can be brought to trial. I commend this statement to the House.

11:43

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

As the Home Secretary said, this is one of the most shocking and disturbing reports ever presented to Parliament. It confirms that the Russian state, at its highest level, sanctioned the killing of a British citizen on the streets of our capital city and, in so doing, exposed thousands of Londoners to unacceptable levels of risk—an unparalleled act of state-sponsored terrorism that must meet with a commensurate response. So far-reaching are the implications of the report that it is important not to rush to judgment today. Time must be taken to digest its findings and consider our response. There are difficult questions that need to be asked in formulating that response, and I intend to focus on those.

First, however, I echo the Home Secretary’s words of praise for Sir Robert Owen and his inquiry team, without whose painstaking work this important truth would not be known. I also extend the gratitude of Labour Members to the Metropolitan Police Service for what the report calls an “exemplary investigation” and to the Litvinenko family’s legal team, particularly Ben Emmerson, who supported them on a pro bono basis, and probably without whom we would not be here today.

More importantly, I am sure the whole House will join me in sending a message of admiration, sympathy and solidarity to Marina and Anatoly Litvinenko, who have fought so courageously to make this day a reality. People will of course leap to the international and diplomatic issues that arise, but it must be remembered, first and foremost, that this was a family tragedy, and their wishes surely matter most. With that in mind, would the Home Secretary be prepared to meet Marina and Anatoly to discuss this report, its findings, and the British Government’s response? I have spoken to Marina, and I know that she would welcome that.

Let me now turn to that Government response. I welcome what the Home Secretary said about renewing efforts to bring the murderers to justice, and her new approach to NATO and EU allies. However, given that these two individuals are reported to be travelling, will she go further and directly approach all EU, NATO and Commonwealth allies individually to ask for their immediate co-operation on extradition?

There may be other individuals who are British citizens and who are facing similar dangers. Will the Home Secretary provide assurances that there will be a review of the security of those most at risk? Has she reviewed the level of security that was provided to Mr Litvinenko by the British security services, and can any lessons be drawn from this in better protecting others? That is important, because there is a real possibility that this was not an isolated incident. The House may be aware of an ongoing inquest into the death of Alexander Perepilichny, a prominent Russian lawyer who dropped dead in Surrey after going for run. While there is a limit on what we can say about an ongoing inquest, does the Home Secretary believe that there is a case for it to be upgraded and provided with extra support, possibly from Sir Robert himself?

I will now turn to potential action against the wider network of Russian interests linked to the perpetrators. Of course, no individuals commit these crimes alone, and today’s report confirms that there is a network of people who will have known about and facilitated this crime. I gather that Mrs Litvinenko has prepared a list of names, to be submitted today to the Government, of people who have aided and abetted the perpetrators, and against whom she believes sanctions should be taken. This could include the freezing of UK assets and property and travel restrictions. Will the Home Secretary give an in-principle commitment to look seriously at that list and those requests? Further, can she say whether, going forward, action of this kind would be facilitated by new legislation along the lines of the Magnitsky law in the US, and whether the Government are giving any consideration to that?

Finally, let me turn to our wider relationship with Russia. The Home Secretary indicated that there will be new diplomatic pressure, and I welcome that, but I have to say, having listened carefully to her, that I am not sure that it goes anywhere near far enough in answering the seriousness of the findings in this report. Indeed, it could send a dangerous signal to Russia that our response is too weak. What has been announced today cannot be the end of what the British Government are prepared to do.

Given what we know about the way the Russian state operates, is there not a case for a wide-ranging review of the nature and extent of this country’s relations with it—diplomatic, political, economic, and cultural? Given the proven FSB involvement, will the Government consider expelling all FSB officers from Britain immediately? More broadly, can the Home Secretary say whether the Prime Minister has ever raised this case directly with Vladimir Putin, and whether he is seeking an urgent conversation with him today to discuss the findings of this report?

On parliamentary matters, it beggars belief that one of the suspected murderers is today a leading Member of the Duma and even second in command of its Security Committee. Given that fact—this may be a question for you, Mr Speaker—what is the correct relationship for this Parliament to have with its Russian counterpart?

On cultural collaboration, given what the report reveals about the Russian Government and their links to organised crime, and given what we know about corruption in FIFA, is there not a growing case for this country to engage with others in a debate about whether the 2018 World cup should go ahead in Russia? On the economy, are the Government satisfied that the current EU sanctions against Russia are adequate, and is there a case to strengthen them?

I ask those questions not because I have come to a conclusion about them, but because I believe they are the difficult but right questions that fall out of the report and that this country now needs to debate them in the light of its findings, if we are to do justice to the Litvinenko family.

There is a question about how the Government go about formulating their response and the considerations that will guide them. Although the Home Secretary ordered this review, it is important to note that she originally refused to do so, citing international issues. She has mentioned them again today, but should not it be considerations of justice, not diplomacy, that lead the Government’s response? Will she give a categorical assurance to that effect? There can be no sense of the Government pulling their punches because of wider diplomatic considerations. If we were to do that, would it not send a terrible message to the world that Britain is prepared to tolerate outrageous acts of state violence on its soil and appease those who sanctioned them?

Once all those considerations are complete, will the Home Secretary commit to coming back to this House and updating it on the final package of steps that the Government will take? The Litvinenko family deserve nothing less after their courageous fight.

I wish to finish by recalling Alexander Litvinenko’s last words to his son, Anatoly, who was then 12 years old. He said:

“Defend Britain to your last drop, because it has saved your family.”

He believed in Britain and its tradition of justice and fairness, standing up to the mighty and for what is right. Should not we now find the courage to show his son and the world that his father’s faith in us was not misplaced?

[Mrs May]

First, may I echo the comments made by the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) about the investigation by the Metropolitan police? As he said, it was identified by Sir Robert Owen as exemplary and, as I indicated in my statement, the investigation remains open. The right hon. Gentleman also said right at the very beginning of his comments that time needs to be taken to look at the report. It is very thorough and detailed, and he is right to say that we need to look at it carefully.

The right hon. Gentleman asked whether I would be willing to meet Marina and Anatoly Litvinenko. I wrote a private letter to Marina Litvinenko yesterday and I would be very happy to meet them to discuss these and other issues that I understand she has raised today in response to the report.

The right hon. Gentleman asked a number of other questions, including about a potential Magnitsky Act. I know that the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who is sitting next to the right hon. Gentleman, has raised that issue in the Chamber on many occasions. There are a number of actions we can take in preventing individuals from coming to the United Kingdom, but in this case, of course, we actually want Lugovoy and Kovtun to be in the United Kingdom to be able to face justice. The right hon. Gentleman said that there were reports of them travelling. There are Interpol red notices and European arrest warrants in place, which will lead to their being arrested if they travel outside Russia.

Of course, we take the security of individuals in the United Kingdom very seriously and look at and review those issues regularly. The right hon. Gentleman said that we need to review our relationship with Russia. We have just been through the exercise of the national security strategy and the strategic defence and security review. I referred to that in my statement, and that makes very clear the issues in relation to Russia. I assure him that the Prime Minister will raise the matter with President Putin at the next available opportunity. EU sanctions are of course agreed across the European Union, and the UK has actually been leading on EU sanctions and encouraging such action to be taken.

Finally, the right hon. Gentleman commented on the importance of justice. We agree on this issue. Everybody in the House recognises the significance of this report’s findings, and the significance of the fact that this act of murder took place on the streets of London and was state-sponsored. We want to see justice for the family: we want those who undertook this murder in London to be brought to justice. That is something which we share, and we will make every effort to ensure that justice is found for Marina and Anatoly Litvinenko.

[Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her comprehensive response to the report. Sir Robert points out not only that Lugovoy has not been extradited to the UK, but that he

“has been lionised in Russia. He has become a member of the Duma, and indeed was awarded an honour by President Putin during the course of the Inquiry’s hearings.”

This calculated snub adds insult to injury. Is it not clear that, while such a position is maintained and the suspects are not extradited, the Putin Government can never and should never be treated as an equal and full partner in global political affairs?

[Mrs May]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right in his description of what has happened in relation to Lugovoy in Russia. That tells us all we need to know about Russia’s attitude to the action that took place on the streets of London. Russia does of course participate in such a way—it is a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council—and, as I said in my statement, there will be national interests that require the British Government to engage guardedly with Russia. For example, there are issues relating to Syria and the resolution of the conflict there. However, I assure my right hon. Friend that we are very clear about such issues in relation to Russia. We were clear about those issues in the SDSR. That is why, when we engage with Russia, we will, as I say, do so guardedly.

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

I, too, thank the Home Secretary for her statement. I pay tribute to Sir Robert Owen and his inquiry team for their work, and indeed to all those who have contributed to getting to the truth. All Members will share a sense of outrage at this cowardly and awful murder, and we again express our condolences to Mr Litvinenko’s family. As the Secretary of State has said, the apparent involvement of the Russian state at the very highest level makes this murder doubly shocking.

It will clearly take some time fully to digest all the findings and recommendations of the report and to think through its implications, but some initial questions arise. Most immediately, we need to know what more, if anything, can be done to bring Mr Litvinenko’s killers to justice. We welcome the action against Mr Kovtun and Mr Lugovoy announced today, and the request made to the Director of Public Prosecutions. However, what, if any, further options are being considered? Will we hear from the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs about what he believes to be the appropriate response?

To look back at the circumstances of the murder, will the Home Secretary say what, if any, information our security and intelligence services had about Mr Kovtun and Mr Lugovoy prior to their meeting with Mr Litvinenko? Were they aware that the meeting was taking place, and had they assessed whether it represented a risk to his life? Most importantly, what do we know about how the killers were able to acquire such a significant dose of radioactive polonium and use it in this country as a weapon? Finally, what more can be done to prevent any such awful event from happening again in future? Has any assessment been made of the risk to those who have fled regimes and sought shelter in the UK, so that we can prevent such attacks from happening again?

[Mrs May]

As I have said, we all share the hon. Gentleman’s desire to bring these individuals to justice. That is why I have written to the DPP this morning to ask her to explore whether there are any other options that she can look at in relation not just to the extradition of the two individuals, but to criminal asset freezes.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs should make a statement on this issue. As the hon. Gentleman can see, my right hon. Friend is present. The statement I made is obviously the view of the Government, and we have discussed the approach we are taking on these matters.

The hon. Gentleman asked about access to polonium-210. As I said earlier, this is a very detailed report, and sections of Sir Robert Owen’s report cover that particular issue. We are grateful to Sir Robert for the thoroughness with which he has conducted his inquiry.

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

I thank the Home Secretary for the tenor and thrust of her statement. The magisterial report written by Sir Robert Owen says in paragraph 10.16:

“The FSB operation to kill Mr Litvinenko was probably approved by Mr Patrushev and also by President Putin.”

Given the secrecy of the Russian state, I do not think we need to worry too much about the word “probably”. This is way beyond the normal civil legal requirements and what is needed to take economic, political and diplomatic action. What is certain is that the Russian state under President Putin has killed over 100 opponents—lawyers, accountants, journalists and politicians. It is a kleptocratic state that uses assassination as a policy weapon.

May I ask the Home Secretary what we intend to do about Patrushev and Putin? We cannot tolerate their ordering assassinations on the streets of our country. Will she take targeted economic sanctions against them and, where possible, travel sanctions, although obviously those are not possible with a Head of State? Will there be an expulsion of intelligence officers—both FSB and others—from the Russian embassy, which would be entirely appropriate? It has been asked whether we should encourage our allies to help us. Of course we should, but we should also tell countries such as the Bahamas, Switzerland and Cyprus—all the Russian financial boltholes—that there is no hiding place for the money of these people.

[Mr Speaker]

We are extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what has to be described as a comprehensive question.

[Mrs May]

First, on the results of the inquiry, what Sir Robert Owen has found in relation to the individuals responsible for the murder of Alexander Litvinenko and, indeed, the responsibility of the Russian state will come as no surprise, as I said in my statement, because successive Governments have made the assessment that there was state involvement in this act. That is why the Government at the time took a number of measures, some of which remain in place today, in relation to our relationship with the Russian state. I assure my right hon. Friend that it is in no sense business as usual and that there is not the sort of relationship that we would have with most states.

As I indicated, action has already been taken against Mr Patrushev in his current role in the form of sanctions. As my right hon. Friend himself indicated in his question, relationships with a Head of State are a different matter. As I indicated earlier, the Prime Minister will raise this matter with President Putin.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

Is this not proof, were any further evidence needed, that what we are dealing with in Putin’s Russia is a rogue state? The British public will be aghast that the two murderers have only today had their assets frozen by the Treasury. Does that not point to complete complacency on the part of this Government? When will they take meaningful action against the dirty Russian money and property here in London that sustain the Putin kleptocracy? When will the Government implement the will of this House, which in 2012 voted overwhelmingly in favour of passing Magnitsky Act-type legislation?

[Mrs May]

I have answered the last point that the right hon. Gentleman made about the Magnitsky Act that exists in the United States. We have measures that we can take to prevent people from coming into the United Kingdom. In respect of the two individuals whom the inquiry found committed this murder on the streets of London, it is important that we take every step to bring them to the UK, rather than stop them coming here, because we wish to see them brought to justice. He talked about the position of Russia. As I indicated, we have seen recent examples of the increasing nationalism, authoritarianism and aggression in Russia.

The right hon. Gentleman asked why the asset freeze has been put in place only today. Obviously, I looked into what further action could be taken following the results of the inquiry by Sir Robert Owen. Of course, action was first taken in relation to this matter in 2007 as a result of the initial investigations and the initial assessments that were made by the Government and others. Asset freezes were not put in place at that time. We have looked at that and decided to do so today.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Why was my right hon. Friend’s case put to the High Court in January 2014 in the following terms:

“There was no clear public interest in the immediate establishment of a statutory inquiry to investigate the Russian state responsibility issue.”?

Does she regret that that was put on her behalf?

[Mrs May]

Successive Governments, including this one, have wanted to try to get to the truth behind this issue, but it was not until 2011 that the coroner decided that the trial was unlikely to take place, so that an inquest could go ahead. That inquest was started, and at the time we felt that the most appropriate form in which these matters should be assessed was through that inquest. It then became clear through a decision of the divisional court that certain evidence was necessary and not available to the inquest. At that stage, in order to ensure that all evidence was available and that all matters could be considered, I decided to turn the inquest into a statutory inquiry.

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

Well, they’ll be quaking in their boots in the Kremlin today, won’t they? Putin is an unreconstructed KGB thug and gangster who murders his opponents in Russia and, as we know, on the streets of London, and nothing announced today will make the blindest bit of difference—nothing at all. We need much tougher measures to target Putin and the people around him, and those calling for a US-style Magnitsky Act are completely right. We need to target the crooks and murderers who have been involved in murders and corruption, and prevent them from coming to the UK, from keeping their money in British banks, and from buying property here in London.

[Mrs May]

I say once again to those who think that the creation of a Magnitsky Act and a list of people who are excluded will, in some sense, add to the strength of measures that we already have that it is already possible for us to exclude people from the United Kingdom. I repeat: we want those individuals who came to London and committed this act on its streets to be brought to the UK to face trial, so that justice can be done.

[Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)]

We are constantly reminded of Russia’s human rights abuses against its own citizens, and we have initiated sanctions against Russia for its abuse of human rights against citizens of other countries such as Ukraine. Surely it is now imperative that we initiate sanctions against Russia, as well as against those individuals responsible for killing a British citizen on British soil.

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend’s portrayal of the Russian state is right, but a number of sanctions have already been implemented in relation to this matter. As I indicated, in 2007 the then Government took a number of measures, including the expulsion of certain officials from the Russian embassy and visa sanctions, and some of those measures remain in place. Sanctions have been implemented, and further sanctions have been taken against individuals in relation to Russia’s actions in the Crimea and Ukraine. We are very clear about the nature of Russia, which is why we have continued to consider steps that can be taken. Anybody who thinks that sanctions are not in place is wrong—sanctions are in place.

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

The Home Secretary and Parliament have before them a report that sets out that the Russian state probably sponsored and sanctioned the murder by nuclear material of a UK citizen, just a couple of miles from this building. Does the Secretary of State agree that her refusal to act strongly in response to that, including taking the matter to the United Nations Security Council, will be seen as a sign of British Government weakness by Putin?

[Mrs May]

I am not sure what action the hon. Lady thinks the United Nations Security Council, of which Russia is a permanent member, would take in relation to this matter. I have drawn the issue to the attention of a wide variety of colleagues in the European Union, the “Five Eyes” countries and NATO, to ensure that they are aware of the findings of this inquiry and its potential implications for them.

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

The public inquiry has been a triumph for Marina Litvinenko and the British justice system. It has established in the open what the Government have either known or certainly assumed for the past decade about the nature of the current Russian state. Will the Home Secretary confirm that the current state of relations with Russia is already heavily conditioned by that understanding? The challenge remains, with this as the background, to advance our remaining common interests, not least in the fight against violent Islamic extremism and in bringing to an end a bloody civil war in Syria. That challenge, answering the difficult questions posed by the shadow Home Secretary, is at the core of the Foreign Affairs Committee’s current inquiry into the British-Russian relationship.

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the fact that his Committee is undertaking that important review into the British-Russian relationship. He is absolutely right. Our relationship with Russia is already heavily conditioned. As I indicated earlier, shortly after the murder took place sanctions of various sorts were put in place, including visa sanctions. Those have remained. Our relationship with Russia is, as he said, heavily conditioned. As I said earlier, it is also the case—he is absolutely right—that there are issues in the British national interest on which a guarded engagement with Russia may be important. Of course, the future of Syria and resolving the conflict in Syria is just one of those issues.

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

A slap on the wrist for Russia won’t do it. President Putin’s heart will not miss a beat if the UK cancels a trade mission here or a cultural visit there, but it will if we expand the scope of the sanctions already in force because of Russia’s illegal activities in Ukraine. Will the UK Government now ban any other Russians implicated in the murder, however senior, from travelling to the UK and freeze their assets? An assault on our sovereignty, which saw a British citizen murdered on British soil in a nuclear attack, requires nothing less.

[Mrs May]

As we have said, it is of course right that we take extremely seriously the nature of the attack that took place and the findings of the inquiry. As I indicated, this is not something that comes as a surprise. An assessment has been made by successive Governments of the responsibility and involvement of the Russian state in the act, as well as of the two individuals who have been named as undertaking the act here in the United Kingdom. We have a series of sanctions in place. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the reaction to Ukraine. I indicated earlier that it is in fact the United Kingdom that has been leading the European Union effort in placing sanctions on individuals in Russia.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

Russia’s incremental bilateral relations are improving on the issues of Syria, Iran and global counter-terrorism. Is it not the case that, while that is welcome, the diplomatic relations between the United Kingdom and Russia can never be fully re-set until there has been justice over what the Home Secretary has rightly said is state-sponsored murder on the streets of London?

[Mrs May]

We are very clear that it is not business as usual with the Russian state. Our relationship with Russia is heavily conditioned. As I have indicated, there may be some issues on which it is necessary to engage with Russia very carefully, but it is not the case that we are lifting or changing the relationship. Successive Governments have been clear since 2007 that it was necessary to take action. That action has remained.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

What we are looking at here is an act of terrorism sponsored and carried out by the Russian Government. The report leads only to one possible conclusion: we now have to regard the Russian state as an organisation actively involved in commissioning, funding, supporting and directing acts of terrorism against UK citizens within the United Kingdom.

I appreciate that the Home Secretary cannot go into detail about everything that is happening in response to that, but may we have an assurance that, in the pursuit of justice, the Russian terrorist organisation and those involved in directing it will be pursued with exactly the same vigour as anyone else who directs acts of terrorism against United Kingdom citizens?

[Mrs May]

We are very clear that we want to ensure that those responsible for the murder are brought to justice. That is why, as I have indicated, every effort is being made in relation to the two individuals named in the report as having conducted the act here in London. The investigation is ongoing and every effort is being made to ensure that they can be arrested and brought to justice here in the UK.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

I, too, was struck by the reported final words of Mr Litvinenko to his son, Anatoly. What an assured and articulate man he has grown into, as we saw on the TV recently. To repay the confidence of Mr Litvinenko in this country, may I ask the Home Secretary to go further? In particular, will she respond in detail to Mrs Litvinenko’s request regarding the additional names she has prepared with Ben Emmerson, and whether those individuals should be banned and sanctions taken against them?

[Mrs May]

I echo my hon. Friend’s comments about Anatoly Litvinenko. His demeanour in the interview on television last night showed a fine young man who has grown up in this country against a background of very difficult circumstances, given what happened to his father. As I indicated earlier to the shadow Home Secretary, I would be happy to meet Marina and Anatoly Litvinenko. Obviously, that would provide an opportunity to discuss the matters my hon. Friend raises.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

Bill Browder, a British citizen, wrote his book “Red Notice” explaining how he took the Magnitsky Act to the United States, because he could get no interest in it here in the UK. Is it not now time for the Home Secretary to meet Bill Browder, look at how the Magnitsky Act has made such a huge difference and consider what the United Kingdom can do to introduce the Act here in the UK?

[Mrs May]

I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker, because I will repeat what I have said to a number of Members who raised the issue of the Magnitsky Act. The Act excludes or stops certain individuals from coming into a country, in this case the United States. We already have powers that are at least as robust, if not more so, than the powers in the Magnitsky Act. It is on that basis that I think we have the powers we need to exclude people. I repeat the point I made earlier: if people think that introducing the Magnitsky Act will mean that those who perpetrated this heinous crime will be brought to justice, they are very wrong.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

A unilateral boycott of any sporting event in Russia by this country would be futile. There is no denying that delivering the world athletics championships, the winter Olympics and the 2020 World cup, while behaving like an international pariah, is a major propaganda coup for Putin. What does the Home Secretary think we can do to work with sympathetic nations to ensure that Putin cannot deliver these sorts of propaganda coups in future?

[Mrs May]

I recognise that a number of Members have indicated their desire for the Government to intervene in decisions taken by various sporting authorities. I have set out that a number of decisions have been taken by the Government. Sanctions have been put in place over a period of time in a number of different ways against the Russian Government. We are very clear that we maintain measures started under the Labour Government in 2007. As I have indicated, we are looking to see what further action can be taken against Lugovoy and Kovtun as a result of the report.

[Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

I welcome the Home Secretary’s report and I look forward to seeing what extra measures and actions she takes as a result of it. I am very concerned about people currently living in this country who have spoken out against the Putin regime. We already knew they were in a dangerous position, but clearly it has now been proven that they are in a dangerous position. Will she look at their security arrangements? Will she review how the polonium-210 came in, and how secure we are living in a city with the threat of it just wandering around our streets?

[Mrs May]

We look very carefully at the measures taken on our borders in relation to goods and individuals coming into the United Kingdom. On sanctions or other actions taken against individuals and the Russian state, I have answered that question on a number of occasions already.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

The House should pay tribute to the great British scientists without whose dedication and expertise it is widely accepted we would not have come to the truth. Will the Home Secretary join me in thanking them?

[Mrs May]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving me the opportunity to do just that. The work of the Atomic Weapons Establishment played an important part. The scientists who helped to investigate and get to the truth of the matter did a very important job.

[Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)]

I am sure I speak on behalf of my constituents and the whole nation when I say that my thoughts are with the Litvinenko family and that everything must and should be done to ensure they have justice. My constituents will be extremely concerned that a foreign nation could have come to our country—to our heartland of London—and, bearing in mind how it killed Litvinenko, put our citizens at risk. Based on what my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) and others have said, can the Home Secretary honestly say she is doing everything she can to keep our citizens safe?

[Mrs May]

I can assure the hon. Lady that the Government take extremely seriously their prime responsibility for maintaining the safety and security of British citizens. We have, for example, introduced legislative proposals, and continue to do so, to ensure that our security and intelligence and law enforcement agencies have the powers they need to keep us safe.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Last but certainly not least, I call Jim Shannon.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. Given the revelation that President Putin most likely signed off on the assassination of Alexander Litvinenko and the fact that decency and moral correctness mean nothing to the Russian authorities, does she agree about the importance of sanctions? That said, many people inside and outside the House, and perhaps she herself, are frustrated that sanctions do not seem to be biting in the way they should. Will she outline what new and unique sanctions are in place to make these people more accountable?

[Mrs May]

The hon. Gentleman invites me to comment again on the sanctions put in place against the Russian state and individuals. I repeat that we continue with the visa sanctions introduced in 2007. As I indicated, the UK led the economic sanctions that resulted from the EU discussions that followed Russia’s action in Ukraine, and of course any sanctions applied at EU level require agreement throughout the EU.

Infected Blood

Thursday 21st January 2016 Commons Chamber

12:22

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Jane Ellison)]

In the urgent question on 16 December, I committed to publishing the consultation on infected blood scheme reform in January. I am pleased, therefore, to announce the launch of that consultation. I recognise that for some this will come too late. I cannot right the pain and distress of 30 years, and the truth is that no amount of money could ever make up for the impact that this tragedy has had on people’s lives. As I have said before, for legal reasons, in the majority of cases, it is not appropriate to talk about compensation payments, but I would like to echo what has been said before in the House and say sorry on behalf of the Government to every person affected by this tragedy.

Scheme reform is a priority for me and the Government, and for that reason I can announce that the Department of Health has identified £100 million from its budget for the proposals in the consultation. This is in addition to the current spend and the £25 million announced in March 2015, and it will more than double our annual spend on the scheme over the next five years. This is significantly more than any previous Government have been able to provide for those affected by this tragedy.

I know all too well of the ill health and other impacts on many of those affected by the tragedy of infected blood. I have corresponded with many of those affected and their MPs—they each have their own story to tell—and I have reflected carefully on all this in developing the principles on which the consultation will be based. These are: that we focus on those infected; that we can respond to new advances in medicine; that we provide choice where possible; and that we maintain annual payments to everyone currently receiving them. The consultation is an opportunity for all those affected to have their say, and it is important that it extends to the quieter voices from whom we hear less often.

It is not appropriate, and I do not have time, to go through the whole consultation document today, but I would like to highlight some of its key components. A large population within the infected blood community currently does not receive any regular financial support. These are the people with hepatitis C. I believe it is important that everybody receives support from the new scheme and that it be linked to the impact infection has on their health. I therefore propose that all those registered with the schemes with hepatitis C at current stage 1 be offered an individual health-based assessment, completion of which would determine the level of annual payment received. This would also apply to anyone who newly joins the scheme.

The consultation document outlines our proposal that those currently receiving annual support should have their payments uplifted to £15,000 a year. Those who are co-infected and currently receive double payments would continue to do so. I often hear that people are unhappy about applying for discretionary charitable payments. I hope that the introduction of new regular annual payments will remove this requirement. I am keen that those who respond to the consultation take the opportunity to answer all the questions about the support proposed so that I can make informed final decisions on the shape of any new scheme once all the responses have been collected and analysed.

During the urgent question, I said I was interested in the opportunities offered by the advent of simpler and more effective treatments that can cure some people of hepatitis C. The NHS is at the start of its programme to roll out the new hepatitis C treatments previously approved by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. As Members will know, the NHS must prioritise treatment on clinical need and not on route of infection, which means that, although some in the infected blood community will be eligible for treatment right away, others might have to wait.

More than anything, I want, if we can, to give the chance to limit the impact of hepatitis C on the infected community by making an offer of treatment. Over recent months, I have received many letters from people expressing a wish to halt the progress of their infection—one of the many letters that particularly struck me asked simply: “Please make me well”—so my intention is that the new scheme will provide an opportunity to enhance access to treatment, especially for those who fall just short of the current NHS criteria. I hope that we can treat more people if finances allow. That is why the consultation is seeking views on offering treatment to those with hepatitis C in the infected blood community not yet receiving treatment on the NHS.

In keeping with the principle of offering choice where possible, I am pleased to announce that we are consulting on a choice of options for the bereaved. Currently, bereaved partners or spouses are eligible to apply for means-tested support from the charities. As I have said, I have heard concerns from many people who do not like having to apply for charity. With that in mind, the consultation offers the choice of continued access to discretionary support or a one-off lump-sum payment for the bereaved based on a multiple of their current discretionary support. There are questions on this in the consultation document, and I am keen to hear from those affected so that I can understand their preference.

Having listened to concerns about the complex nature of the five schemes, the consultation proposes that, following reform, there will be one scheme run by a single body with access to expert advice, including from National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, so that we can keep pace with any new advances in treatment for hepatitis C and HIV that emerge.

On the next steps, the consultation will be published today on gov.uk and will run until 15 April. This is a 12-week consultation to ensure that all those who wish to respond have time to do so. The consultation document contains questions about the proposals on which I would welcome views. I recognise that there has been disappointment that we have not consulted sooner, but the outcome of the consultation will be crucial to informing our final decisions about how to proceed, and I give the House, and those affected, my commitment that we will proceed as rapidly as possible to implementation thereafter.

We need, as a priority, to make progress in rolling out the health assessments as quickly as possible to ensure that people get access to the support and clinical advice they need. I should be clear, however, that my intention is that annual payments for the current stage 1 cohort should be backdated to April 2016, regardless of when each individual’s assessment takes place.

This is the first time that the Government are consulting fully and widely with the entire affected community and all those who might have an interest on the future reform of the scheme. In developing the proposals to include within the consultation, I have taken account of points I have heard in debates here, of correspondence sent to me, of my discussions with the all-party group and of views gathered during pre-consultation engagement. The consultation is now open and it is my hope that all those affected by this tragedy will respond, and that we can move forward from here. I commend the statement to the House.

12:30

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for her statement and particularly for advance notice of her intention to give it and for providing me with early sight of it.

I appreciate that this is a difficult issue, but I think that the Minister’s approach today has been the right one, and we will welcome what she has said. She was right to apologise on behalf of the Government, and I would like to echo that apology, because successive Governments of all colours have failed to respond adequately to this scandal. In many ways, this failure has only deepened the injustice felt by the victims.

I want to pay tribute to all Members who have been a strong voice for the victims of contaminated blood. I would like to mention, in particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie), the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) and indeed my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham).

This scandal saw thousands of people die, and thousands of families destroyed through the negligence of public bodies. Although the Minister was absolutely right to say that no amount of money could ever make up for the impact this tragedy has had on people’s lives, we all owe to those still living with the consequences the dignity of a lasting settlement. With that in mind, I want to press the Minister on four points.

First, on funding, it was claimed that one reason for delaying the announcement of this consultation was to achieve clarity about how much funding would be available, following the comprehensive spending review. The Minister appeared to announce an additional £100 million for the new scheme, so for further clarity, will she set out the total amount that will be available over the lifetime of the new scheme, and how that compares to the previous scheme?

Secondly, we welcome the fact that the consultation will offer the choice of a one-off lump sum payment for the bereaved, but will the Minister say a bit more about how that might be implemented? As she knows, these payments will enable choice, and it is important that we get this right.

Thirdly, will the Minister say a bit more about widows and widowers? She will know that the Scottish review group recommended that widows should get some form of pension for the first time. Has she considered this option? It is important to recognise that widows and widowers are suffering not only from an immediate loss of income from their partner, but from the inability of their partner to save for a pension or get life insurance over the past few decades.

My final question is about the status of hepatitis C sufferers who have not developed liver cirrhosis. We welcome the possibility of ongoing payments, but can the Minister say how the assessments will work? In particular, it is important that these assessments take account of the longer-term health impacts of living with hepatitis C. Does the Minister have any figures on how many of these individuals will not have access to the new hepatitis C treatments? Given that the NHS made these people ill, and the NHS has the drugs available to help these patients, it does seem wrong that we are denying some of these people treatment—the treatment that they both need and, frankly, deserve. Will the Minister say a bit more about how the Government intend to improve access to treatment specifically for these individuals?

I hope that everyone affected will be able to take part in this consultation and have their say on the future reform of the scheme. The Minister will have our full support in implementing that new scheme and doing what we can to provide relief for the victims of this terrible injustice.

[Jane Ellison]

I thank the shadow Minister for responding in those terms. It is much appreciated. As he says, we all want to try to move forward with a consensus in support of the people affected by this tragedy. I will try to respond to his questions, although I might have to write to him on one of them because my on-the-spot maths is not quite good enough.

On funding, as I have made clear several times before, the money will come from the Department of Health budget, and we have identified an additional £100 million over this spending review period, which allows us to double the current spend on the existing schemes. This is in addition to the £25 million announced in March 2015. Spend to date is £390 million and the projected future spend is £570 million, so together with the £100 million and the £25 million, that amounts to more than £1 billion over the lifetime of the scheme. I hope that provides the hon. Gentleman with some clarity on funding.

The hon. Gentleman asked about lump sums. It can be seen in the consultation documents that we are consulting on options for both those already bereaved and those who will be bereaved in the future, and we are asking people how they feel about continuing with a discretionary approach or taking a one-off payment that would be based on a multiple of the discretionary payment they get in the current financial year—or indeed a hybrid of the two. We are trying to be as open as possible, so people can give us their views on how they see the way forward.

I have seen the Scottish proposals and I had a conversation with my opposite number in Scotland this morning before I came to the House. Because one of the options for bereaved people is an ongoing payment, albeit a discretionary one, I would not compare it with what I understand the reference group in Scotland has put forward as a pension. Obviously, we are talking about access to ongoing but discretionary payments. Again, I look forward to hearing the views expressed during the consultation on that issue.

It might be helpful for Members to know that 160,000 people in England have hepatitis C. Those affected by this tragedy make up fewer than 2% of the hepatitis C population in England. The NHS has to treat people on the basis of clinical need. The treatments are in the region of £40,000 each—quite expensive treatments. However, we believe more treatments are in the pipeline, which is one reason why I am so keen to ensure that clinical expertise is embedded within the new scheme. We are particularly keen to understand, in respect of the people who do not quite reach the current NICE guidelines for rolling out treatment in the NHS, whether, by recognising the unique circumstances of the people affected by this tragedy, we can do something within the scheme to support them. We need to understand how many people will be interested. Members might find it helpful to know that while not every genome type of hepatitis C is susceptible to the new treatment, the majority, thankfully, are. For some people, none of the new treatments is clinically appropriate.

I think I have dealt with the key questions that the hon. Gentleman asked me. I would be happy to carry on working in the spirit in which he responded to my statement and come back to him with any further clarity that he seeks subsequent to this debate.

[Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her statement and for the measures she has outlined today, as well as for her continuing commitment to seek justice for the victims of contaminated blood, including some in my constituency. When it comes to looking at drugs for the future, will the Minister commit to continuing investment in molecular diagnostics as the way forward for victims in the future?

[Jane Ellison]

The Government and the NHS have made it very clear that we greatly welcome what we see as a rapidly changing landscape. There is huge commitment on this issue. I am joined on the Government Front Bench by the Under-Secretary of State for Life Sciences, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), who is doing a great deal to accelerate some of the newest treatments and their adoption within the NHS. I can absolutely give that commitment that we always want to stay at the cutting edge of medicine. One reason for delaying this consultation, perhaps to the frustration of some, is that we now have a fuller picture of the current state of the available treatments. The last three treatments that are to be rolled out in the NHS were not approved by NICE until 25 November. I want to ensure that we are always up to date with the treatment landscape as it evolves, as we hope it will continue to do.

[Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)]

We understand the terrible situation of those who have been affected by the infected blood tragedy, and empathise greatly with them. It is imperative that we take every possible action to compensate where we can, although no amount of money can truly compensate the individuals whose lives have been affected.

It appears from the Minister’s statement that what is being proposed is a step in the right direction, but we must focus on the needs of those affected, offer choice, and ensure that there is medical advancement and evidence-based practice. I understand that payments are made through a United Kingdom scheme, but there is clearly considerable involvement on the part of Health Departments in devolved Administrations.

Let me end by reiterating our support for those affected, and by asking the Minister what discussions she has had with devolved Administrations about consultation arrangements, scheme reform, payments including those recommended for widows or widowers, and other support that is urgently required.

[Jane Ellison]

The consultation is being undertaken by the Department of Health in England, but anyone in the United Kingdom can respond, and we continue to work with all the UK Health Departments. My officials have been working closely for months with officials in devolved Administrations. I offered to speak to my ministerial counterparts on the phone this morning, and had a helpful conversation with both Shona Robison and the Welsh deputy chief medical officer. I note that the chief medical officer for England also contacted her opposite numbers.

As I have said, we are in touch with all the devolved Administrations. Because health is now a devolved matter, they are responsible for providing financial support for those affected in each country, and I know that Scotland is consulting on scheme reform in its own right. However, all the devolved Administrations will have the option of joining our new scheme in the future, and an assessment will be made of the financial contribution that is necessary. I had a useful conversation with Shona Robison about some of the transitional arrangements, and about how we can work together. I said that we would try to be as helpful and supportive as possible, and I have every confidence that we will continue in that spirit.

[Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)]

I welcome the statement, I welcome the consultation, and I certainly welcome, on behalf of my constituents, the extra money that seems to be available.

The Minister has said that she wants the widest-ranging consultation. Every Member will have received letters from their constituents about this issue, and those letters have been have passed on to the Department. My constituent Matthew Harris, for instance, has been campaigning actively for a very long time. Will the Department be able to contact those constituents, and ensure that those who are directly affected, and with whom the Minister has already been in contact, can take part in the consultation?

[Jane Ellison]

I assure my hon. Friend that we will make every effort to reach people. My officials have already put in place extensive plans to publicise the consultation—they have met the heads of the charities and those running the current schemes, and will be writing to those who are registered with those schemes—and we will make it as easy as possible for people to get involved. One of our reasons for organising a 12-week consultation is that we recognise that some people may not be online, and we want to make sure that everyone has a chance to comment.

I will reflect on what my hon. Friend has said about direct contact. That may already be being pursued through some of our plans, but, as I have said, we have extensive plans to publicise the consultation, and it goes live today. Of course I shall welcome Members’ contributions on behalf of their constituents.

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

I thank the Minister for her statement. I am sure that the all-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated blood will want to study the details in the coming weeks, and to take part in the consultation.

At first glance it appears that the Minister’s proposals are not as generous as those that are being discussed in Scotland, although I accept that as yet the Scottish Government have not accepted those proposals. However, I want to raise the specific issue of health assessments of those who are in stage 1 of hepatitis C. A number of those people have been living with the condition for a great many years, and even if their viral load is now cleared, they will not be able to resume their lives as if they had never been infected. Will the Minister assure me that that will be taken into account in any health assessments and in any subsequent financial arrangements?

[Jane Ellison]

Let me first thank the hon. Lady for all the campaigning work that she has done, for which she has rightly been recognised by others. Although we have not always been able to agree on everything, I have been greatly informed by what she has brought to our discussions, and I take on board many of the reports that the all-party group has produced over the years.

The recommendations that are being discussed in Scotland were made by a reference group and not by the Scottish Government, who have yet to respond to them. Shona Robison indicated that they would respond in due course, but that, obviously, is a matter for them.

It is a little too early to specify exactly how the individual health assessments will be carried out, but we will be asking an expert advisory group to advise on the criteria and the evidence. As I said in my statement, it is a question of recognising the impact of ill health, and also the fact that some people’s health fluctuates. I think that we can be assured that everyone will be included in the scheme, and that everyone will receive an annual payment. I should add that we expect people’s own clinicians to be involved in the individual assessments.

[Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)]

I welcome the Minister’s personal determination to see this through, and the progress that she has already achieved. I know we all agree that it has long been needed. I welcome the Government’s apology, the level of funding that has been secured, the format of the annual payments, and, in particular, the backdating offer. However, may I also urge the Minister to focus on fulfilling her promise of treatment for hepatitis C at every level of the NHS? A great deal of bureaucracy lies ahead, and our constituents have no appetite for putting up with it.

[Jane Ellison]

I thank my hon. Friend for what she has said. I am glad that she feels that we are making progress.

The NHS is just beginning to roll out many of the new hepatitis C drugs, although some people have already been treated, and obviously many more will be treated in the future. One of the benefits of individual health assessments for everyone in stage 1 of the scheme is that we shall be able to understand not just clinical need, but problems such as those described by my hon. Friend. The consultation may help us to establish whether help with navigating the health system is one of the non-financial aspects of support that people might seek.

[Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)]

I thank the Minister for her statement, and welcome the consultation. It is an important step forward.

The individual health assessment clearly marks quite an important moment for people with hepatitis C—a condition that other Members have raised—because the Minister has talked about linking it to payments. Does she envisage an entirely discretionary payment linked to the assessment, or a system involving payment bands? How will the scheme work, and will there be a right of challenge? What does the Minister mean by “enhanced” access to treatment? Is there still a risk that some people will not have immediate access to it?

[Jane Ellison]

As have I said, we will ask an expert advisory group to consider what the criteria for the health assessments should be, and we expect people’s own clinicians to be involved. Broadly speaking, we probably envisage payment bands, but that too will be subject to the consultation. We want to be able to combine speed and fairness.

People with hepatitis C are receiving NHS treatment based on NICE guidelines, but we understand that there will always be people who fall a little short of that at any one time, and we hope to be able to offer treatment to them within the scheme. Within the overall envelope of funding, however, we will not know exactly what the balance is until after the consultation. I do not know what affected individuals’ views are about the balance between treatment and some of the other options in the consultation. I genuinely want to see what they think, and how attractive the treatment offer is to them, before we reach our final conclusions.

[Mr Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for the work she has been doing on this issue. I also thank her and her ministerial colleague my right hon. Friend the Minister for Community and Social Care for the impressive way this is being handled. We should never forget that this is a simple matter of justice, and it is time, after all the apologies, that those affected should feel we are doing justice to that injustice. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree with me that one of the important needs is that any scheme should be simple, comprehensive, predictable and consistent, and that it is absolutely essential that the bewildering variety of current provision is resolved into that single clear scheme. Will she give me the undertaking that, whatever emerges at the outcome of this process, that will be the Government’s abiding priority?

[Jane Ellison]

I certainly think I can give my hon. and learned Friend some comfort in that regard. The area on which there was the greatest consensus right across the infected blood community and this House is on precisely what he describes: the complexity of the schemes and the fact that they are a mixture of regular payments and discretionary means-tested payments. Obviously we need to wait for the end of the consultation to see exactly what everyone’s views are, but we will not waste time. We will begin a scoping exercise on scheme reform while the consultation is under way in anticipation of finalising plans at the end of the consultation. I agree that we need a scheme that is straightforward, simple and sustainable, both giving regular support to those infected and allowing this Government and future Governments to be able to plan and sustain the support.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

Like many other hon. Members, I have met constituents who have been affected by this tragedy, and it is a simple matter of justice that needs to be righted, so I welcome much of what has been said from both Front Benches today. Has the Minister met or spoken to the Welsh Health Minister over the past few days to discuss the matter and how it will operate in Wales, specifically with regard to financing and the availability of the drugs? Will Welsh sufferers have to travel to England to take part in the assessments or will arrangements be made for them to take place in Wales?

[Jane Ellison]

One or two of those questions are probably a little too detailed to comment on now, but it is worth reiterating what I said about the devolved Administrations. I have not been able to speak to the Welsh Health Minister; we offered the opportunity of a call with other Ministers, including the Scottish Minister, but the Welsh Minister knows that he can get in touch. One of his officials was on the call this morning, and our offices have been talking to each other. I am happy to pick this up with the Welsh Health Minister if he wants to do so.

This consultation is for the scheme in England, but we have been working with counterparts in the devolved Administrations. While everyone in the UK is welcome to respond to the consultation and say what they think, health is now a devolved matter—that is different from when the first schemes were set up—so the devolved Administrations are responsible for providing financial support for those affected from each country. Treatment within the NHS is obviously a matter for the NHS in Wales, and I will look at some of the other points the hon. Gentleman made. We are happy to talk to him about the devolved aspects and write to him afterwards.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for the consultation, the additional money, the scheme consolidation and the work that both she and the Minister for Community and Social Care have undertaken. I also thank, of course, the all-party group and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson). Will the Minister concede that, for those of us who have worked closely with individual victims for a number of years, the resolution has to be, as far as possible, to put them in the financial position they would have been in but for the grievous harm done to them, and that that may in some cases mean a bespoke solution for individual victims—we are not dealing with unlimited numbers of people here?

[Jane Ellison]

That is clearly the hon. Gentleman’s view and I invite him to submit it to the consultation. This is exactly why we are consulting. We have made some proposals, but some of the questions are very open, and we will look at what comes back from the consultation. I urge him and other Members to take part in the consultation.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

I welcome the statement and commend the shadow Minister’s tone. Victims in Northern Ireland share the compound frustration that we have heard from other Members on behalf of their constituents, but maybe feel more pointedly the contrast with their friends in the south of Ireland, who have had a path of justice available to them over many years. I know the Minister is absolutely sincere in her commitment to the issue of treatment, but will she give assurances that the effort she is putting into making sure people can be made well will not detract or distract from the obligation we still have to make good this travesty that people have suffered?

[Jane Ellison]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question and his sustained interest over such a long time, speaking on behalf of people from his area. Based on our previous conversations, I recognise there might be aspects of the proposals that the hon. Gentleman does not feel meet his own aspirations, so again I invite him to respond to the consultation. I will take note of his—and all other Members’—views. These are our proposals. Some of the questions are very open and people can give us their views. I recognise that something different happened in the Republic of Ireland, and it is down to another Government to make those decisions. The circumstances were different for reasons I have gone into previously from this Dispatch Box.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

The Minister will know that some of the cases go back many years and the medical records may have been destroyed. Can she say in a little more detail what evidence is required both at the assessment stage and for those applying to the discretionary fund?

[Jane Ellison]

In truth, it is a little too early for me to give that level of detail. We want to ask for expert advice on that in order to get it right and, as I said in the statement, we are looking at the impact on people’s health now. We do not want this to be an invasive or onerous process for the people, who have gone through so much already, so we envisage involving people’s own clinicians as well as gathering other evidence. This is something we will ask experts to advise us on and we will come back at the end of the consultation.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the Minister for her work on this and thank her for her statement today. We know her as a compassionate person totally committed to this case; I do not think that anyone in the House has any doubts about what she is trying to deliver, and we thank her for that.

Some 7,500 people have been contaminated by blood. Last year, the Prime Minister gave a commitment of £25 million and this morning the Minister has given a commitment of a further £100 million, which is good news. Some 10 people have passed away. The European Commissioner for Human Rights has recently ruled that Italy must pay compensation immediately to all those who received contaminated blood. I know there is a consultation process, but when will we see the money actually getting to the victims? Is there a timescale? There has not been any commitment, as I understand it, with the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Minister, Simon Hamilton. What, if any, discussions have taken place?

[Jane Ellison]

As I set out earlier, we offered a phone call this morning with the Minister in Northern Ireland, but I am more than happy to pick up on that. Our officials have been working quite closely together for some time on this, so I am more than happy should my opposite number want to have a conversation. The circumstances in Italy are different and, as I said in answer to the last question, other Governments must make decisions for themselves. I am aware of that case, but I think some of the circumstances are quite different. On timescale, our priority is to move forward the individual health assessments, and at the same time we will do some scoping work around reform of the schemes themselves. I cannot yet say how long that will take, but I obviously want to do it as quickly as possible. As I mentioned in my statement, I want to reassure Members that whenever we undertake those assessments, people will not miss out just because they are towards the end of the process. We will backdate all those annual payments, once they are awarded, to April 2016.

Point of Order

Thursday 21st January 2016 Commons Chamber

12:59

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. At business questions earlier today, I pressed the Leader of the House for a full debate on the Government’s proposal to allow Transport for London to run all the local metro train services in our capital, including those operated by Southeastern in my constituency. However, I and many other hon. Members representing London constituencies were amazed to learn of this announcement and of the Secretary of State for Transport’s supporting statement, not in this House but in an online article that appeared this morning on the website of the Evening Standard. The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) was obviously aware of it, because he was at a press event with the Secretary of State, but the Leader of the House did not seem to be aware of what had taken place. Can you assure me, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the Secretary of State has at least had the courtesy to inform the House through your good offices of this welcome proposal, which will have serious implications, not least financial ones, for London?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I can tell the hon. Gentleman that there has been no written statement, and that I was not aware of this. He has certainly got his point on the record, however. As he knows, the Chair frowns upon statements being made outside the House before they have been made in the House. I hope that the Government will take on board the fact that this House is the place where statements should be made first.

Backbench Business

Thursday 21st January 2016 Commons Chamber

Childhood Obesity Strategy

Thursday 21st January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Relevant document: First Report from the Health Committee, Session 2015-16. Childhood obesity—brave and bold action, HC 465.]

13:00

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House calls on the Government to bring forward a bold and effective strategy to tackle childhood obesity.

I want to thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting time for this debate. I also want to thank all my colleagues from across the House who are members of the Health Select Committee—and the staff of the Committee, particularly Laura Daniels—for their work on the report on childhood obesity that was published recently. Outside this House, there are also many organisations and individuals who have campaigned tirelessly to improve children’s health.

Perhaps we can start by looking at the example of Team GB and their success in the Olympics. On the morning of their track cycling victory, the architect of the team’s success, Sir David Brailsford, put their success down to the principle of marginal gains and their relentless pursuit of identifying every efficiency in the rider, the bike, the environment around them and their training regime. All those marginal gains were added together to win gold for Team GB in the Olympics. I think we need to adopt the same principle when it comes to tackling childhood obesity.

Too often, I hear people saying that it is all about education, or about getting children to move more in PE at school, but I would say that there is no single measure. We all know that this is an extremely complex problem that requires action at every level. I therefore call on the Minister to look at every single aspect of tackling childhood obesity. If we were running a cycling team hoping to win the Olympics, we would realise that we could not achieve success if we left any of the factors out, so let us apply that principle here.

Let me set the scene by telling the House why this subject matters so much. We know from the child measurement programme in our schools that around one in five of our children who enter reception class are either obese or overweight. However, by the time they leave in year 6, a third of our children are either obese or overweight. Perhaps even more worrying are the stark data on the health inequality of obesity. A quarter of the children from the most disadvantaged groups in our society are leaving school not just overweight but obese, which is now more than twice the rate among children from the most advantaged families. My first question for the Minister is this: will the childhood obesity strategy not only tackle the overall levels of obesity but seek to narrow that yawning and growing gap in our society between the least and most advantaged children? Any strategy that fails to narrow that gap will have failed our children.

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

Does the hon. Lady agree that some of the overall problem can be explained by the fact that people do not know how much sugar is in their food? She will know that women are supposed to have no more than six spoonfuls a day, and men no more than nine. Only today, when I was in Portcullis House, I bought three items: a Snickers bar, which has five spoonfuls of sugar; a yoghurt with seven spoonfuls; and a Coke with nine. She will be glad to hear that I did not eat any of them; perhaps I was just removing them from other people. Does she agree that an awareness of how much sugar we are eating is very important if we are to manage our diets?

[Dr Wollaston]

Indeed. I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I shall come on to that subject later. I am relieved to hear that he is not on a sugar high for the debate.

I want to set out not only the scale of the problem but its consequences. It has consequences for the whole lifetime of our children, in relation to their physical and emotional health. They also suffer the impact of bullying at school, as they are too often stigmatised in the classroom because of their weight. There is increasing evidence that obesity is a factor in causing many preventable cancers, and it also has an impact on conditions such as diabetes and heart disease. This has a cost not only to individuals but to wider society and to the NHS.

The Minister will know how essential it is that, as part of the “Five Year Forward View”, we tackle the issue of prevention. We cannot do that without tackling obesity, particularly among children, given the lifetime impact and consequences of the condition. She will know that 9p in every £1 we spend in the NHS is spent on diabetes. We estimate from the evidence that the Health Committee took during our hearings that the overall cost of obesity to the NHS is now £5.1 billion a year, and the wider costs to society have been estimated to be as high as £27 billion, although the estimates vary. We simply cannot afford to take no action.

Physical activity is of course extraordinarily important and I am confident that it will feature strongly in the Government’s strategy, but it is no good focusing solely on that. Physical activity is good for children, whatever their weight. Indeed, it is good for all of us, whatever our age. However, any strategy that assumes that we can tackle childhood obesity solely through physical activity will simply be ignoring the overwhelming evidence that most of the gain will be in reducing calories. That is not just about sugar, however. It is easy to be accused of demonising sugar. The fact is that children have more than three times the recommended amount of sugar in their diet, but that is perhaps the easiest aspect of the problem to tackle. The Minister will recognise the fact that we are talking about overall calories, which also include fats.

[Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)]

I need to declare an interest here; it is a fairly well-known one. My union has been pressing me to remind my hon. Friend that sugar intake has a disastrous effect on the teeth and causes tooth decay. Is she aware that the most common cause of hospital admissions among five to nine-year-olds is tooth decay? Every week, almost 900 children in this country require hospital treatment for tooth decay, and the biggest single factor is sugar.

[Dr Wollaston]

I thank my hon. Friend for mentioning that. I was going to come on to that point and he has saved me from doing so. I completely agree that we must not forget the impact of sugar on children’s teeth. He will recognise that there are great health inequalities relating to that issue as well.

So how should we tackle this? I have spoken many times about a sugary drinks tax, but I recognise that that is not where the greatest gain lies when it comes to tackling childhood obesity. As the Minister will recognise from the evidence presented by Public Health England, price promotions will need to form an extraordinarily important part of the childhood obesity strategy if it is to be effective. It is a staggering fact that around 40% of what we spend on our consumption of food and drink at home is spent on price promotions. Unfortunately, however, they do not save us as much money as we assume. They encourage us to consume more. In British supermarkets, a huge number of those promotions relate to sugary and other unhealthy products. I call on the Government to tackle that as part of their strategy. We need a level playing field as we seek to rebalance price promotions, but that has to be done in a way that does not simply drive us towards promoting other products such as alcohol. We need to take a careful, evidence-based look at all this.

[Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)]

I am delighted that the hon. Lady is pursuing this issue. Has she looked at whether there could be a tax on the ingredient “sugar” in products, so that we create an incentive to reformulate, in order to reduce sugar content not just in fizzy drinks but across foods and drinks generally? Could that be a way to get the industry to start to think about the content of its food?

[Dr Wollaston]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point, which prompts me to address the issue of a sugary drinks tax. We looked at examples of where taxation can be applied across sugar more broadly, perhaps to incentivise reductions within reformulation, as some countries have done. However, we wanted to address the single biggest component of sugar in children’s diets, which is sugary drinks. The Committee recommended a sugary drinks tax rather than a wider sugar tax, and there are several reasons for doing that. First, we know that it works. Secondly, it addresses that point about health inequality.

Mexico introduced a 1 peso per litre tax on sugary drinks and by the end of the year the greatest reduction in use—17% by the end of the year—was among the highest consumers of sugary drinks. The tax drove a change in behaviour. The whole point of this sugary drinks tax is that nobody should have to pay it at all. To those who say it is regressive, I say no it is not; the regressive situation is the current one, where the greatest harms fall on the least advantaged in society. As we have seen with the plastic bag tax, the tax aims to nudge a change in behaviour among parents, with a simple price differential between a product that is full of sugar, and causes all the harms that we have heard about, including to children’s teeth, and an identical but sugar-free product—or, better still, water.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate and on her work in this area. We do not really have to wait for a tax; we can take what the Mayor of London has done in City Hall as an example. He has made sugary drinks more expensive, and therefore people have that choice immediately. In the presence of the Chairman of the Administration Committee, the House’s greatest living dentist, who is participating in this debate, may I say that it is possible for this House to put up the price of sugary drinks so that those who go to the Tea Room will then have that choice?

[Dr Wollaston]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that and welcome what he describes. That movement is not just happening in City Hall, because it is being recommended within the NHS by Simon Stevens. I also congratulate Jamie Oliver and the many other outlets that are introducing such an approach. The other point to make is about public acceptability, because all the money raised goes towards good causes. As we have seen with the plastic bag tax, the fact that the levy is going to good causes increases its public support. That levy has been extraordinarily effective, as plastic bag usage has dropped by 78%. That is partly because we all knew we needed to change but we just needed that final nudge. That is what this is about: that final nudge to change people to a different pattern of buying. It has a halo effect, because it adds a health education message and that is part of its effectiveness.

[Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)]

I am a fellow member of the Health Committee, in which we also discussed ring-fencing the sugary drinks tax so that money could be put back into health education about obesity, particularly in schools, to prevent child obesity in the future. Could my hon. Friend speak a little more about that?

[Dr Wollaston]

I thank my hon. Friend and fellow member of the Health Committee for her intervention. At a time of shrinking public health budgets, there is a huge additional benefit from having this kind of levy, in that many of the other measures that the Minister will want to see in the strategy—on exercise in schools, teaching in cookery lessons and health education—could be funded in part through a sugary drinks tax. I hope she will look carefully at this idea and consider introducing it.

[Geraint Davies]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. It is meant to be a 15-minute opening speech. Mr Davies will want to speak and he will not want me to take any minutes off him, so I am sure this will be a very quick intervention.

[Geraint Davies]

The debate is often between reformulation and tax. I agree with the tax on fizzy drinks, but if we had a tax on overall sugar input—for the sake of argument, let us suppose that sugar makes up half a Hobnob and the tax is at 10%—that would give an incentive to the manufacturers to reformulate without the price going up and we could get the sugar content down.

[Dr Wollaston]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that, which brings me on to reformulation. It should also form a core part of the strategy. Our view was that we should have a centrally led programme of reformulation across foods and drinks, and that what manufacturers want is a level playing field. The trouble with reformulation is that it takes time; there has been an effective programme on salt, but that has happened very gradually, over a 10-year period. There is no reason why these things should be mutually exclusive; I come back to that point about marginal gains and say let us do all of the above. I know that the Minister is looking closely at reformulation and understands how powerful it will be. The evidence we heard was that it could take 6% of the sugar out of children’s diets. Reformulation, alongside other programmes, will play a part, but it will not work on its own and, unfortunately, it will take longer.

We also need to examine the pervasive effect of marketing and promotion. Do I want to have a kilogram of chocolate for almost nothing when I buy my newspaper? Of course I do, but please do not offer it to me. Please do not make me walk past the chicanes of sugar at the checkout or when I am queuing to pay for petrol. We know that 37% of all the confectionary we buy is bought on impulse. It does not matter how much we are intending not to buy it, if it is presented to us on impulse, we buy it, as impulse is an extraordinarily powerful driver. I therefore hope that any strategy will tackle that part of consumption, along with portion sizing. The supersizing of our society is in part down to the supersizing of portions and offers. All of this needs to be included in our approach, as does dealing with advertising. This advertising is pervasive and it is hitting our children everywhere they go, on television, online and through the influence of “advergames”. We know that this is very powerful in driving choices for children, so I hope the Minister will look carefully at that. She will have seen our recommendation of a watershed of 9 pm.

Time is running short, so I shall close my remarks, as I know other Members will want to cover many other aspects, such as exercise, the effect of what local authorities do, how much more powerful they could be in their roles if we gave them greater planning powers, and so on. Early intervention, research, education, teaspoon labelling—please do it all. We need a bold, brave and effective strategy, and we need to learn from British cycling and the law of marginal gains.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. With an eight-minute limit, I call Sharon Hodgson.

13:18

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) on proposing and securing this important debate, and she will be pleased to hear that I agreed with almost everything she said. Many here in the Chamber will be aware of my strongly held passion to provide all children with a hot and healthy school meal, especially one that is free. The debate around the Government’s impending childhood obesity strategy, both here in Parliament and in the outside world, has focused on the reformulation of foods that are high in sugar and salt and the introduction of a sugar tax. Although I support those measures, I want quickly to discuss how school food can play a significant role in addressing the obesity crisis facing our children today.

I want to say at the outset—I am sure people are thinking this, if not here then definitely on social media—that I am rather overweight myself and that some may say I should practise what I preach. I do try. But that is why I am so passionate about this agenda: I know how much harder this becomes as you get older. I was allowed to adopt bad habits that are hard to break, and that shows why we need to educate the next generation to do much better.

School food has played a role in public policy for more than 100 years. It was first discussed in this place in 1906 when Fred Jowett, former Member of Parliament for Bradford West, used his maiden speech in the Chamber to launch his campaign to introduce free school meals when compulsory education was being rolled out. That led to the passing of the Education (Provision of Meals) Act 1906, which was originally Jowett’s private Member’s Bill.

Jowett’s campaign was driven by his experience as a member of the Bradford school board, where he witnessed the malnourishment of children who then fell behind their more affluent peers. Here we are, more than 100 years later, and those arguments are still being made today.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

I was just thinking the same as my hon. Friend about how far we have come in some respects but not in others. She will be aware of the private Member’s Bill of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field). Does she support it?

[Mrs Hodgson]

Yes, that private Member’s Bill is an excellent initiative, and should be adopted by the Government and local authorities. It is very simple to share the data that we already have on families who are entitled to benefits, to ensure that the entitlement of their children to the pupil premium is not lost when universal free school meals are rolled out. That is a very important point.

Although we do not always think about obesity in this way, it is a form of malnourishment. What we are seeing today is very similar to what we saw more than 100 years ago, with children lacking the right nutrients to see them living a healthy childhood and growing into healthy adults. That is especially concerning given that today more than one third of children are leaving school overweight or obese.

The school setting is one of the most important interventions in a child’s life; it is where we nurture and educate future generations. Why should we not feed these children so that they are fuelled to receive the best education and life chances possible? That notion was strongly supported by the previous Labour Government, who introduced a raft of measures that addressed the food eaten by children in our schools. They included nutrition-based school food standards that provide children with the proper nutrition to learn, fully costed plans to extend our universal free school meal pilots, and the introduction of healthy, practical cooking on the national curriculum.

Although much, or all, of those measures were scrapped when the coalition Government were formed in 2010, it was very welcome when, in 2013, the school food plan was published, calling for the reinstatement of lots of those measures as well as new and improved measures in our schools to address the health of our children. Those included introducing food-based standards for all schools, training head teachers in the benefits of food and nutrition, improving Ofsted inspections on school food, and the roll-out of universal free school meals for primary school children, when funding was found.

As we know, that funding was found, thanks to David Laws and the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr Clegg). Fortunately, universal infant free school meals were secured by the Chancellor in the comprehensive spending review. All those measures came out of concerns for the health of our children and the growing obesity crisis, especially given that 57% of children were not eating school lunches. Some were opting to take in packed lunches, only 1% of which met the nutritional standards of a hot lunch, while others were opting to go off site to eat junk food at local takeaways.

As research has found, health problems associated with being overweight or obese cost the NHS more than £5 billion a year, and, with obesity rates continuing to rise for 11 to 15-year-olds, especially in deprived areas, it is now clearer than ever that we need seriously to address childhood obesity.

Giving children a healthy and balanced diet during the school day can only be a positive intervention in helping to address obesity. I cannot stress how strongly I believe that one of the most important interventions to help address health issues in childhood is universal free school meals.

[Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)]

The hon. Lady mentioned that children are consuming junk food from outlets near schools. Does she believe that councils should have powers, as part of planning guidance, to take action on junk food outlets being so close to schools?

[Mrs Hodgson]

Yes, I do. I really welcome that intervention, because it not only makes the point, but stresses it very strongly. Some councils are very good and introduce byelaws to ensure that burger vans cannot pull up outside a school, and that, if there is already a number of takeaway shops nearby, no more can open. Matters such as that need to be addressed by councils.

The pilots introduced by the previous Labour Government in Durham and Newham to look into the benefits of universal free school meals found many benefits to a child’s health, and research continues now that we have universal infant school meals. The pilots in Durham and Newham found a 23% uptake in vegetable consumption at lunchtime and a steep decline in the typical unhealthy packed lunch foods. For example, there was a 16% decline in soft drinks and an 18% decline in crisps. Those are all-important figures that the Government should remember, and both the Department of Health and Department for Education should look further into how best they can use the vehicle of universal free school meals to help improve children’s health.

Although universal free school meals are protected in the Government’s comprehensive spending review—this followed a concerted campaign by school food campaigners, myself and others in the House—there is another area that the Government must consider when looking to improve the health of our children: holiday hunger. Children are in school for just 190 days of the year, and the rest—a total of 170 days—is totally down to their parents. Some may say that that is how it should be and that when we lock the school gates for the holidays it is none of our business what children eat, whether they eat or what they get up to. None the less, with the growing use of food banks in school holidays and the reports that children return from the longer school holidays noticeably thinner and unhealthier, the issue is one that we can no longer ignore.

If there is a push for better food provision in our schools, then we need to be doing much more during the holidays so as not to undo the hard work that goes into improving the life chances of children during term time. That is why the school food all-party group, which I chair, has established a holiday hunger task group, which last year launched its “Filling the Holiday Gap” guidelines to provide organisations and local authorities wishing to provide food during holidays with the resources to offer healthy and nutritious food. Late last year, it published its update report, which called for action to be taken by the Government.

When the Government’s childhood obesity strategy is published, I hope that there will be significant mention of the benefits that school food, especially universal free school meals, can have on a child’s health, and of how it can be used to address the growing childhood obesity crisis. There is evidence out there to support using universal free school meal provision to its fullest, instead of squandering its potential, to improve the health of our children.

This is a moment when the Government can really make a difference to children’s lives and I hope that all options and avenues will be pursued so that children are given the healthy food that they need to fuel their education and to make them as healthy a version of themselves as possible so that they grow into fit and healthy adults.

13:27

[Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson). I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) for calling this important debate. I am sure that Members can all see that I am a man who likes his food, and that I am not particularly in a position to lecture others on obesity. At the same time, I cannot ignore the fact that too many children in this country are obese, that poor children are more likely to be obese than rich children—boys and girls in the lowest quintile are three times more likely to be obese as those in the highest quintile—and that those living in towns are more likely to be obese than those living in rural areas. Those are unpalatable facts. It is right and proper that we investigate, and, where we have clear evidence, take the appropriate action.

However, the evidence does not suggest that childhood obesity is a problem that is getting significantly worse. The proportion of obese children in year 6 is higher than it was in 2006-07, but for reception children the proportion has fallen over the same period. Moreover, there has been a significant decrease in the proportion of British children, aged two to 10, who are obese.

[Dr Wollaston]

Will my hon. Friend go back and look at those figures in more detail? What he will see is that, although those figures are falling for the wealthiest children, they are rising for the most disadvantaged children. We are seeing a widening of the gap, which masks the underlying problem.

[Will Quince]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point, and I will come on to that in a bit more detail. The important element is that any approach we take must be evidence-based. I absolutely agree with her that we need to look at all the evidence.

I stated that the proportion of those aged two to 10 who were obese had gone from 17% in 2005 to 13% in 2013. The evidence suggests that childhood obesity rose quickly in the mid-2000s and has slightly fallen ever since. That is an important fact for two reasons. First, it suggests that our education programmes in our schools and the Government-backed campaigns on obesity within the last decade have had a positive impact in halting the increase in childhood obesity. Secondly, it undermines the scaremongering that suggests that childhood obesity is rocketing year on year. It simply is not; the reality is much more complex.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes has already mentioned, there is a growing clamour for a sugar tax on soft drinks to combat childhood obesity. She has called in a recent article for a 20% tax on sugary drinks as part of that overall solution. Her calls have been echoed by the British Medical Association and other public health campaigners. I have huge respect for my hon. Friend, but I think that a sugar tax is completely the wrong answer. A sugar tax is illiberal and patronising —in my view, nanny statism at its worst.

Given how sugar tax campaigners argue, one might think that consumption of sugar in the UK is at a record high. It is not. Consumption of sugar per head in the UK is falling, from a high of more than 50 kg a year in the 1980s to less than 40 kg a year now. What is more, soft drink consumption in the UK is falling. The latest household food survey from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs shows that household soft drink consumption purchases have fallen by 5.2% since 2011 and by 19% for high-calorie soft drinks in the same period. Regular soft drink purchases are now at their lowest level since 1992.

[Geraint Davies]

Does not the hon. Gentleman agree, though, that a sugar tax would be eminently fiscally responsible? It would gather revenue, increase life chances, increase health and reduce health costs. From the point of view of the Exchequer, it would be very sensible. Can he not come up with other sensible ideas like that?

[Will Quince]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point and, of course, that would make sense if the evidence suggested that a soft drink tax implemented anywhere else in the world had actually worked and had the effect that he suggests. He is right to suggest that there are a lot of other measures that we as a Government and that businesses and organisations can take to address this issue; I do not believe that the sugar tax is the right one.

Sugar tax advocates have pointed out the introduction of a sugar tax in Mexico and the corresponding 6% decline in soft drink sales since the tax was introduced. However, research in The BMJ does not show evidence of a link between the introduction of the tax and the small decline in soft drinks consumption. Further taxes on non-essential energy dense foods were also introduced at the same time as the sugar tax, and they accounted for a higher proportion of Mexicans’ daily calorific intake. As the authors of the research admitted,

“we cannot determine the independent role of each”

of the taxes. The research even acknowledges that there is a lack of information on nutritional data for packaged drinks in Mexico, which means that researchers cannot see what the fall in soft drink consumption meant for a decline in sugar intake.

As many Members may know, Mexico does not have safe drinking water. As a high-profile advocate of the sugar tax in Mexico, Alejandro Calvillo, stated:

“We know that there are people who drink a lot of sodas and they don’t have access to drinking water.”

How can we possibly compare the results in a developing country that has unclean, unsafe drinking water with how a tax might operate here in the United Kingdom? Instead, let us compare like with like. When sugar taxes have been tried in developed nations such as France, they have had a negligible effect on reducing consumption. Denmark scrapped its sugar tax on soft drinks in 2014 and labelled it an expensive failure. The Danish Ministry of Taxation labelled food and drink taxes as

“misguided at best and may be counter-productive at worst”.

They even described it as an expensive liability for business, and, as we all know, a sugar tax would be a very bitter pill for British businesses to swallow.

Study after study on soft drinks taxes in the USA also shows that they have a negligible impact on sugary drink intake and calorie consumption. What is more, the small decline in sugary drinks is almost entirely offset by consumption of other sugary products.

[Dr Wollaston]

My hon. Friend is very generous to give way again. I wonder whether he has had an opportunity to look again in detail at the article in The BMJ to which he refers. He is citing the figure of 6%, but the article makes it clear that by the end of the year the decline was 12% overall, and—more importantly, if we are to address the issue of health inequality—17% among the heaviest users. He might wish to update himself. I am happy to share the paper with him.

[Will Quince]

I thank my hon. Friend and I would be delighted to take another look at that piece of research.

My hon. Friend has made a case for the sugar tax to protect the poorest, and I think that that was the point that she was just making. As I have mentioned, and this is a good point, the poorest children are the most likely to be obese. However, the statistics show that, in low-income households in Britain, soft drink purchases dropped by 14% between 2007 and 2013. Perhaps a 20% sugar tax on soft drinks is not very much to celebrity chefs such as Jamie Oliver and some of those who are pushing the idea of a sugar tax, but for those on the lowest incomes—who we know, proportionally, buy these products—about 12p a can or 37p per 2 litre bottle is a massive amount of money.

[Maggie Throup]

I think that the point is that we are talking about a tax on sugary drinks and there are alternatives, such as drinks with artificial sweeteners. We are not making it so that these people do not have a choice. There are two different sides of the argument.

[Will Quince]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. As someone who spent five years working in the soft drinks industry, I think she makes a valuable point. We need to question what we want our children—and adults —to drink. Do we want them drinking sugar or sodium benzoate, acesulfame and aspartame? That is a whole separate debate that we can have. I tend to choose to drink diet variants myself, but those options are there and the industry is driving people towards those lower calorie drinks. Let us take Britvic Soft Drinks as an example. Members will notice that they can buy a 600 ml bottle of diet Pepsi or Tango for the same price as a 500 ml full-sugar variant. The industry is already encouraging behavioural change.

To return to the Mexican experiment, 63% of sugar tax receipts have been collected from low-income households and 37.5% of receipts came from those in poverty. As I mentioned before, particularly with soft drinks but across the board, labelling has never been better, nor has the choice for consumers. The industry is doing a huge amount of work to encourage behavioural change and do the right thing.

I am conscious of the time and that lots of Members would like to speak, so I will conclude. I welcome a debate on childhood obesity and a clear strategy to reduce it. There are a huge number of measures that we as a Government could take ourselves and that we could encourage businesses and organisations to take, but let us ensure that the strategy is based on solid evidence. I strongly believe that a sugar tax is not the answer.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

Order. Before I call the next, very experienced, Member to speak, let me remind less experienced Members that when there are time limits, the first two interventions are compensated for and the clock stops, but after that the clock continues. I just want to ensure that no one gets a horrible fright.

13:38

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I will stick to my eight minutes, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I will not give way, if that helps—[Interruption.] All right, I will give way.

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Colchester (Will Quince). He is hard on himself; he is not obese, just very well built. I know that his enthusiasm for curry is known throughout Colchester, so that might be a contributing factor. It is a pleasure to speak in the debate and I congratulate the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) not just on how she chairs the Select Committee on Health but on how she brings issues to the House, especially this critical issue of childhood obesity. I am delighted to see the Minister at the Dispatch Box, as she gets it. She is the Minister responsible for diabetes and whenever we in the all-party group on diabetes ask her to deal with these issues, she has always been very open and transparent. I think that she is on the same page as the rest of us.

That helps me put aside at least half of my speech because I do not need to repeat the statistics that Members who are experienced in these matters know all about—the cost of diabetes to the national health service, the worry that over half a million people have type 2 diabetes and are not aware of it, the need for prevention and awareness, and the importance of protecting our children. The figures given by the hon. Member for Totnes are clear. The problem gets worse as children get older and the figures are so worrying that if we just stand still, the crisis of childhood obesity will continue.

[David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)]

With reference to standing still, the debate today has largely focused on sugar and our intake of it. One of the key things we need to do to tackle the challenge of childhood obesity is to focus on activity—getting people to be physically active, through sport or, as I increasingly believe, outdoor recreation. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport sports strategy, which focuses more on outcomes and includes outdoor recreation, could help to tackle the crisis that we are facing. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree?

[Keith Vaz]

Absolutely. The hon. Gentleman is looking at someone who constantly tells people to move more, but prefers to go by car rather than walk. It is a wonderful thing to say, but it is a different matter to get us on to those bicycles, on to our feet and involved in physical activities. My physical activity extends to table tennis, which is not the best way of losing weight and ensuring that my type 2 diabetes is under control. The hon. Gentleman is right—those lifestyle changes are necessary and they need to happen at a very young age. Schools, teachers, kids and parents need to be involved in ensuring that there is more activity because that will help in the long run.

We should be pretty dramatic in the way we deal with the problem. As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker—as you have no doubt shown the film to your children at some stage—Mary Poppins thought that a spoonful of sugar helped the medicine go down, but a spoonful of sugar, or nine teaspoons of sugar in a can of Coca-Cola, does not help the medicine go down—it makes matters worse.

In the short time available, I shall concentrate on the need to ensure that retailers do their bit to bring down the sugar content in sugary drinks. I am full of praise for the Mayor of London, the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), for going one step further than waiting for a sugar tax, which I understand is still on the agenda. There was a feeling that the Government had rejected that, but there were newspaper reports that the Prime Minister was still considering the matter. Perhaps the Minister can tell us when she winds up.

The retailers, having been invited by the previous Secretary of State for Health to be part of a voluntary arrangement, did not keep their side of the bargain. Despite the great declarations that were made by the previous Secretary of State, which I am sure were well intentioned, it is difficult to control global empires to ensure that they reduce the amount of sugar in drinks. We therefore have to take drastic measures. That is why I support a sugar tax, as enunciated by the Chair and other members of the Health Committee. We need to do that. We also need to do what the Mayor has done. Putting up the price of sugary drinks in City Hall is an extremely important way of sending out a clear message. Simon Stevens has said that he would do the same thing at NHS hospitals. How many of us turn up at local hospitals and see vending machines openly trying to sell us sugary drinks such as Coca-Cola?

I recently returned from a holiday in India. Whenever I asked for water or Diet Pepsi or Diet Coke, I was told it was not available. There is an interesting read-across to other Government Departments. The big retailers may be more conscious of the fact that the British House of Commons is interested in the issue, but in countries outside western Europe and the United States, they may feel that they can dump their sugary products without offering an alternative. Before we get to the issue of the sugar tax, which, as I said, I support, there is much that retailers can do.

I recently visited a branch of Waitrose in West Bromwich. I was interested to see that all the sugar-free products had been put in one kiosk in the middle of the store, so when people walked in they were not overwhelmed by the promotion of two-litre bottles of Coca-Cola for the price of one—they looked at the kiosk, where there were only no-sugar products. That is a way of encouraging those who purchase—I am not saying dads do not do it, but in most cases mums—to go to the kiosk and try to think positively about buying products that are free of sugar.

As I said in an intervention, there are things we can do. If we go to the Tea Room to have our lunch after this great debate, what is on offer? Club biscuits, Jaffa cakes, the most fantastic Victoria sponge—marvellous stuff that the Administration Committee offers us. The fruit is at the side, between the refrigerated drinks and the till. By the time I get there, even I, with my type 2 diabetes, am sometimes tempted to go for the sugary products and the chocolate. Why do we not promote the food and drinks that are healthy?

That is why, like others, I commend what Jamie Oliver has done. We need people like that, who have captured the imagination of the British people, to ensure that the public and the press help in the efforts to reduce sugar. Finally, I lavish praise on my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies), who has introduced a Bill to provide for better labelling. We still do not have effective product labelling. It is important that we see such information because it will enable us to make informed choices.

If we do nothing, the obesity crisis will get much worse. We are not drinking at the last-chance saloon. That is now closed. We are outside and we are ready for firm Government action. That is our request to the Minister. Because of her own commitment to these issues, I know she will react positively.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

Order. I am afraid I have to lower the time limit on speeches to seven minutes now.

13:47

[Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)]

I am delighted to take part in this important debate and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) on securing it.

As we have been hearing all afternoon, we are facing a crisis of obesity among our children. That is storing up trouble for the future for our nation, as it has implications for the personal health of those individuals, and will create wider social problems and economic challenges—loss of productivity because of ill health and the cost to the NHS, as we have heard. It is therefore right that the Government take the issue seriously and develop a comprehensive plan to address it.

We need to be realistic. The issue is complex and there is no silver bullet that will solve the problem of childhood obesity in one hit. There needs to be a comprehensive plan and a combination of measures to encourage greater activity and participation in sport and to address aspects such as diet, labelling and lifestyle. Parents must be at the heart of any strategy. We cannot replace their role and responsibility in raising their children and deciding what is best for their children’s welfare and future. We must never lose sight of that. Many parents feel that they are fighting a losing battle. The greatest influence on many children growing up today is no longer the parents and the household, but the media and the marketing budgets of multinational companies. Even the simple fact that in most shops a bottle of water is more expensive than an equivalent-sized can of fizzy, sugary drink—I think that is the case even in this place, so perhaps we should address that here—is evidence of the losing battle that many parents feel they are fighting in teaching and enabling their children to make the best choices.

In the time remaining I want to address the sugar tax. I am privileged to have one of Jamie Oliver’s Fifteen restaurants in my constituency. Only a few days after my election, the restaurant got in contact and asked me to lead a campaign for the introduction of a sugar tax. I have to say that my first response was to say no, because I am at heart a low-tax, small-state Conservative; my natural inclination is never to raise taxes. In fact, I want to cut taxes and have fewer taxes, so I did not particularly warm to the idea of introducing a new tax. Also, I do not want to see the state interfering in people’s lives, and particularly family life, any more than is absolutely necessary. Members will also be able to tell from my physique that I am not renowned for being a diet fanatic. In fact, I have been on only one diet in my life, and that was when my wife persuaded me to try the Atkins diet, with the bribe that I could eat as much bacon as I liked.

However, having looked at the evidence, I have come around and now believe that the Government should seriously consider introducing a sugar tax, because it would send a clear message about what is right and help people to make the right choices. In this country we have many taxes that are designed not only to raise revenue, but to educate and to influence people in the choices they make. I think that a sugar tax would be another step towards helping people, and particularly helping parents to help their children, to make the right choices. It would send a clear message that sugary drinks are not good for us. The Government would also be seen to be providing leadership on the issue, making a very clear and bold statement.

A tax on sugary drinks is not a silver bullet. It needs to be part of an overall package and a comprehensive strategy that includes better labelling, as we have heard, better education and encouraging physical activity. But I have been convinced that it needs to be seriously considered as part of the strategy to send that clear message and help parents make the right choice. I welcome the fact that, as the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) suggested, there might have been a little movement in the Government’s position. I encourage the Minister to take back the clear message that the Government should seriously consider introducing a tax on sugary drinks as part of the overall strategy. It is something we need to see move forward, and a clear message needs to be sent.

13:53

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I am pleased to be called to speak in this debate. I thank the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) for setting the scene so comprehensively, and for speaking along the lines that I and, I hope, most Members in the Chamber agree with. I declare an interest, because I am a type 2 diabetic, as is my friend and colleague the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz). He and I have many things in common. We are both type 2 diabetics and we both support Leicester City football club—who would have believed that Leicester City would be top of the league? They are equal with Arsenal now, so there we are. I am very pleased to share that as well.

Obesity is at epidemic levels across the nation. Although strategies and responses have been developed, achieving results and driving down levels of obesity appear to be very difficult, which is disappointing. I am not here to argue or fall out with anyone—that is not my form—but I do not agree with some of the things that have been said today. For example, I am in favour of a sugar tax. My colleague, Simon Hamilton, who is the Health Minister in Northern Ireland, is against a sugar tax. I am in favour of it because I think that it would be the best thing. I think that sometimes we have to make decisions for people and that we have to do what is right. We have the power in this House to bring in legislation that hopefully can be used for the benefit of all.

Northern Ireland has the worst levels of obesity in the United Kingdom. Just over 24% of the 1,300 children from Northern Ireland who were surveyed by researchers at the Institute of Education in London were found to be not just overweight, but obese. We all know that the Ulsterman and the Ulsterwoman are fond of an Ulster fry. I used to be, but now I am allowed a fry only once a week because I am a diabetic. Believe it or not, as a diabetic I used to weigh 17 stone, but now I weigh 13 stone, so we can address the issue if we put our minds to it. Had I known what diabetes was about before I became a diabetic, I think I would have taken steps to change. I did not know it then because I was not interested. I did not know it because I did not realise there was anything wrong, but things were wrong. Sometimes we have to educate ourselves and take important steps and move forward by legislative means.

Members have referred to a balanced meal. Some people who carry a bit of weight think that a balanced meal means one hamburger in each hand. We have to think about this seriously. A balanced meal is not two hamburgers and big bottle of Coke; it is much less than that.

Obesity levels for 11-year-olds are higher in Northern Ireland than they are in other parts of the United Kingdom; in Wales the figure is 23%, in England it is 20%, and in Scotland it is 19%. It was reported in the news the week before last that every child in the United Kingdom will eat their body weight in sugar each year. Just think about what that means. That is four or five stones of sugar. Adults probably eat their body weight in sugar as well—not me, though, because I am a diabetic.

[Will Quince]

I am interested to know why sugary soft drinks, in particular, are being targeted. Why are we not looking at cereals, biscuits and cakes as well? Why is it just sugary drinks?

[Jim Shannon]

I am happy to look at sugary drinks because we have to start somewhere, but I will happily look at cornflakes and other foods as well, so they should not think that we are going to let them off. The issue is that there are nine teaspoons of sugar in a can of fizzy drink, so we need to address the issue where it starts.

We cannot ignore the statistics, because they are very clear. The fact that by age 11 a quarter of children in Northern Ireland are not just overweight, but obese is an alarming statistic. I think that a comprehensive and robust approach will be required if we are to address that. One way to doing that is through education in schools. I think that we need to bring that education in at an early stage. I think that the Minister will probably respond along those lines.

I fully support having a tax on sugar, which I think would be a step in the right direction. If we do that, we can move things forward and address the issue of obesity and people being overweight very early. Without addressing this serious health issue at the earliest stage possible, it will lead to problems for the health of the person in question, and for public health and society as a whole. I found some statistics on obesity the other day. The obesity epidemic in Northern Ireland has led to a doubling in just three years in the number of callouts for firefighters to help obese people. Those are startling figures. We can sit and ignore those and say, “No, we’re not going to tax sugar,” or we can address the issue early on. I say that we should do it early on. Let us do it now.

Dr Hilary Cass, president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, has said that if the problem is not tackled now, it will rapidly get worse. She said:

“We should be worried because if we do not fix this problem now, we will see unhealthy kids turning into unhealthy adults with diabetes, heart disease and kidney problems.”

Why is it that it tends to be those on low incomes who are overweight or obese? It is quite clear to me, but perhaps it is not clear to others. I think that it is because their income dictates what they buy. If they do not have much money, they will buy the cheapest food they can, even if it is not the healthiest food, and more often than not cheap food contains levels of fat and sugar that are far too high. The issue of low incomes is therefore something we have to address as well, for those whose food choices are dictated by what is in their pockets.

We should be tackling these issues now not only because that is the right thing to do morally, but because it makes economic sense. The right hon. Member for Leicester East referred to the supermarket that had all the chocolate and sugary foods in one aisle in the middle of the shop. That is where they should be. They should not be at the checkout, where kids will see them and want their chocolate bar or their bottle of Coke. We have to address that issue as well.

Despite greater education on food and nutrition, there is still an obesity epidemic. Children are getting too many of their calories from sugars—on average, three times the Government’s recommended amount. That only contributes to an overall overconsumption of calories. One in three children are overweight or obese by the time they start secondary school, and that is a very clear problem that needs to be addressed. Childhood obesity is associated with conditions such as insulin resistance, hypertension, asthma, sleep problems, poor mental health—we cannot ignore that in children; we cannot think that they do not have it, because they do—early signs of heart disease, and an increased risk of developing cancer. The hon. Member for Colchester (Will Quince) referred to the need to have more physical activity in schools, and that issue could be addressed. Ministers mentioned it during this morning’s Culture, Media and Sport questions, so they recognise it as well. I have mentioned just a small number of the health costs of not acting to address this epidemic.

It is not just health that suffers because of inaction on this epidemic. Health problems associated with being overweight or obese cost the NHS more than £5 billion annually. Poor dental hygiene costs the NHS £3.4 billion a year, of which £30 million alone is spent on hospital-based extractions of children’s teeth. The total societal cost of obesity in the UK in 2012, including lost productivity, was £47 billion. The evidence is clear.

There can be no one solution to this complex issue. We need to enhance our nutritional education strategy, tackle poor diets through legislation, and encourage greater physical activity among our children. Given the shocking statistics that we have all spoken about, it is clear that despite health being a devolved issue, obesity, and obesity in our children, is truly a national problem. As such, it will require a national solution and a comprehensive approach.

14:01

[Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)]

I, too, pay tribute to the Health Committee for its great work. I pay tribute particularly to the Chairman of that Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), and to my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup) for her work in the all-party obesity group.

This is a very important topic. It is also a very emotive one, as we have heard, especially for those of us who are generally instinctively against Government interference and taxation, and want small government. I have wrestled with that, like my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double), but I have come round to the idea that when it is necessary to interfere, and when we have to balance out these freedoms with doing the right thing by our children, then we do need to consider all options. I have been slowly persuaded, but am now comfortably persuaded, on issues such as the sugar tax. So unfortunately, probably for the first time ever, I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince). However, I am sure that it will be the first of many such times over coming years.

The evidence is overwhelming. Like the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), in researching this topic I found that the numbers are astounding. The figures are overwhelming, and very alarming. I will not repeat them, but the report contains many such figures, and it is well worth a read.

One of the issues that comes up again and again is food marketing. Research tells us that children as young as 18 months can be influenced and are capable of recognising brands, which is a truly astounding fact. The House will be aware that current regulations on TV advertising mean that foods high in fat, saturated fat, salt and sugar are banned from being advertised during children’s programming, but many organisations, as well as the report, have suggested that that should extend up to the 9 pm watershed, and with considerable reason, given the evidence. The latest Ofcom figures show that two thirds of children watch television during what is considered adult airtime, with peak viewing for children between 7 pm and 8 pm. The British Heart Foundation found last year that during just one episode of “The X Factor”, a programme that is quite popular with children, there were no fewer than 13 junk food adverts. The issue is even more acute with online advertising, where adverts are often attached to videos, including music videos. That is probably worthy of a debate in itself.

Let me turn to food standards in schools, where there has been a tremendous breakthrough over the past few years. Those of us who visit schools look on with envy at the school meals now compared with the ones that many of us had to suffer years ago. Yet in many schools up and down the country, we have the farcical situation where lunches provided by schools are generally very healthy, but the food children themselves bring into schools, or is provided by their parents, is often not healthy. We can only imagine how frustrating it is for teachers, and indeed everybody who works in schools, including my wife, to see children filling themselves up with junk food at school and knowing there is little they can do about it. We need more co-operation between schools, and between parents and teachers. I back the Committee’s proposal that nutritional guidelines should be published for packed lunches and that, where necessary, teachers should be able to have, perhaps robust, conversations with parents so that these guidelines are followed.

Of course, diet is very important, but so is physical activity, as has been mentioned many times. I back up the supportive comments about the DCMS’s sports strategy. In The Times on Monday we saw a snack guide that included information on how long it would take to burn off the calories of various foods. It is easy to laugh at things like this, but it showed that a chocolate bar, bag of crisps and a bottle of Coke would require almost one hour of running or more than two hours of walking to burn off. How many children, or indeed parents, know that? Given that a child could consume all those things on top of, or instead of, a healthy meal, while doing no exercise, it is a really alarming picture. We must do more to encourage and enable exercise.

I am blessed to represent a primarily rural constituency. It is very easy for me and my family to get outdoors, to go on bike rides, and to go on public pathways. I am well aware that not everybody in the country has those privileges. Councils and local government need to do much more to enable access to healthy outdoor living and sports facilities. Planning plays a part in this too. When I see planning proposals for housing developments, I find it remarkable how little provision there is for recreational facilities, or indeed access to countryside. Cities fare far worse than the countryside in this regard.

[Helen Whately]

My hon. Friend is making an important speech covering a wide range of actions that need to be taken to tackle the obesity problem. Does he agree that this is not just about the sugar tax or product placement? The scale of the problem is such that we need a whole range of steps where the Government take a lead in showing how serious the problem is, and a whole range of actions to make sure that a difference is made quickly.

[Nigel Huddleston]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention; I could not agree more. Indeed, she has stolen my conclusion. It is absolutely the case that this is a very complex matter that covers so many areas that it is difficult to fine tune it. I hope that we can avoid focusing purely on the sugar tax, as important as it is.

We must recognise and praise the fact that up and down the country there are some great experiments going on, with schools practising innovative ways to encourage physical activity. For example, Commando Joe’s goes into schools and encourages team building and physical activity. I give credit to Bengeworth academy in Evesham in my constituency where we have our own Commando Joe—a gentleman called Chris Parry who works alongside staff and children having previously done four tours of Afghanistan with the Marines. He is doing great work, and long may that continue.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) said, this is not just about healthy eating. It is also about planning, education, labelling, and information, and the cost in healthcare if we do not do anything—we need to cover so many areas. If the aim of this debate was to give the Government ideas about what they could do to help in this area, then I am sure that by the end of it that will have been achieved.

14:07

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

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston). I agreed with everything he said, including his disagreement with the hon. Member for Colchester (Will Quince). I also agree with the points made by the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double). We are both members of the SAS—Surfers Against Sewage, that is, before people get the wrong idea.

I congratulate the Chair of the Health Committee, the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), on introducing this debate. As she will know, I have been active in this area, not least in the Sugar in Food and Drinks (Targets, Labelling and Advertising) Bill, which has its Second Reading tomorrow. The Bill basically asks for sugar labelling because people do not realise how much sugar they are eating. As I said earlier, this morning I bought three products from Portcullis House: a can of Coke, which has nine spoonfuls of sugar, the daily limit for a man; a container of yogurt, which has seven spoonfuls, more than a woman is allowed; and a Snickers bar, which has five spoonfuls.

The reason for a focus on fizzy drinks, other than the reasons set by the Chair of the Health Committee, is that they represent a very large proportion of the overall sugar intake of children, and so they represent an easy big hit, early on. There was a trading of statistics about the efficacy of sugar taxes, but we need only look at the elasticity of demand for fizzy drinks. Part of my background is in marketing products in multinational companies—not these products. I was the marketing manager for Colgate, for example. People have talked about the impact on teeth. When I was at Colgate, we thought that with the advent of fluoride we were going to see the end of tooth decay. However, there has been such a big increase in the consumption of fizzy drinks through focused marketing, that we have turned the corner and gone into reverse, and people’s teeth are dropping out. The point about marketing aimed at children highlights some of the demographic differences in the impact of sugar, because high consumers of television tend to be less well-off people who pick up brand awareness from watching it and then follow those brands.

I am in favour of labels noting the number of spoonfuls of sugar. I know that the Minister will say that there are issues with packaging in Europe, but my understanding is that, while there is a European competence, we have a national opportunity to do our own thing, and that is what we should do. Jamie Oliver and the Health Committee are following up on that. Retailers could put pressure on manufacturers to take voluntary action, but, sadly, even though retailers claim they are doing so, they are not taking proper responsibility, certainly not on cola drinks, which is a massive problem.

At one point in my distant past, I promoted the School Meals and Nutrition Bill. Its suggestions that Ofsted should be required to audit nutrition in schools and to get rid of unhealthy vending were agreed. I also still stand by its suggestion to gate children in schools so that they could not run to McDonald’s or elsewhere at lunchtime.

Obesity is costing the economy about £47 billion a year. This is not just about diabetes and the cost to the NHS, which is terribly important; the overall economy is suffering. Members have mentioned bullying in school, but obesity also has an effect on people’s quality of life. It is uncomfortable and those who are obese live shorter lives. If people know that one jar of pasta sauce has six teaspoonfuls of sugar and another has three, they will be able to make a rational choice; otherwise they will pick the one that is sweeter. The mechanisms available are simple. Members have also mentioned the need to encourage exercise, which is clearly very important.

On the main thrust of the debate, I agree with a fizzy drinks tax, but I want us to move towards an ingredient tax, which would mesh into the reformulation. Professor Graham MacGregor, who is now working with Action on Sugar, has been instrumental in getting the salt content down through reformulation. As I have said, if a 10% tax is put on a Hobnob, for example, the producer could reduce the amount of sugar and the price would not go up.

There are concerns about regressive taxation. The sad fact is that poorer people find it more difficult to afford fresh foods. People pooh-pooh that argument, but if various products are mashed up with sugar, salt and fat and then frozen, they will stay on the shelf for months on end. However, if produce has to be sold within a week because it is going to decay, it will be more expensive, which causes problems. There is a case to be made for taking the revenues from the tax and hypothecating it to provide easier access to fresh foods for people with less money. As well as putting up the prices of sugar-rich products, we need to provide information. We have a battery of opportunity to confront this difficult task.

It has been suggested that multinationals have been helping. Such companies are rational, focused and see the lie of the land. They know that people have cottoned on to the fact that sugar consumption is costing the country an arm and a leg, sometimes literally. Productivity is down and costs are up, and they know that the Government will ultimately take action, so they are following a rational trajectory. We need to encourage them to do so.

We have heard stories about elasticity of demand before. As every economist knows, when the price is put up, demand goes down. That is not a point of argument. Certain manufacturers used to say that there was nothing wrong with smoking. We know there is a problem with sugar. The emerging science suggests that if, for example, I and the hon. Member for Colchester both consumed 2,000 calories a day but I took in more sugar than him, over time I would develop a predisposition that meant that more of the calories I consumed would settle as fat. I would then feel hungry and listless and become obese. There are, therefore, other issues associated with sugar consumption.

The World Health Organisation has said that the sugar calorie intake should be 5%. Those of us here know that that means six spoonfuls for women and nine spoonfuls for men, but people out there do not realise how much sugar they are supposed to have, and even if they did they are not able to calculate it. Public Health England has produced an app that enables people to scan products with their phone to find out how many cubes of sugar they are consuming. It is difficult to calculate how much sugar is in one chunk of chocolate and in the bar as a whole. It would be better if it was all clearly labelled, without having to go through that process. The app is helpful and I welcome it, but it is not a serious solution.

[Dr Tania Mathias (Twickenham) (Con)]

I concur with the hon. Gentleman on labelling. Does he agree that, whether we label a chocolate bar or fruit, we need information on sucrose, glucose and fructose? We need to know how many of those chemicals are in everything we consume, including fruit.

[Geraint Davies]

I agree that people should be aware of that. My big beef, as it were, is that people do not know how much added sugar they are consuming. For instance, they do not know if there is twice as much sugar in one jar of pasta sauce than another. People need to know how much sugar they are taking in. To a certain extent, people prefer naturally occurring sugar in bananas and similar products, but I agree with the hon. Lady that people should know what they are eating.

The manufacturers argue that they have done everything they can. The back of a packet of Frosties has all the information, so long as people have a PhD and a lens through which to read the data. Products are packaged in such a way as to give the impression that they are healthy. The Bill that I am promoting tomorrow argues that products should not be allowed to be promoted as low fat when they are in fact high in sugar, because people infer from that that they are healthy. It also proposes an overall, aggregate sugar target—similar to a carbon target—so that the Government can see how much sugar we are consuming overall and gradually manage strategies to get it down.

14:16

[Dr Tania Mathias (Twickenham) (Con)]

May I join other Members in applauding my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) for securing this important debate? I did not come across paediatric type 2 diabetes when I was a medical student. Perhaps her experience was similar to mine. Like many people, I was shocked to find at the turn of the century that there were instances in this country of childhood type 2 diabetes. There are now more than 100 cases a year in this country of that incredibly serious condition. Just a few months ago, a three-year-old in America was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. The treatment involved decreasing the weight of the child, who was obese.

I believe that the Minister’s strategy should be cultural. The papers show that more evidence is emerging and it is prescient. It involves not just genetics, but nurture. Studies of children who have been adopted by obese parents show that there is a risk that they will have childhood obesity.

On culture, I, like others, have seen many households with a TV room but no dining room. Families do not eat at a dining table in the same way as previous generations did. Members have talked in depth about the cultural change relating to exercise. I applaud the head of St Ninians in Stirling, who introduced a 1-mile-a-day idea for the primary schoolchildren. Interestingly, obesity levels on entry to the school are not as high as those in other schools; the figure a few years ago was one in 10. There is now an association—we are not talking about causation—between the 1 mile a day and pupils leaving St Ninians without being obese. That lady has rightly been given Pride of Britain awards. I want that culture change to continue and for the House to applaud it.

At the moment, I am not in favour of new taxation. In our culture, we can access such information. I absolutely agree with what everybody has said about better labelling, and we need more of it. However, as I said to the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies), we need information about all the foods we eat—about fruit and vegetables, as well as about fast food. There is a debate about using sucrose as opposed to fructose, but we need to be aware of all such chemicals. In our culture today, we can give people that information. I would like to have such information myself.

As we get more evidence, the treatment and management of, as well as education about, childhood obesity will rise to the levels available for adult obesity. For many people, the concern is not about the obesity itself, but about its medical consequences. An obese adult who goes to their GP can look at the algorithm or the chart, and discuss the five or 10-year risk of their developing cardiovascular problems. If we give parents such information about their child, they will, in time, change their family habits. They do not want their child to have an increased five or 10-year risk of cardiovascular complications.

[Geraint Davies]

On that basis, does the hon. Lady advocate removing the tax on cigarettes?

[Dr Mathias]

The hon. Gentleman is testing me. I would say yes if I followed the argument all the way through, but I would not now go back on the tax on cigarettes. In my experience, education and information are the most powerful factors. Sadly, all GPs have treated people who later died from lung cancer. In my limited experience, it is information, not the effect on their pocket, that will change such people’s behaviour. I want an obesity strategy that will provide such information, because I trust the patient to make an informed choice. For me, the facts and the evidence are key.

We need to hold up a mirror to our culture at the moment. We have a culture of fast food and little exercise. I want that to flip to become a culture of slow food and more exercise. I encourage the Minister to look at such a culture, rather than at taxation.

14:22

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

Before I begin, I want to add my voice to those of other Members in thanking the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) for securing this debate.

Childhood obesity is a problem across the UK, and the devolved legislatures as well as the UK Government must do all they can to tackle the problem, both in the short and the long term, for the benefit of our children and tomorrow’s citizens, to relieve the health problems obesity all too often creates, and for our long-term economic sustainability, as has been outlined this afternoon. All corners of the UK can learn from each other, and I hope they will. The Scottish Government have been working hard on this concern by taking forward a number of initiatives to enable people more easily to become active, to eat more healthily and generally to find ways of feeling better through an improved lifestyle.

There is no silver bullet, as we all know. We all agree that there is a significant problem. We must take into account the clear socioeconomic considerations that have a direct effect on the health of our children in general and on obesity in particular. The SNP Scottish Government are implementing several measures both to combat and to prevent childhood, and indeed adult, obesity. However, there are far too many to mention in the limited time available.

It is worth remembering that fruit and vegetable consumption among the poorest 20% has fallen by 20% since the recession began, with children’s diets being hit hard. On a number of national indicators of obesity and childhood obesity in Scotland, performance is improving or being maintained. In particular, physical activity performance has improved. The SNP Scottish Government are working well with schools and local authorities to ensure that children are more physically active. My local authority, North Ayrshire Council, has developed its own outdoor access strategy.

Much has been made today about imposing a sugar tax. The food we consume all too often contains significant quantities of sugar, of which many of us are seldom aware. I know that both the UK and the Scottish Government are considering a sugar tax. It is certainly an option that we are quite right to consider, but we must be careful about a tax that may, disproportionately, hit the poorest hardest. We all know that eating healthily is not always affordable for families on a tight budget, and a sugar tax must not be held up as a panacea for a very complex problem. If it is introduced, we must be certain that it has a positive impact on our health, without the unintended consequence of increasing inequalities.

We pay the price for our poor choices. We pay the price with our health and with our life expectancy, due to the development of serious health problems such as heart disease, type 2 diabetes and cancer. This puts more demands on our health services, and those demands will become greater unless we tackle this problem. The Health Committee has recently heard that the cost to society of this problem is £27 billion.

Beyond the cost in pounds, shillings and pence, overweight children face other problems, such as bullying, social exclusion, lack of self-confidence, unfulfilled potential and underachievement in school, which plague them long into adulthood and feed into their job prospects for many years afterwards. In Scotland, about 31% of children were at risk of becoming overweight in 2014, and 17% were at risk of obesity. Although those figures have stabilised in recent years, they are still worryingly high.

Research in Scotland shows that factors associated with children being overweight or obese include snacking on crisps or sweets between meals, skipping breakfast, not eating in a dining room at home and a lack of parental supervision, not enough physical activity and greater social deprivation. A higher proportion of children are at risk of obesity in Scotland’s most deprived areas—22% in 2014, compared with 13% for the least deprived. Any action to tackle this problem must be sensitive to that fact. Any debate about how to make our children healthier must avoid wagging fingers at parents, who, often in very difficult circumstances, are doing the very best they can. It is important to support people to make healthy choices where possible, not to shake our heads at them in righteous condemnation.

I end by making an important point for us all. Food labelling must be part of the solution. Although labels telling us what is in our food have improved over the years, in my view they are still too complex. One should not need to be a pseudo-scientist to understand what is in the food one buys. Labels must be clearer for shoppers so that parents are fully informed about what is in the food they eat and in the food they feed to their children.

There is no doubt that there are challenges ahead, but we must take people with us in this debate. How and what people feed their children can be a sensitive matter. Parents of course want the best for their children, and we must support and enable all parents to make the best choices for their children. Otherwise, regardless of what we say in this place, they just will not swallow it.

14:28

[Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)]

I am pleased to contribute to this debate as chair of the newly reformed all-party group on adult and childhood obesity. The group has been set up to bring together Members of both Houses and parliamentarians of all parties who want to explore the best ways to lower the obesity rate. There is no doubt that such a group is needed. It barely needs repeating, but two thirds of adults are obese or overweight, as are more than a third of children. Such a pressing public policy issue demands the constructive involvement of parliamentarians, and I welcome today’s debate as a means of highlighting the need for action. My vision is for the all-party group to become a forum for lively discussion of practical ways in which we can support people both to live healthier lives themselves and to help their children grow up healthy.

I understand why the role of the Government is a tricky one when it comes to tackling obesity. Some Government involvement is vital, but a Government cannot simply pass a law to make people eat healthier food and give healthier food to their children or legislate for a certain amount of exercise each day. What the Government can do is produce strategies, ideally for both children and adults, that lay out a longer-term solution for what is a long-term problem.

The worst thing that a Government could do would be to publish such proposals and then forget about them. Fortunately, the APPG will be there to keep an eye on the progress that is made, or not, and to work with the Government to promote what works and point out what does not work. I hope that Members on both sides of the House this afternoon, including my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince), with whom I usually agree, are interested in getting involved in the group, because all are welcome.

Let us focus specifically on childhood obesity, not forgetting that adults are role models. Our children are our future and it would be irresponsible as legislators not to take the future health of our nation extremely seriously. We must take whatever action is needed to address this issue. We can see the impact of obesity on the lives of adults in an increased risk of heart disease, diabetes and the life-changing complications that go with it, and cancer. All those medical conditions are life-limiting. Why would obesity have a different effect on children from the one it has on adults? It does not.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) said, the Health Committee report on childhood obesity called for “brave and bold action”. That brave and bold action is needed from Government, the food and drinks industry, food outlets, educators and healthcare professionals. But let us not forget that all that will be wasted unless people take personal responsibility. This is a huge issue and fiddling at the edges will not work.

Today, there has been a lot of focus on the proposal for a sugary drinks tax. I was originally against it, but when I saw the compelling evidence, I changed my opinion, like my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double). A sugary drinks tax should be just one of a range of measures. I believe that the food and drink industry can and should implement many of the measures that are needed without the need for legislation. The industry can make changes without legislation, given the will, and that is already happening.

In the run-up to this debate, I received many emails from organisations on both sides of the argument. I had one email from a leading supermarket, outlining the measures that it is taking. Those include reducing sugar in its range of breakfast cereals, chilled juices, fizzy drinks and yoghurts. I know that reformulations do not happen overnight, but I would like to think that the extra focus on obesity over recent months, including in Jamie Oliver’s campaign, has embarrassed manufacturers into making changes to their formulations in their own way, rather than as a result of legislation.

There is still more to be done. I am sure that we have all bought a newspaper from a well-known high street newsagents and been offered a mega-sized bar of chocolate at a special price. I do not know about my fellow Members, but if I want a bar of chocolate to eat while reading my newspaper, I will buy one without being asked—not that I do that, of course! What I am saying is that some manufacturers and retailers are taking the current and future health of our nation seriously and acting responsibly, but sadly others are not.

The causes of obesity are extremely complex and numerous, so it would be wrong of me just to focus on sugar. Fats, saturated fats and salt all have an impact on our weight, as does exercise. For adults—not for children, I hasten to add—alcohol also has an effect. It is because of this complexity that we cannot rely on just one measure. The Health Committee has made a range of recommendations, as has been outlined.

Regular exercise has a role to play. One of my local primary schools, Ladywood in Kirk Hallam, makes exercise fun. It is a member of the Erewash school sports partnership, it has active dinner playtimes and it links up with the secondary school, Kirk Hallam Community Academy, to take part in “This Girl Can”. We need to inspire young people at an early stage to make exercise a part of their way of life.

We must not forget that we need to consider cure as well as prevention. I have spoken to a number of healthcare professionals about this matter. Although it is important to recognise that people need to take personal responsibility for their own lifestyle, it is important not to stigmatise people who are obese. We must ensure that people recognise it as a condition, as they would with any other medical condition.

Obesity is a ticking time bomb. As politicians, we have a responsibility for the current and future health of our nation. I am ready to address it straight on.

14:35

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

I am glad to be able to speak in this debate and hope that what I say will provide a different kind of insight into the debate on childhood obesity.

I am a great enthusiast for breastfeeding. Breast milk has many exceptional qualities, the most obvious being that it is exactly the right thing for infants to be eating. In the beginning, there is the double cream of breast milk, colostrum, which appears before a baby is even born in preparation for those first feeds. The milk that comes thereafter changes and adapts over time as the baby’s needs change. Breast milk has everything that a baby needs and, taken directly from source, it has the advantage of being at the correct temperature. It is easily absorbed by the infant gut. It is a miracle of nature.

What breastfeeding contributes to this debate is the impact that it can have on reducing childhood obesity. An excellent study was pulled together by UNICEF a few years ago called, “Preventing disease and saving resources: the potential contribution of increasing breastfeeding rates in the UK”. The report analysed data from many studies to ensure that there was a sound scientific basis for the claims that it made. Although I accept that giving precise figures and modelling on this is difficult, the UNICEF report estimates that:

“A modest increase in breastfeeding rates could result in a reduction in childhood obesity by circa 5%. If this was the case, the number of obese young children would fall by approximately 16,300, and annual health-care expenditures would reduce by circa £1.63 million.”

That would be no mean contribution. Breastfeeding starts babies off on the right track and, with the accompanying health benefits, such an increase could result in a generation of healthier babies and young people.

The Government should bear that in mind and ensure that services to promote, protect and support breastfeeding are well maintained. This is too important to be left to the good will of the wonderful network of voluntary organisations across the country. It needs to be an identified priority of this Government. The newly formed all-party parliamentary group on infant feeding and inequalities, which I established this week with colleagues from across the House, aims to examine the matter further. We will consider the issues of inequality, because there are multiple deprivation issues, with lower rates of breastfeeding in deprived communities.

What is less well known about infant formula is the specific contents of that product. It takes a complex chemical process to produce formula that involves either dry blending or wet mixing and spray drying, in which cow’s milk is treated with added lactose or other carbohydrates, vegetable and other oils, vitamins and minerals. According to the First Steps Nutrition Trust, the current regulations require infant formula and follow-on formula to have an energy content of between 60 kcal and 70 kcal per 100 ml. Those figures are based on the energy content of breast milk, but, as I mentioned earlier, breast milk composition changes in response to the baby as it grows. Breast milk also has more unsaturated fats than cow’s milk and the fats in infant formula tend to come from the vegetable oil. If anyone has an interest in finding out more about this, I recommend that they seek out the “Infant milks in the UK” report that is produced by the First Steps Nutrition Trust. The level of detail is fascinating.

There are differences between the growth curves of breastfed and formula-fed babies, with the formula-fed babies gaining more weight in the first year. Some studies suggest that that may, in part, contribute to childhood obesity. Pressure is also put on mothers to ensure that their baby is gaining the correct amount of weight. We should consider how formula milk is delivered. I have heard many people describe how many millilitres of formula their baby has drunk at any given time, comparing and contrasting this with others. There is an expectation of how much is normal.

There is a risk in the making up of formula milk, because one must ensure that the correct dosage of powder is dissolved in the water. If this is not done accurately, there is a risk of babies being overfed or, indeed, underfed. The risk of that is far lower for breastfed babies, although I admit that I could only really tell how much breast milk my babies had by the amount that they both threw up all over me. There is not really any other way of telling.

[Mrs Hodgson]

I agree with everything the hon. Lady has said so far. As she knows, I took part in the debate that she led in Westminster Hall on this issue. The point that she is making is very important. I was an evangelical breastfeeder myself and still encourage everyone to do it in every which way they can. She makes the point that breastfed babies feed on demand, so they take as much or as little as they need, whereas when babies are bottle fed, there is an obsession with whether they have taken half a bottle, 8 ml or whatever. Parents inadvertently force-feed their baby the amount they think they should have, rather than what the baby needs, so babies get used to being full. As we all know, that is not necessarily good and can lead to the bad habits in adulthood that I spoke about earlier.

[Alison Thewliss]

I absolutely agree with what my good friend says. Bottle feeding tends to be at a set time—“Is it time for the baby’s feed yet?”—rather than when the baby actually needs to be fed, whereas breastfed babies are fed little and often on demand, which is a slightly better habit to get into.

There is also a beneficial effect on breastfeeding mothers. As well as reducing the risk of cancer and diabetes, breastfeeding burns calories and helps to get mothers back to their pre-maternity weight—for me the prospect of burning an extra 400 to 500 calories just by breastfeeding my baby was very attractive, and it certainly helped me to fit back into the clothes that I wore before I had my children, both of whom were breastfed for two years.

I was interested in the findings of the Select Committee report, and I particularly note the points about marketing and sugar content in foods. I was a wee bit disappointed that it does not contain much discussion on baby foods and toddler milks, as there are significant issues in that area regarding the advertising and the content of the products. In evidence to the Committee, Dr Colin Michie of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health stated:

“Follow-on formulas are not necessary for human beings, but it would not seem so if you watch television. The problem is we are all very convinced by the stories. There are other issues that have parallels for what was said earlier in that the milk companies sponsor education, training, events and an awful lot of professional activities, which again does exactly, to our minds, what we heard it does to infants’ minds: when we see brand names, we equate certain things with them. It is an insidious business that we know enough of to be very wary of.”

The artificial creation of a market for follow-on or toddler milks is of some concern, because those products are not subject to the same level of scrutiny as formulas for very young babies. Research gathered by the First Steps Nutrition Trust suggests that

“Growing-up milks and toddler milks contain almost twice as much sugar per 100 ml as cow’s milk, and some Aptamil and Cow & Gate growing-up milks and all SMA growing-up milks contain vanilla flavouring. It is unclear whether repeated exposure to sweet drinks in infancy and toddlerhood might contribute to the development of a preference for sweet drinks in later life.”

It is important to take cognisance of that and consider the issue as part of the obesity strategy.

[Dr Wollaston]

I thank the hon. Lady for her powerful contribution, and I completely agree with what she says. I also agree that the advertising of follow-on milks is a covert form of advertising infant formula. Does she feel that that should be completely banned?

[Alison Thewliss]

Absolutely, and a lot of the advertising is very—I supposed we could say cunning. Products are made to look the same on the shelves and to match the adverts for follow-on milks, rather than those for the younger infant formulas, and more needs to be done about that.

The sugars in follow-on milks are not always made clear on the packaging, and that should certainly be of concern to us in this House. Establishing a sugar habit at such an early age should be discouraged, and as was said earlier, that also has an impact on the teeth of a growing child. Baby Milk Action has campaigned tirelessly on the marketing of formula, and it has been involved in challenging those issues in the European Parliament. There are related issues concerning the marketing and composition of baby food, and about the jars and packets found in supermarkets, which are often marketed at babies under six months, contrary to World Health Organisation advice.

Pressure from groups such as Baby Milk Action, and actions by MEPs such as the Green MEP Keith Taylor, led yesterday to the European Parliament rejecting draft EU rules on baby food. If they had been approved, they would have allowed baby foods to contain high levels of sugar, and products to be labelled for use from four months of age, rather than from six months, which is the advice. As a result, the Commission has been forced back to the drawing board to bring the regulations in line with recommendations of the WHO and the World Health Assembly, and to fit better with the international code on such issues. I would like further debate on the composition of baby foods, how they are marketed, where they are placed in supermarkets, and what advice is given to parents. Again, the sugar content and the rationale behind waiting until six months before bringing babies on to solid foods is not always made clear to parents.

Advice on such matters has changed over the years and has sometimes been conflicting, and well-meaning advice from family members can cause doubt in the minds of new parents. People need to have the best advice on feeding. All agencies should be clear about the advice that they give out, and we must guard the most vulnerable babies in our society against the vested interests of wealthy baby food and formula companies that seek to exert influence on professionals and groups giving out that advice. I hope that these issues will be given due consideration in the debate on obesity, and that thought will be given to the contribution that breastfeeding can make to improving infant and maternal health.

14:45

[Mrs Flick Drummond (Portsmouth South) (Con)]

I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), who has established the fantastic all-party group on infant feeding and inequalities. I am looking forward to being part of that as it progresses, and I thank her for setting it up.

The chief executive of NHS England describes obesity as “the new smoking”, and in many ways he is right. Obesity leads to a multitude of health complications, ranging from lack of mobility to cancer. There are also many hidden health risks for people who are obese or severely overweight. Obesity can lead to a lack of self-worth or depression, and it can affect relationships and careers. Because of the growing obesity problem, and the very serious threat to our children’s futures, I am happy that this debate is taking place, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) on securing it.

In my constituency of Portsmouth South, 20% of children and 25% of adults are obese, which is above the average for England. In other ways, obesity is unlike smoking—there is no “vaping” technology for people who struggle to maintain a healthy diet. We know that fast food is an immediate satisfaction, whereas healthy food can take longer to prepare. I am concerned, however, that some studies suggest that healthy food is more expensive than the fast and unhealthy food that we see on offer every day, or positioned conveniently at supermarket checkouts.

I am particularly concerned by a fairly recent report by the University of Cambridge, which found that healthy food was three times more expensive than unhealthy food. I would dispute that. It is perfectly possible to eat healthily on a low budget. As Baroness Jenkin from the other place has shown, someone can live healthily on £1 a day, and I know from my own busy household that it is possible to live healthily on a very small budget. At the local food bank where I volunteered before the election we handed out healthy recipes for the food that was provided, which should have lasted people for three days. I am sure that I do not need to repeat what that issue means for those living in deprived areas, except to say that in my constituency of Portsmouth South, where deprivation is higher than the English average, the challenge to encourage people to eat healthy food is even greater.

The whole House will agree that today our nation’s children are more susceptible and at risk of becoming obese. Children do not control their diets—it is the parents who do the weekly shop—and we would never blame a child for their poor dietary choices. Children who develop obesity at a young age are at risk of developing lifelong conditions, some of which are also life-limiting; as we have heard, cases of diabetes are increasing. During childhood, people develop habits that can last the rest of their lives. A lot of facts have been flying around in this debate, and although I understand the financial burden that a growing obesity problem poses for our NHS, the human cost cannot be quantified.

The solution to this problem is not simply more money. As other Members have said, it requires the energy and commitment of central and local government, health organisations, and our local charities, to educate the population on how to live on a low wage. I am really pleased that the Roberts Centre in my constituency is a family-focused charity. It offers a range of services offering support and assistance, including making healthier lifestyle choices, to some of the most disadvantaged families in the city.

[Mrs Hodgson]

On the hon. Lady’s point about living healthily on a low wage, I take on board that it is very possible to make healthy food very cheaply, but people need the skills and knowledge to be able do that. I wonder whether she will say a bit more about that. The School Food Plan says that education should start with children learning the skills they need to be able to look after themselves as adults.

[Mrs Drummond]

That is exactly what I was going to come on to, so I thank the hon. Lady very much indeed.

Last week, I met Home Start, a national family charity with a strong presence in Portsmouth. It has an army of volunteers who offer unconditional help and support to all families who need help in getting it right, and show them how to cook healthily. There is, however, a major role for our schools in tackling obesity. The school where I am a governor, Milton Park primary, is taking the lead locally in educating children about healthier choices. The cooks at the school have won awards and I can recommend their so-called “chocolate muffins,” which in fact are made of beetroot.

I would like to see cooking classes become mandatory in schools. I know it would be difficult to re-establish kitchens, but the rewards would be worth it. I see that as the only way to prevent future generations from continuing poor eating habits. The only way to do that is by teaching them how to cook healthily and how to budget. Like some of my colleagues, I was against a sugar tax to start with. If we can use the sugar tax to fund cooking classes in schools, however, then I am all for it.

In Portsmouth, there are a number of charitable organisations actively engaging with the community to help to tackle obesity through a more active lifestyle. Affiliated with Portsmouth football club, Pompey in the Community provides education and opportunities for children in the city.

[Geraint Davies]

The hon. Lady makes some interesting points about the relationship between nutrition and poverty. Does she agree that it is a good idea to provide free school breakfasts in school? They help poorer children in particular to achieve and to know what good food tastes like.

[Mrs Drummond]

I totally agree. I also back the attempt by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) to get free school meals for everybody receiving the pupil premium. That is a very good point; I am thinking particularly of a healthy breakfast with porridge, not necessarily sugar-laden cereals.

Not only does Pompey in the Community provide a lot of the physical education curriculum in local schools, but it runs a number of out-of-school and holiday clubs. There are plenty of sports clubs in Portsmouth. I would like to see a lot more outreach from sports clubs to children from low-income families. The Portsmouth Sail Training Trust does this with sailing, focusing solely on children from low-income backgrounds. More sports clubs need to get out and do this, too. Perhaps we could use the sugar tax to help to fund some of those sports activities. I would also like to see more sport in the curriculum, with the possibility of at least one hour of activity every day. We heard about a school doing one mile a day. Every school should be doing that. I would like the Department for Education and the Department of Health to lead on more sport in school, perhaps with extended days to fit it in.

Often the simplest changes are the most effective. By encouraging our children to walk to school, and by continuing to develop nutritional education, I am sure we will see more positive results. Members on both sides of the House talk a lot about tackling deprivation in our communities. It is crystal clear that the House must now turn its energy towards fighting the terrible problem of obesity, through education and providing more opportunities for an active lifestyle.

14:52

[Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)]

I thank the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) for securing this extremely important debate. It is not listed in my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, but I must declare a terrible sweet tooth, which gives me great experience from which to speak in this debate.

Over preceding decades, there have been profound changes in the UK in the relationship we have with food. Historically, the public health challenges we faced tended to relate to under-nutrition and unsafe food and water. However, in modern society, those issues have largely been replaced by the risks of poor diet. Food is now more readily available and there have been significant changes in how we eat, the type of foods we consume, and how they are produced and marketed. Busy lifestyles and easy access to convenience and processed foods have helped them to become a staple part of many families’ diets.

In general, we over-consume foods high in fat, sugar and salt, and we do not eat enough fruit, vegetables, fibre and oily fish. Our type of diet underlies many of the chronic diseases that cause considerable suffering, ill health and premature death. It is also a major factor in the issue of childhood obesity, heart disease and type 2 diabetes. The recently published findings from the Health Committee’s investigation into childhood obesity highlighted that one in five children is overweight or obese when they begin school. That figure was found to rise to one in three by the end of primary school. There was also evidence of inequality between different sectors of society, with those from deprived backgrounds found to fare significantly worse and to be twice as likely as their more affluent counterparts to be overweight or obese.

These figures are extremely concerning. Obesity is a serious problem that has significant implications, both on the long-term wellbeing of the individual child and on society as a whole. Many of the most serious and potentially life-shortening physical health risks that accompany obesity are well publicised and have been raised already in the Chamber today. I will not, therefore, go into them again.

Instead, I will highlight the detrimental social effects that can impact on individuals’ overall wellbeing and life chances. Research indicates that childhood obesity is associated with mental health issues in both children and adults, such as depression, low self-esteem, social isolation, self-harm and behavioural problems. It is also associated with stigma and bullying. In addition to obesity, a poor diet that includes too much sugar and acidic food substances can lead to oral health issues, which can impact on an individual’s ability to eat and socialise, and this again can adversely affect their mental health and contribute to their social isolation.

Addressing these issues will require a concerted effort to alter health choices, to address cultural and lifestyle issues and to improve our relationship with exercise and sport. It will require a multifaceted response; no single measure will do the trick. We need a response from private enterprise to improve choices and healthy options that are appealing and, importantly, cheap, as was highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson). We need to address the effect that marketing can have on children and parents and make sure it is done responsibly, as was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss). We need to enhance skills gained at school and home in cooking healthy meals, and this must be role-modelled at school, with fruit bars, water and other healthy choices that are low in fat, salt and sugar, as was discussed in detail by the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson).

Childhood obesity must also be addressed by local commissioning in areas where fast-food outlets are placed near to schools. In one of my local areas, refuse staff are in place at school lunch times to clear up fast-food packages left by school children in shopping squares. This must be addressed and must not be encouraged. Wider Government initiatives are also required to improve food labelling. We need labelling that is understandable to families and ordinary people and which does not look like gobbledegook.

As debated today, taxation should be considered as part of an evidence-based approach. We also require an increased focus on sports, exercise and healthy pursuits as being integral to our lifestyle; increased funding; and an emphasis on engaging children and young adults in these activities and making them affordable to people from all walks of life. We know from psychological research that education, in itself, does little to change behaviour. We therefore require a Government strategy to reinforce healthy choices. This would be cost-effective in the long term for our health service and quality of life.

[Geraint Davies]

The hon. Lady is making a powerful and excellent speech. She might know that in Mexico the average consumption of Coca-Cola is 0.5 litres a day per person and that children are being fed Coke in baby bottles. Does she agree that the Government need to take action not just on pricing but on marketing? We cannot have this situation where people can buy two litres for 5% more, so that we have these huge stocks of Coke that people feel they have to get rid of before it loses its fizz, and everybody’s teeth fall out.

[Dr Cameron]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I have pinpointed the need to address the effect of marketing on children and parents’ healthy choices.

A clear strategy would benefit our children, society as a whole and future generations. That is surely Parliament’s job. We should not shy away from a bold and effective obesity strategy.

14:58

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time for such an important debate and to the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) for her eloquent opening speech. I also extend my thanks to the entire Health Select Committee for producing such a comprehensive report on childhood obesity. She was dead right to entitle it, “Childhood obesity—brave and bold action”, because that is precisely what is needed. I would also like to thank for their contributions my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) and the hon. Members for Colchester (Will Quince), for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double), for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston), for Twickenham (Dr Mathias), for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson), for Erewash (Maggie Throup), for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), for Portsmouth South (Mrs Drummond) and for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron)—I am sure I pronounced that kind of right.

Returning to the Select Committee report, the starting point has to be the scale and the consequences of the problem, and this requires looking at doing things differently. Failure to act will make the problem worse—not just for the individuals concerned, but for the public purse, which will, frankly, struggle to cope with the health inequalities that we are exacerbating.

The statistics are clear. Childhood obesity is strongly linked to deprivation, almost reversing the trend of the entire history of the human race whereby malnourishment, not obesity, was the key indicator of poverty. As we know from the statistics of Public Health England, the most deprived children are twice as likely to be obese at reception and at year 6 than the least deprived children—and that gap is widening, as the hon. Member for Totnes set out.

We often get into the habit of praising the fact that a debate is even taking place here, but in this instance, the timeliness of the debate really cannot be overstated. It is no understatement to say that the Government’s strategy has been a long time coming. Although we are debating obesity today, I hope that this is not a sign that the document is being slimmed down. Today’s debate has suffered from the slight disadvantage of addressing the contents of a document that does not yet exist. Perhaps the Minister will give some certainty—perhaps even a date—on when we can expect publication of the strategy. This also presents a rare opportunity, hopefully, to influence what will eventually be published in that strategy. It is important to remember that Government can do immense good when it comes to public health.

If we think about some of the great strides in public health that we have taken in recent years—from the banning of smoking in public places to reducing the rates of teenage pregnancy—we realise that these moves came about, in part, as a result of Members putting difficult issues on to the political agenda. With that in mind, I shall focus my remarks today around the key issue of obesity and diet.

I believe that we need action to tackle the problem at the supply side on the part of food and drink companies, and also action to tackle it on the demand side, with a need for far better education on how we could be looking after ourselves, as well as give people the means to eat healthier food. We believe a comprehensive and broad approach is necessary to help families, schools and children to make the right decisions. I commend the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West, who has long been a champion of better standards of food in our schools.

In November, the Health and Social Care Information Centre released data showing that one in every five children leaving primary school are classified as obese, and one in every three children are either obese or overweight. Frankly, those figures should shame each and every one of us. Although there has been a shift in providing healthier, more nutritious meals at schools, so many of the problems start before school or at least outside of school hours.

Between April and September 2015, Trussell Trust food banks in Greater Manchester, which includes my constituency, gave 22,739 three-day emergency food supplies to people in crisis. Some 8,666 of those three-day emergency food supplies were given to children. When so many families are having to rely on food banks to feed their children, they may be limited in their ability to provide fresh and healthy meals. In these upsetting circumstances, feeding their child something is better than seeing them go hungry. Wider problems of poverty must be addressed to ensure that people have access to good diets. How does the Minister plan to help families who are having to rely on food banks to improve their diets?

Funding is a crucial side issue. Following the removal of protected status from all Department of Health budgets that are not controlled by NHS England, the pot of money that pays for public health will be subjected to huge cuts in the coming years. That will have a significant impact on Public Health England, and could put at risk our ability to tackle obesity to the necessary extent. It could also put at risk the future of public awareness campaigns, many of which have been a great success. The cuts in the public health grant to local authorities could drastically reduce the amount of support that is available locally to those who want to lose weight or have a healthier lifestyle. I should be interested to hear from the Minister how the public health cuts in the coming years are consistent with the emphasis on prevention in the “Five Year Forward View”, and, in particular, whether the crucial issue of funding will be addressed in the forthcoming strategy.

[Geraint Davies]

Obviously funds are tight, but does my hon. Friend agree that if we introduce a sugar tax, it will ease the burden and enable us to focus our fire on reducing obesity in other ways?

[Andrew Gwynne]

That may well be the case, but we must of course ensure that any income raised by such a tax is reinvested in public health.

It is also important to increase levels of physical activity among adults and children throughout the United Kingdom. Inactivity is a key factor in ill health, and it is important that we encourage children to maintain active lifestyles from an early age. I believe that increasing the opportunities for young people to get involved in physical activity is just as important as improving diets. Treating obesity and its consequences alone currently costs the NHS £5.1 billion every year. Given that nearly 25% of adults, 10% of four to five-year-olds and 19% of 10 to 11-year-olds in England are classified as obese, the human and financial cost of inaction is significant. We must do much more to ingrain physical activity in our daily lives, whether that means walking instead of driving or taking the stairs instead of the lift. Every little helps.

A number of Members have touched on a point that is crucial to the debate. Many people have argued that the Government should introduce some form of tax on sugary products, particularly soft drinks, and the debate on that issue goes far beyond the Chamber. Public figures such as Jamie Oliver have come out in support of a sugar tax, and he has made a compelling case. However, the issue is complex, and I do not think that the answer is necessarily straightforward. Labour Members have always feared that a sugar tax, in itself, could be regressive, and that it would focus attention on consumers, many of whom are addicted to sugar, rather than manufacturers, who should be reducing the amount of sugar in their products. That said, however, I suggest to the Minister that it is right for us to look at the emerging evidence from other countries, which has shown that where similar taxes have been introduced they have had a positive effect, not least in changing behaviour.

[Will Quince]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Andrew Gwynne]

I am afraid not. I do not have time.

It has not escaped my attention that the Prime Minister has effectively gone from ruling out a sugar tax to not ruling out a sugar tax. I hope that the Minister will clarify the Government's position, but, in any event, it seems that the forthcoming strategy will mark a departure from the ineffective voluntary approach that they have favoured in recent years. The public health responsibility deal has seen firms making all sorts of promises and then hijacking the agenda to promote their own products, ultimately failing to fulfil their pledges. At the time of its introduction, organisations such as the Royal College of Physicians and Alcohol Concern complained that the pledges were not specific or measurable, and that the food and drink industry had simply dictated the Government’s policy.

I hope that the Government will take a much stronger line with industry than it has taken previously, because it must be incumbent on industry to reduce the amount of sugar in products, including comparable products in the European Union that are boxed in exactly the same way, but contain significantly different amounts of sugar and other ingredients. I also hope that if the Government are forthcoming with a fiscal solution, that is part of a much larger and comprehensive strategy of measures. I do not think anyone would try to argue that a sugar tax on its own is a silver bullet. I want food and drinks manufacturers to reduce sugar in their products, and we need to ensure that that happens.

I thank everyone who has spoken in the debate, and I hope the Minister will consider the many excellent contributions when the Government put the final touches to the childhood obesity strategy.

15:10

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Jane Ellison)]

I am delighted to respond to the debate on behalf of the Government, and, following on from what the shadow Minister just said, I welcome the opportunity to take forward all the points made in the many excellent and well-informed—although occasionally a little confessional—contributions. It is a timely debate that will make a valuable contribution as we finalise our strategy.

The House is at a slight advantage as it has the chance to influence, but I am at a disadvantage as we have yet to publish the strategy and therefore I have to talk in slightly more general terms.

I welcome the Health Committee’s recent report, which we have debated once already, and its previous report, “Impact of physical activity and diet on health”. We will be formally responding to the Health Committee’s most recent report soon.

There is no denying that in England, and indeed globally, we have an obesity problem. Many shocking statistics have been given in this debate and I will not repeat them, but many Members on both sides of the House dwelled on the health inequalities issue—the gap that is emerging—and I will come back to that. My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince) drew our attention to what is, in effect, a stabilising of childhood obesity statistics, although it is at far too high a level. As he acknowledged, there is a pronounced gap between different income groups.

Once weight is gained, it can be difficult to lose and obese children are much more likely to become obese adults. In adulthood, obesity is a leading cause of serious diseases such as type 2 diabetes—as the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) and others mentioned—heart disease and cancer. It is also a major risk factor for non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.

We also know that eating too much sugar is linked to tooth decay; it was good to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) make that point. In 2013-14 over 62,000 children were admitted to hospital for the extraction of teeth. This is a serious procedure that frequently requires a general anaesthetic. Children should not have to go through this.

Many Members highlighted—I think there is consensus on this—that there is no silver bullet to tackle obesity. That means that in order to reduce rates we need a range of measures and all of us, and all the parts of our society mentioned in the debate, have a part to play, as our forthcoming strategy will make clear.

Sometimes in the national debate around obesity people question the role of the state and how it should intervene to drive change. In the face of such high obesity rates, with such significant implications for the life chances of a generation, it is right that tackling obesity, particularly in children, is one of this Government’s major priorities, and we showed the priority we place on the issue by making it a manifesto commitment.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Mrs Drummond) said, the human cost is enormous. Young children in particular have limited influence over their choices and Government have a history of intervening to protect them: we do not question the requirement that younger children use car seats on the grounds of safety, for example. Children deserve protecting from the effects of obesity, for their current and future health and wellbeing and to ensure they have the same life chances as other children, especially those in better-off parts of our society.

As I have said, I was struck by how many Members alluded to the health inequalities issue. There is strong evidence of a link between obesity and lower income groups. The obesity prevalence among reception year children living in the most deprived areas was 12% compared with 5.7%, and that gap rose to 25% as against 11.5% respectively by the time they leave primary school. That is not acceptable, and we must take action to tackle it.

Any Government with a state-funded health service also have a responsibility to take an interest in the nation’s health to ensure the sustainability of the NHS. The huge cost of treating lifestyle-related type 2 diabetes has been mentioned by a number of Members. Our election manifesto supported the programme for prevention set out in the NHS England’s “Five Year Forward View”, which states that

“the future health of millions of children, the sustainability of the NHS, and the economic prosperity of Britain all now depend on a radical upgrade in prevention and public health.”

Tackling obesity is a key component of this work. I accept the challenge from the shadow Minister on budgets, but I can give him the assurance that over the spending review period we are still going to be spending £16 billion on public health. We can complement local action with national initiatives, and we will talk more about that when we publish our strategy.

We are continuing to invest in the Change4Life campaign, which has been going on for many years. We have learned a lot from it, and we now have valuable evidence about what works and what provides motivation and support for families to make small but significant improvements. On 4 January, we launched the new Sugar Smart app to encourage parents to take control of how much sugar their children eat and drink. Members have described how people can scan the barcode on any of the thousands of everyday products that are catered for by the algorithm. This allows people to visualise the number of 4 gram sugar cubes the product contains. In the first 10 days of the campaign, about 800,000 people downloaded the sugar app. That is a great success, and an example of how we can empower families with information so that they can make decisions about their diet. A number of Members made that point, including my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double), who talked about the role of families.

[Geraint Davies]

Will the Minister give way?

[Jane Ellison]

I do not think I have time. I think I know what the hon. Gentleman is about to say, and we have had the teaspoon discussion before. I recommend the sugar app to him; he acknowledged its introduction in his speech, for which I am grateful.

The Sugar Smart app builds on the Change4Life Sugar Swaps campaign, from which we learned a lot. More than 410,000 families registered with the campaign. However, we know that public health messaging and support are not enough. That is why our childhood obesity strategy will be wide ranging and involve Government action across a range of areas.

The food and drink industry also has a role to play, as many Members have said, and I am pleased that it has made progress in recent years. My hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup) alluded to that fact earlier. Under the voluntary partnership arrangements and the responsibility deal, there has been a focus on calorie reduction, of which sugar has been a big part. We have made progress. Some retailers have also played their part by removing sweets from checkouts, which we welcome. We urge others to follow suit. Importantly, parents and customers have strongly welcomed that change and supported the measures being taken by the industry. But the challenge to the industry to make further substantial progress remains.

Providing clear information to consumers is vital if we are going to help them to make healthier choices. That has been a theme of the debate. The voluntary front-of-pack nutrition labelling scheme, introduced in 2013, plays a vital part in our work to encourage healthier eating and to reduce levels of obesity and other conditions. The scheme enables consumers to make healthier and more balanced choices by helping them to better understand the nutrient content of food and drinks. It is popular with consumers and provides information on the calories and nutrients in various foodstuffs. Businesses that have decided to adopt the scheme account for two thirds of the market for pre-packed foods and drinks.

As a Conservative and a former retailer I believe in customer choice, but if consumers are to make an informed choice they need information. Informed consumers can of course shape markets and drive change, as my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr Mathias) pointed out in her thoughtful speech. That point came out strongly in the debate, and I shall reflect on it a great deal.

I want to say a little about physical activity, which is also a key theme. We are very clear that for those who are overweight and obese, eating and drinking less is key to weight loss, but we know that physical activity has a role to play in maintaining a healthy weight. It is also hugely beneficial in many other ways. For children it is a vital part of growing into a healthy, happy adult, so it has been great to hear about the work being done in schools up and down the country. We heard examples of that from my hon. Friends the Members for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston) and for Erewash. That is why raising levels of participation in sport and exercise among children and young people is an area the Government are keen to make further progress on.

The Department worked closely with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport on the new sports strategy, published just before Christmas. We will be working with DCMS, Sport England and Public Health England in the coming months to implement the strategy. The Minister for sport and I have worked closely together on both the obesity agenda and her agenda on physical activity. We are also working to raise awareness of the UK chief medical officer’s physical activity guidelines. We have already developed an infographic for health professionals to use when they discuss physical activity with adults, but we want to go further and work on further infographics to raise awareness of the daily activity levels required for children and young people, including the under-fives. We hope that that will be a useful resource, not only for families, but for the leisure sector and for many more who have a key role in encouraging people to be more active.

A slightly different point was made by the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), but it was an important one and she spoke knowledgeably about nutrition in the very early years and during pregnancy. I commend to her the recent chief medical officer’s report on women’s health, as it contained a number of chapters that I think she would find of huge interest if she has not already had the chance to look at them.

There has been a consensus on a number of facts, although a key one stood out: obesity is a complex issue, which the Government cannot tackle alone. Businesses, health professionals, schools, local authorities, families and individuals all have a role to play, as does Parliament. We were all struck by the contribution made by the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), who spoke so passionately about the need to tackle health inequalities. She spoke about the influence of a good start in life and how that works all the way through one’s life. Parliament does have a role to play, so I welcome the engagement of so many Members from all parts of the House. I would be happy to provide more information if it is ever of help to Members about key public health indicators in their own local areas and how they can help to take this agenda forward. Local leadership will be important as we seek to make the critical leap forward on preventive health action described in the NHS “Five Year Forward View”.

This has been a great debate and I thank Members for their contributions. I look forward to discussing this issue further when we publish our comprehensive childhood obesity strategy.

15:21

[Dr Wollaston]

I thank all Members who have contributed to today’s debate, including the Minister, who rightly said that the action the Government take now will affect the life chances of a whole generation. I am grateful for her recognition of the importance of not only obesity in itself, but the pressing concern that everyone has about how health inequality affects this issue. I am also grateful that she is going to include that at the heart of the Government’s obesity strategy.

In conclusion, we are looking for bold, brave and, most importantly, effective action. I would like to finish as I started by saying that we should take a leaf out of the book of British Cycling, because there is no silver bullet and we need to follow the principle of marginal gains—let’s do everything.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House calls on the Government to bring forward a bold and effective strategy to tackle childhood obesity.

Holocaust Memorial Day

Thursday 21st January 2016 Commons Chamber

15:23

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Holocaust Memorial Day 2016.

As we begin, I would like to thank those who gave their support to enable this debate to take place, particularly the hon. Members for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay) and for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), and the Backbench Business Committee for granting our request.

The theme of this year’s Holocaust Memorial Day, which will take place in just under a week’s time, on 27 January, is “Don’t stand by”. The holocaust did not begin with the systematic slaughter of Jews in Europe or even with a brick through the window of a Jewish shop during the Kristallnacht of 1938. It began with a simple idea that our differences mark us out as superior or inferior to one another. That simple idea spawned a hateful ideology, expressed through Hitler’s Nazism, that the Jews were at the centre of a global conspiracy to control the world at the expense of Aryan destiny. Some 6 million Jews were murdered by the Nazis, among them 1 million Jewish children. It was pre-meditated slaughter on an industrial scale never before witnessed in human history. Alongside innocent Jewish men, women and children were political prisoners, Romanis, Slavs, gay people, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Russian prisoners of war and many others. They met their fate on the streets, where they were beaten sometimes to death; in concentration camps, where they were often worked or starved to the point where they lost their lives; and, most chillingly, in the gas chambers of the Nazi death camps. It is estimated that some 42,500 facilities in German and Nazi-occupied territory were used to concentrate victims, and around 200,000 people were perpetrators of the holocaust planned by Nazi leaders at Wannsee.

This year’s theme for Holocaust Memorial Day is not about leaders; it is about bystanders. I am talking about the bystanders who said nothing as Nazi propaganda targeted the Jews; the bystanders who watched as Jewish homes and businesses were ransacked by the Nazis; and the bystanders who looked the other way, even as the sickly smell of burning human flesh from the ovens was carried by prevailing winds from the chimneys of the Nazi death camps to surrounding homes.

Although we might reflect today on the unique crimes of the Nazi holocaust, we should never avert our eyes from the most uncomfortable truth of all—that its perpetrators were not unique. They were ordinary men and women carrying out acts of extraordinary evil.

If the holocaust demonstrated the very worst of human nature, its survivors represent the very best. The crimes they witnessed and the evil to which they were subjected are impossible to imagine, but through their courage we are able to reflect on the horrors of the holocaust so that we might learn the right lessons as we strive towards a world free from hatred, persecution and genocide.

Many of us will have personal experience of listening to the testimony of survivors, and I am delighted that so many of them were recognised in the new year’s honours list. I pay particular tribute to my constituent Ivor Pearl, who received the British Empire Medal for services to holocaust education and awareness. On accepting the honour, Ivor said:

“I think I can speak for most of us when I say that when I give talks I feel all the victims are there behind me looking over my shoulder and as such I accept this honour on their behalf as well”.

Another resident of llford North, Bob Obuchowski, would surely be among them. Bob lived in Clayhall and passed away in 2014. His double act with his daughter, Sue Bermange, was almost legendary. She supported Bob in sharing his testimony and continues his work today.

In that context, I champion the work of the Holocaust Educational Trust. Led by the indomitable Karen Pollock, its outstanding work keeps the memory of those remarkable holocaust survivors alive so that each generation can bear witness to their extraordinary fortitude and reflect on how it was that ordinary men and women unleashed the horror of the Nazi holocaust. Its “Lessons from Auschwitz” project has now taken more than 28,000 students and teachers from across the UK to the Nazi concentration and death camp, Auschwitz-Birkenau. They include students from my own constituency, most recently from King Solomon High School and Woodbridge High School, who travelled to Poland in October 2015.

I pay tribute to successive Labour, coalition and Conservative Governments for funding those visits, and I hope that the Minister may be able to give us some good news about continued funding for this important project this afternoon, or at least take away from the debate the desire of this House to see that funding continue.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I rise to pay great tribute to Karen Pollock. As someone who established the Srebrenica safe area in March-April 1993, I am deeply appreciative of the fact that she said that the Holocaust Memorial Fund also refers to the 8,373 Bosnian Muslims who were killed in a holocaust much closer to our time. I appreciate very much that the Holocaust Memorial Fund cares about those people just as much as it does about the victims of the foul Nazis.

[Wes Streeting]

I share the sentiments expressed by the hon. Gentleman. I will talk about other genocides later in my speech.

I know from my community in Redbridge that schools across the country are doing some outstanding work to deliver holocaust education as part of the national curriculum, including, of course, acknowledgement of other genocides. It is vital that holocaust education remains a compulsory part of the national curriculum at key stage 3 to ensure that all young people receive this valuable education. I also congratulate the Prime Minister on his initiative of establishing the Holocaust Commission and on the appointment of the right hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Sir Eric Pickles) as the Government’s special envoy for post-holocaust issues. I know that he is respected on both sides of the House for his commitment and determination and for how he goes about his work in that role.

With the onward march of time, the number of survivors left to bear living witness to the crimes of the holocaust diminishes, and so with every new generation comes an even greater responsibility to ensure that their warning from history is never forgotten. Of course, even as they rebuilt their lives, many continued to suffer, whether through silence because the crimes they suffered were unspeakable, premature death as a result of the injuries they sustained, or the ongoing persecution they experienced as a result of being different. Among them were those who were branded with the pink triangle, the Nazi mark of the homosexual. Like other victims of the Nazi holocaust, gay men and women were rounded up by the Gestapo. Many were imprisoned, and some were castrated and subjected to cruel medical experiments. Others met their end in the gas chambers of the death camps.

For many of those people, the end of the second world war did not bring about their liberation. Nazi law remained in place and their suffering at the hands of the state continued. Some were even sent back to prison by the very same judges who had sent them off to concentration camps under the Nazis. I do not mind telling the House that I wept last summer in Berlin as I read the stories of those LGBT survivors of the holocaust who later went to their graves unable to share their story, shunned by their Governments and without any acknowledgement of the suffering they had experienced under the Nazis and, I am afraid, under the subsequent Governments of West and East Germany.

I am inspired by holocaust survivors such as Rudolf Brazda, the last known concentration camp survivor to be deported specifically for homosexuality. Before the Nazis came to power, he and his boyfriend had been accepted in an increasingly tolerant society. A Jehovah’s Witness accepted them as her tenants and Brazda’s family acted as witnesses to a symbolic marriage ceremony in their home.

As Berlin’s thriving lesbian and gay scene was dismantled by the Nazi regime, Brazda and his partner were arrested and they never saw each other again. Brazda served a six-month sentence before being deported to Czechoslovakia. He was arrested again in 1941 and was forced to serve another 14-month prison term. In August 1942, he was deported to the Buchenwald concentration camp and there he was beaten, once having his teeth knocked out. He was subjected to forced labour and survived only through a combination of strength and luck.

It was not until 2008, ahead of the unveiling of the memorial to homosexual victims of Nazism in Berlin, that he felt able to speak out. Those countries that continue illegally to discriminate against LGBT people and those that would have those countries continue to discriminate against LGBT people should reflect on his words before his death in 2011. He said:

“If I finally speak, it’s for people to know what we, homosexuals, had to endure in Hitler’s days...it shouldn’t happen again.”

I pay tribute to all those communities targeted by Nazi hatred and to their survival. In particular, I pay tribute to Jewish communities in the United Kingdom, the state of Israel and countries around the world that stand tall in lasting defiance of Hitler’s evil ideology. I am proud of the Jewish community I represent in Ilford North. Though smaller in number than it has been in previous decades, the Jewish community in Redbridge continues to flourish. Chabad Lubavitch, led by Rabbi Sufrin, has expanded its activities within Redbridge and out into Essex. I recently attended shul with Redbridge United Synagogue, which now meets at the Redbridge Jewish Community Centre. Sinclair House is the largest community centre of its kind in western Europe, delivering social, welfare, education and community programmes to more than 2,000 people every week. Wohl Ilford Jewish Primary School, Clore Tikva Primary School and King Solomon High School provide high-quality education to children from all our diverse communities while maintaining their proud Jewish heritage and traditions.

Next week, as we do every year, people from all parts of the community will gather at the Holocaust Memorial Garden in Valentines Park in llford, thanks to the initiative led by Councillor Alan Weinberg to provide a lasting memorial for the victims of the holocaust. Though the Jewish community in Redbridge and elsewhere continues to thrive, we cannot be complacent about the threat posed by modern anti-Semitism, whether it manifests itself on the right or the left of the political spectrum. I am proud to be a vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group against anti-Semitism, under the exceptional leadership of my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann).

Successive reports published by the Community Security Trust, to whom I pay tribute, show a continual increase in anti-Semitic incidents across the United Kingdom, including violent attacks. Last year, a delegation from the APPG visited France, to look at the rise in anti-Semitism there, where thousands had taken to the streets to pronounce “Je Suis Juif” in the wake of the murder of Jews on the streets of Paris.

We know that although Jewish people make a great contribution to public life here, too many Jews in politics are targets for anti-Semitism, both online and offline. Many right hon. and hon. Members will recall my predecessor, Lee Scott, speaking powerfully in this debate last year about his experience of receiving abuse and death threats because he was Jewish, and I pay tribute to him again for his courage and unshakeable commitment in standing up against that anti-Semitism.

“Never again” is a common refrain at events to commemorate Holocaust Memorial Day, but I am afraid these words ring hollow. “Never again” will find meaning only when Jews can live freely and safely in all parts of the world. “Never again” will find meaning only when difference and diversity is celebrated, rather than denigrated. “Never again” will find meaning only when genocide is confined to history.

I want to end with a reflection on our responsibility, both as individuals and as the state. I am pleased to see the hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) in his place. He is chair of the all-party parliamentary group for genocide prevention. Often debates in this place about Britain’s foreign policy consider the consequences of action under the shadow of previous mistakes. But as Holocaust Memorial Day is used to commemorate all victims of genocide, and as a vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for genocide prevention, I hope that in its future deliberations this House will also consider the consequences of introspection and inaction. The genocide in Cambodia, the genocide in Rwanda, the genocide in Darfur—each should rest on the consciences of powerful nations who chose to look the other way.

Closer to home, it is for every citizen to reflect on those occasions where we have looked the other way: when someone was called a name, when someone was mistreated, when someone was bullied, beaten or even murdered, because they were different. Yehuda Bauer said:

“Thou shalt not be a victim, thou shalt not be a perpetrator, but, above all, thou shalt not be a bystander.”

It is fitting as the theme of this year’s Holocaust Memorial Day and an exhortation for this House and for every citizen we are sent here to represent.

15:38

[Sir Eric Pickles (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

I am grateful to follow the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), and I am grateful to him for his tribute to Lee Scott, his predecessor. I, along with a number of Lee’s friends, recognise the enormous personal risk that Lee took and endured, and we appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s acknowledgment of that.

I associate myself with the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), who has spoken many times in this Chamber about Srebrenica and the genocide there, and he does well to remind us of that today.

The hon. Member for Ilford North mentioned that we travelled together to France in autumn last year to look at anti-Semitism there. I vividly recall meeting Jewish students and hearing them talk of how frightened and wary they were on their campuses. I cannot help reflecting on the disgraceful attack on Jewish students at King’s College London just two nights ago. A peaceful meeting—it was literally about peace—was broken up with obscenities, the breaking of a window and the offering of violence. Frankly, we have seen broken glass before, at Kristallnacht. If we need to know who the new fascists are, we need only look at those who perpetrated that attack.

I associate myself with all the remarks that have been made about the Holocaust Education Trust and Holocaust Memorial Day. In September I had the honour of being appointed the UK’s post-holocaust envoy. I took over from Sir Andrew Burns, who held the job for the previous five years. I had the opportunity of working with Andrew on many occasions when I was at the Department for Communities and Local Government. He is a very distinguished man and is very well respected across Europe and around the world. It is a genuine honour to follow him in that role.

I want to concentrate my remarks on what “Don’t stand by”, the theme of this year’s Holocaust Memorial Day, is really about. I will look at that through two of the organisations for which I am responsible in the UK. The first is the tracing service. It began as a way of reuniting people who had been separated during the holocaust, but now it focuses on finding and returning property that was stolen by the Nazis. In addition to the Nazis’ enthusiasm for violence, bigotry and anti-Semitism, running through their DNA was corruption and theft. Essentially, the Nazis were thieves. They stole people’s jobs, their equipment for doing their jobs, their possessions, their property and their identity. They tried to steal the very existence of the people they sought to destroy. Because there is no honour among thieves, they stole from themselves.

Even now, more than 70 years after the end of the war, we are still trying to reunite people with their stolen property. There are many Governments across Europe who have wonderful equal opportunities policies and marvellous remembrance of the holocaust but who fight tooth and nail with obfuscation to prevent people from getting their property back. The Nuremberg laws still reign more than 70 years after Hitler’s death. We must not go away with the idea that this is just about stolen Picassos and Klimts, because sometimes it is about very small objects. It might be a book with the signature of a long-lost grandparent or mother, and that might be the only piece of paper that has their signature on it. But still various Governments refuse to hand them back.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I am extremely glad to hear what my right hon. Friend is saying. I associate myself, in particular, with the remarks of the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), who opened the debate. My right hon. Friend might be aware that a very important book, “Post-War Lives”, by a distinguished German historian exposes the extent to which the 8 million people in Germany involved in the run-up to the war remained on the files, which were only discovered afterwards, and that in the post-war period, despite the fact that they were known to be accredited Nazis, a significant number of them were regrettably appointed to the West German authorities and to the Government. Is he aware that there might be some connection between that fact and what he is saying?

[Sir Eric Pickles]

I am certainly aware of a particular property—I might want to say something about it outside the Chamber—that was stolen from a Jewish family. It actually went through the hands of Adolf Hitler, who gave it to his favourite photographer, who kept it. After the war, the Bavarian authorities, because they could not find the original Jewish owners, decided to give it back to the Nazi who stole it, which was an extraordinary thing to do. There are a number of files still closed in this country with regard to people to whom we gave an amnesty. My ambition and hope, which I know is shared by the Prime Minister, is that we will at last open those files and answer some of my hon. Friend’s questions. It is important that we press hard. In this country we have a pretty good system with regard to disputes that is worthy of export, but until that property is returned to the people it was stolen from and acknowledged as theirs, the rule of Hitler continues.

[Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)]

I pay tribute to the excellent opening speech by the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting). I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend, not least for his chairmanship of Conservative Friends of Israel. On the eve of the invasion of Poland on 22 August 1939, Adolf Hitler said to his generals:

“It’s a matter of indifference to me what a weak western European civilization will say about me.”

He also made reference to a previous genocide that was largely forgotten in 1939, saying:

“Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?”

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is very important that the west keeps a very strong defence; that we, the British, and indeed the whole of Europe, do not stand by if we come across any examples of genocide; and that the message we send to any tyrant thinking of committing genocide is that they will be held to account in future?

[Sir Eric Pickles]

My hon. Friend makes a very powerful point that I obviously endorse and agree with. However, these events often start not with an invasion but with small things, and we need to be vigilant about the small things as well. I am in no way diminishing the excellent point that he makes.

The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance is an organisation comprising 30-odd nations that deals with holocaust remembrance. It has done an excellent job in starting to map the killing fields—the various killing sites. Auschwitz tends to dominate our view, and a visit there is truly heart-breaking, but it represents only some 15% of the numbers murdered. Someone was just as likely to have been shot in a ditch or killed in a field, or, to use Himmler’s dreadful expression, “annihilated through labour”. A lot of people died in the quarries and building the camps, and it is important that we remember their graves. We are living in a decade when a number of countries are not so keen to register where those places are. Over the coming decade, we need to have a very comprehensive understanding of where they are.

Our view of the holocaust has been refined over 70 years—the past 10 years have been very influential—but for a number of countries in central Europe it is still very much a contemporary event, in the sense that they had significant anti-Jewish laws similar to the Nuremburg laws and were willing participants in them. In coming to terms with the holocaust, it is important to recognise that. We are sometimes guilty of complacency. We talk about the people who did not stand by and who did the right thing, and say, “Of course, that’s us—we’d do that”, but the truth is that most people did not. It is impossible seriously to contend that people did not know what was going on.

I think there were various reasons why people did not interfere. First and obviously, they might have been anti- Semitic. They might have been indifferent. They might have been ambitious. After all, to be a successful Nazi, people had to show that they believed in the programme. They did not want to be denounced by their neighbours. Of course, it was also the law, and people like to obey the law. It is possible, however, that they rather enjoyed the loot and the auctions of Jewish goods and properties; they might have enjoyed looting their neighbours’ properties and benefiting from their hard luck.

[Bob Stewart]

I thank my right hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene and to reinforce what he is saying. I have dealt with people who carried out what was clearly a holocaust, and the one thing that rings all the way through with most of them is that they are normal people but they carried out obnoxious crimes. One day, I hope we will understand what it is that makes normal people—I have had dinner with them in Bosnia—do such foul things. I hope very much that the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust will try to ascertain what does that to people who one might actually like.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Before the right hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Sir Eric Pickles) continues, I should say that I did not want to interrupt any of the hon. Members who have made interventions, because they are making very careful, balanced points, but we cannot have long interventions, because there is not much time left for the debate.

[Sir Eric Pickles]

I will not detain the House for much longer, Madam Deputy Speaker. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart). If he will forgive me, I would timidly suggest that Primo Levi made the same point when he said:

“Monsters exist, but they are too few in number to be truly dangerous. More dangerous are the common men, the functionaries ready to believe and to act without asking questions”.

It is fair to say that the holocaust was not committed by monsters, but that monsters were created out of that very process.

In case we are feeling a little smug, let us consider this: in the latter part, people were allowed to take a bag containing 20 kg of their possessions. That is roughly the amount we are allowed to take as luggage on a flight. What happened to the rest of their possessions?

I was in Jersey in September and visited the German hospital, which has done a marvellous job in making a timeline. I listened to the testimony of a family who, when the Germans occupied Jersey, had not been able to decide whether to leave and go to the United Kingdom or whether to stay. They decided that they would leave, but when they got to the docks they changed their minds. When they got back to their farm, they found that it had been completely stripped by their neighbours. It had been completely looted, including the furniture, carpets and fixtures off the wall.

We need to understand and appreciate that it could have happened—and could happen—here. It is important to be vigilant, to speak out and to acknowledge that what happened at King’s College was a disgrace. When the Minister replies to the debate, I hope he will tell us what we are going to do to protect free speech in our universities and colleges, to ensure that people can go about their business without fearing that they are going to be attacked. I look forward to the Government saying that.

Finally, Martin Gilbert ended the preface to his excellent book “The Righteous” with an old Jewish saying:

“Whoever saves one life, it is as if he saved the entire world.”

I salute those who did the right thing. I salute those who stood up against the Nazis. We will remember forever those who died in such a cruel and wicked system.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. There is not much time, so I must put on a time limit of five minutes.

15:55

[Joan Ryan (Enfield North) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) for securing this important debate. It is a privilege to follow the right hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Sir Eric Pickles).

On 1 November 2005, the UN General Assembly designated 27 January as international holocaust remembrance day. In Britain, we mark it as Holocaust Memorial Day, and we have done so since 2001. It is a national day of commemoration of the millions of Jews and others killed during the holocaust. The lives of 6 million Jews and many other minority groups who perished at the hands of the Nazis must be remembered. It is a time of remembrance for all the victims—the Roma, the gays, the Sinti, the mentally and physically disabled—as well as all the victims of more recent genocides.

Genocide does not take place on its own; it is a process that can begin if racism, discrimination and hatred are not challenged and prevented. Today, we are part of that remembering, as well as part of that challenge and prevention. Over the coming week, there will be commemorations, services and events across the UK. Such remembrance is as important now as it has ever been.

I speak as one who has been moved by the tragedy of the holocaust. I have had the privilege to speak to survivors from Auschwitz-Birkenau. The scale of their suffering shows the savagery of which humanity is capable, but the survivors show us how magnificent and courageous the human spirit can be. As each year passes, however, there are fewer survivors able to share their testimony. By educating future generations, we are ensuring that their memory lives on, and that the holocaust never becomes another detail of history.

The work of organisations such as the Holocaust Educational Trust, the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust and the Holocaust Commission is therefore vital in keeping these memories alive. The holocaust is perhaps the greatest moral lesson against racism, hate and prejudice, and the establishment of a new holocaust learning centre and national memorial is an important part of that.

Holocaust Memorial Day does more than commemorate and recount the human suffering; it is also a time to pledge that it will never ever happen again. In recent years, Europe has seen a rise in Islamophobia and anti-Semitism, fuelled by the rise of extreme right groups in countries such as France, Hungary and Greece. I and others have been troubled by the reports of French Jews moving to Britain in search of safety. We should not, however, imagine that Britain is free of anti-Semitism; we know only too well that it is not. We must stand up against prejudice and discrimination of any kind, whatever form it takes, and we must heed the lessons of the holocaust.

[Ruth Smeeth (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

Given the increase in both anti-Muslim and anti-Semitic attacks, will my right hon. Friend join me in celebrating the incredible work done by the Community Security Trust and Tell MAMA to ensure that the words “Never again” actually ring true?

[Joan Ryan]

I absolutely join my hon. Friend in paying such a tribute and in giving such support. All the organisations we have mentioned today need and deserve our support.

We must do all in our power to prevent future genocide around the world. The theme of this year’s commemoration is “Don’t stand by”. Elie Wiesel said that he

“swore never to be silent whenever and wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.”

The holocaust saw many examples of heroism, sacrifice and altruism. I would like to mention the late Sir Nicholas Winton, who sadly passed away last year. He organised the safe passage of children from Czechoslovakia to Britain before the war broke out. His act of magnanimity saved the lives of at least 669 children and thousands of their descendants.

It is inspiring, too, that World Jewish Relief, which was instrumental in rescuing tens of thousands of Jewish refugees through the Kindertransport, last week committed itself to supporting the integration of Syrian refugees into the UK. The organisation will provide employment and language support to some of the 20,000 Syrian refugees that Britain accepts.

Finally, as we approach the centenary of the Balfour declaration, it is my view that the holocaust truly demonstrated the need for a state for the Jewish people. I would like to reaffirm the state of Israel’s right to exist.

We must speak up and not be bystanders in the face of genocide and persecution. We must have courage and not look the other way. I do not underestimate how hard that can be, but it is easier if we all speak up, stand together and accept that we must not stand by. I pay tribute to the Jewish community here in London and the UK for their significant and positive contribution and engagement. They will not bow down to anti-Semitism and discrimination, and we will stand with them.

16:01

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

I align myself with every word that my neighbour, the right hon. Member for Enfield North (Joan Ryan), said. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) and my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay) for securing this debate.

Like many other hon. Members, I begin by paying tribute to the Holocaust Educational Trust, which does such great work with schools, colleges and communities across the United Kingdom to educate us all about the holocaust and its contemporary relevance.

The memories of my own visit to Auschwitz with a local school will always remain with me: the industrial scale of the extermination programme, which affected people at all levels, including very normal people, as has been said in this debate; the individual lives that were lost to their families and communities; and the terror, horror and depravity that underpinned the 20th century’s greatest act of evil. Although it is essential to remember every one of the lives lost in the holocaust, we ought to keep in mind those who survived. We must remember those heroes who managed to escape and who helped others to escape the fate that the Nazis had in store for them—those who did not stand by.

Corrie ten Boom is one such example. Her inspirational book “The Hiding Place” recalls not only her horrific ordeal, but her miraculous release. Corrie tells of how, when the Nazis began persecuting Jews in the Netherlands, a member of the Dutch resistance designed a hidden room behind a false wall, where the ten Boom family and others could hide. That hidden room, which was some 30 inches deep—the size of a medium wardrobe—provided a sanctuary from the Nazis. When the Nazis raided the ten Boom household in 1944, six people were using the hiding place, but hundreds of Jews before them had managed to escape the Nazis’ clutches.

Such examples show that, amid the terror, communities rallied. Despite the threats that they faced, families remained strong and stuck together. Before she died in a Nazi concentration camp, Corrie’s sister Betsie spoke words of comfort to her:

“There is no pit so deep that He is not deeper still.”

Even in those darkest of hours, people facing unimaginable horror kept faith in God and in one another. It is my honour and privilege to be hosting a dramatisation of the life and works of Corrie ten Boom on Monday evening in Parliament. I invite all hon. Members to join me for what will be a moving event.

We must remember the holocaust and everything about it, honour those who died and learn the lessons. As has been said in this debate, we have often said, “Never again,” and we still do so today. We must learn from the examples of Corrie ten Boom, her sister Betsie and others. Corrie opened her home to refugees, both Jews and others, who were members of the resistance movement—men and women who were being sought by the Gestapo and its Dutch counterpart. As refugees flee persecution, and indeed genocide, in other countries, we must search our consciences and ask what we are doing to help those in need. How can we be more like Corrie ten Boom? How can we ensure that we do not stand by?

Sadly, this year and in recent years we have witnessed genocide in other lands, and a deliberate attempt to eradicate whole communities because of their faith. In Syria and Iraq, Yazidis and Christians have been persecuted and murdered. To our shame, the response of the international community has been slow and ineffective. Before Christmas, I and 60 other parliamentarians wrote to the Prime Minister to request that the United Kingdom recognise the genocide that is being perpetrated and our responsibility to take action. We must call this what it is: genocide. That is not a matter of semantics; it is because the United Nations, and others, need to ensure that, post-holocaust, there is accountability to ensure that we bring the perpetrators to account, so that they will at some stage face justice. We must also encourage those 127 countries to face up to their duty to take necessary action to prevent and punish the perpetrators of these evil acts.

Another famous holocaust survivor, Simon Wiesenthal, who later became a Nazi hunter, sought to absolve the blame from human beings by saying:

“God must have been on leave during the Holocaust”.

I do not take that view. I believe that humanity was on leave during the holocaust—on leave from its senses, its duty and its morality. We must ensure that we learn the lessons of the holocaust, and as we remember what happened 70 years ago and see what at times is happening now, we must provide shelter and protection for those who need sheltering. We must not be on leave during another genocide.

16:06

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

I am delighted to speak in this debate to mark the 71st anniversary of the liberation of the concentration and death camps, particularly in light of the fact that fewer and fewer holocaust survivors are able to share their stories. It is important that their stories, their experience and their horror are never forgotten.

We live in an increasingly dangerous world, and the story of the holocaust is not just the story of the Jewish people, but a terrible and chilling indictment of mankind itself, and the cruelty and barbarity of which it is capable. As a former English teacher with more than 20 years’ experience, I am particularly grateful for the excellent work carried out by the Holocaust Educational Trust. Since 2006, the “Lessons from Auschwitz” project has enabled 3,000 pupils and teachers in Scotland to learn and remember the lessons of this brutal part of our recent past.

The importance of teaching this shameful episode from the past to our young people cannot be overestimated. I recall teaching a second-year class in Airdrie Academy in north Lanarkshire more than 20 years ago about this part of history, when we studied the novel “Friedrich” by Hans Peter Richter. It is a moving story set in 1930s Germany of friendship between two young boys—one German and one a German Jewish boy. As Nazi hatred permeates their world, their neighbourhood and their friendship, the German boy finds himself increasingly estranged from his Jewish friend, which leads to tragedy.

As part of teaching children about that period, I was successful in securing a visit from the late Reverend Ernest Levy, himself a survivor of Auschwitz, although his father, brother and sister did not survive. Despite his advanced age and frailty, he made the trip from his home in Giffnock, Glasgow, to Airdrie Academy to meet the children and tell his story, which he still found hard to do almost 50 years later. He talked of the continuing lack of tolerance in an angry world, and he set out his experiences and his will to survive the brutality of Auschwitz in his book, “Just One More Dance”. I am honoured to have met this man of huge courage and gentleness. I will never forget him, and I do not think that the young people who met him ever will either.

Indeed, I said a silent prayer for Reverend Ernest Levy and all those who were so brutally and cruelly killed when I visited Sachsenhausen camp just outside Berlin, again when I visited Auschwitz some years later after his death, and a few years later in the Los Angeles Museum of the Holocaust. It is some comfort to know that he spent the last 48 years of his life happily in Scotland, after his surviving brother and sister persuaded him to settle there, telling him about the welcoming nature of Glaswegians and the freedom for Jewish people to worship in peace. There was anti-Semitism, they said, but it came from ignorance, not hatred. They believed that he could help to alter that, and he spent the rest of his life doing so. He went on to become a leading figure in the Scottish-Jewish community, and a passionate advocate of interfaith dialogue. A testament to the relationships that he built between faiths was evident in the outpourings of tributes, grief and deep respect that he received from leaders of all faiths on his death.

Despite the enormous human suffering, the unspeakable waste of human life, the unimaginable cruelty and inhumane barbarism of the holocaust, it is extremely depressing to think that tolerance in societies around the world is still a challenge. As Holocaust Memorial Day events take place across Scotland and the UK, we must remember these terrible events and reflect on the fact that as a species we have not moved very far forward at all. We have seen other people subject to genocidal attacks, such as those in Rwanda, Cambodia, Bosnia, Darfur and other places. Commemorating the holocaust is essential for our past, but it is even more important for our future. It is right that this House should debate it and highlight the importance of never forgetting and not standing by.

I will end with the thought that UK poet laureate, Scotland’s own Carol Ann Duffy, put in her poem “Shooting Stars”:

“…Remember.

Remember these appalling days which make the world

Forever bad”.

The future is not yet written. The world need not be forever bad. The question is what we are prepared to do to make the world good.

16:10

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

It is an honour to follow the very moving speech from the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson). I congratulate the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) on introducing the debate.

As a statistic, 6 million people dying is hard to fathom. I think for many of us it is hard to imagine how any human being could murder that number of people, so it is vital that we bring it back to individuals. I pay tribute to the work the Yad Vashem museum has done to capture the personal testimonials of the survivors, so we can see for posterity what happened in Nazi Germany and try to learn the lessons. I first went to Yad Vashem 24 years ago and I have been back six times since. I have never left there without tears in my eyes. It is a deeply emotional experience. I urge hon. Members on all sides to go there and to see for themselves what happened and the history of the Nazi persecution.

I pay tribute to the work of the Holocaust Educational Trust. It does such wonderful work in informing young people of the misery, torture and brutality of the Nazi regime. It is vital that we continue that work, because for everyone, particularly younger generations, it is hard to fathom how human beings could do this to other human beings. I remember going—it is seared in my consciousness —to Auschwitz-Birkenau and seeing at first hand where the great synagogue used to exist. It is now just a set of trees. I saw the work camps where people were crowded in absolutely inhumane conditions, and the terrible railway that brought people to their deaths. They were brought there at the point of a gun and absolutely dehumanised by the people who murdered them.

It is not so much the piles of shoes or spectacles that I remember; it is the walk across the park where they put the ashes after they had burnt the bodies. Nature has a way of demonstrating what happened. As one crosses that park, the birds do not sing. There is no form of animal activity or birdlife at all. There is total silence. That will live with me forever. I well remember going with students who started the day in a buoyant mood. As the day went on, they became more and more depressed and silent. It brings it all home. I pay tribute to the Holocaust Educational Trust. I hope its work goes from strength to strength as we seek to educate the young.

We have heard about other terrible events across the world: Rwanda, Cambodia and others. I just want to highlight one. It is the 26th anniversary this week of another genocide—one that is never talked about. I am talking about the Kashmiri Pandits, who were forced from their homes, in which they had lived for hundreds of years, at the point of a gun. The women were raped or forced to convert to another religion, just because they supposedly had the wrong religion. The issue is never spoken about or debated for some bizarre reason, although I had the honour this week of participating in seminars and meetings at the Indian high commission pointing this out to the world. We must continue to highlight it.

There is another danger that has not been mentioned. I mean the holocaust deniers—the people who claim it never happened. We need only look at this country for people who deny it ever happened. They need to be exposed and re-educated. We also have to combat the countries that deny it ever happened. We should remember that only 60 years ago the Jewish population in Arab countries was 2.3 million. It is now less than 100,000. They have been forced to leave their homes and are now refugees. That was another form of genocide and forced evacuation. It is clearly wrong. We must always stand up for those people and make sure that we do not stand idly by.

16:15

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I am grateful for the chance to contribute to possibly the most important debate we will have this year. There can be few subjects as fundamentally important to the survival of the human race as learning the lessons of this dreadful period of history.

I commend the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) for an exceptional and passionate speech, and I forgive him for stealing some of what I intended to say, because it makes it easier for me to keep within the time limit. I am also happy to associate myself entirely with the praise offered to organisations such as the Holocaust Educational Trust, particularly now that, as others have said, there will soon be no one left with first-hand eyewitness experience of what happened. The Holocaust is moving out of our collective memory into our collective history. It is vital that, while the events are behind us, the lessons remain always in front of us.

I echo the hon. Gentleman’s comment about how the Holocaust was committed by ordinary people. I remember watching the groundbreaking documentary series “The World at War” in my early teens. It included interviews not only with military personnel and the victims of German bombs in London, Coventry and elsewhere, but with people who had taken part in the Holocaust and contributed to the genocide, some of whom had served time in prison for their crimes. Some 20 or 30 years later, they had understood that what they had done was wrong and had gone back to being perfectly ordinary, decent human beings. The single most important lesson is that ordinary people can do genuinely diabolical and hellish things to each other if the circumstances are right.

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

I saw that in Rwanda one time. I came across a reconciliation village where a man who had been involved in the genocide but had moved on in life was a babysitter—believe it or not—for a woman whose family had been annihilated in the genocide. It was a powerful experience, and it echoes the point made by the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) about very ordinary people doing ghastly things.

[Peter Grant]

I think the best example we will ever see of reconciliation in the aftermath of such dreadful things is that set by the late Nelson Mandela. People could look at the experience of truth and reconciliation in South Africa in trying to move on from conflicts in other parts of the world.

As others have said, this year we are being asked to reflect in particular on the ordinary people who allowed the Holocaust to happen, sometimes through active participation but more often through passive compliance and by doing nothing. Again, the fact that these were ordinary people should serve as a warning to us. It happened not so long ago, not so far away from here, and it could happen here—and it will happen here if we allow circumstances to develop in which ordinary people begin by not speaking out when they see anti-Semitic or racial abuse. Within a few years, they find themselves actively participating in acts of violence and murder—acts of such depravity that they cannot be adequately described in words.

Whether it be the anti-Semitic racism that we see in the far right in parts of Europe, the Islamophobic racism that we see on the far right here in the United Kingdom or the white supremacist racism of the Ku Klux Klan, the message must always be that there is no such thing as an acceptable level of, or an acceptable type of, racism. To defend oneself against a charge of racism by accusing someone else of the same thing simply does not wash. A racist is a racist; racism is wrong without exception. The tolerance level for racism is and must always be absolutely zero.

One way to help combat racism is by taking small steps to encourage a spirit and atmosphere of what is sometimes described as “tolerance”. However, I do not like that term much. I do not think we should “tolerate” the diversity of our society; I want to celebrate it. Tolerance is what one does to things that are not all that good; celebrate is what one does about things that make our lives and our world better. We should celebrate the fact that there are so many different faiths, so many different positions, so many different personal choices that people make about how they are going to live their lives and with whom they are going to live them.

As one small example and as part of the celebration of diversity, a decision was taken in the early days of the Scottish Parliament to begin each day with a “time for reflection” that was not exclusively dominated by the predominant religion in Scotland, so that all religions and all faiths would have a chance to lead that celebration. Indeed, people who did not publicly identify with any faith group or religion but had something important to say were equally welcome. That is a practice that I would tentatively suggest this House might want to look at, possibly in addition to the more traditional prayer service with which we open each day.

I am enormously proud of the fact that next week, on the 71st anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, the Scottish Parliament’s time for reflection will be led by two pupils from Auchmuty high school in Glenrothes. Lauren Galloway and Brandon Low recently visited Auschwitz-Birkenau as part of the Lessons from Auschwitz scheme. I hope that politicians in Holyrood, London and elsewhere will listen to the lessons that those young people have brought back for us to hear. I know I speak for everyone here when I say I long to see the day when “never again” is not a prayer or a promise, but a statement of fact delivered for the benefit of future generations.

16:22

[Dr Phillip Lee (Bracknell) (Con)]

Seventy-four years ago yesterday, a group of men—and they were, sadly, all men—met at Wannsee, a nice lake and idyllic location in Berlin, and decided systematically to murder 11 million-plus Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals and the like. As a result of discovering that fact when I was young, I developed a rather morbid fascination with the holocaust. I could not quite understand why a sophisticated country that had given birth to famous chemists, philosophers, historians and composers could find itself hosting a conference at which such dreadful deeds were planned.

The sheer industrial scale of what happened is seen in the places of Chelmno, Sobibor, Treblinka and Auschwitz. Another particularly dreadful episode happened at Babi Yar in Ukraine, where over 33,000 men, women and children were shot over the course of two days, just 29 years before I was born. I had this fascination, and I could not understand the word “holocaust”, meaning “holo” or whole and “caustos” or burned. I could not understand how intelligent, sophisticated, educated people could design purpose-built gas chambers and commit such a crime.

When I was practising as a doctor in Aylesbury, I had two patients who had survived Auschwitz. I clearly remember the lady with the tattoo on her arm, and I particularly remember the man who came in suffering from serious depression. Ten hours after I admitted him, he committed suicide, rather shockingly, on the ward. I think that that personal experience was what drove me to visit Yad Vashem for the first time in 1998; subsequently, like many other Members, I visited Auschwitz with the Holocaust Educational Trust. It drove me to try to understand, as best I could.

I agree with those who have said today that it is important to remember other genocides. I am thinking of, for instance, the genocide of 1915 in Armenia, of what was done by the Khmer Rouge between 1975 and 1979, when almost 25% of the population died, and of the more recent genocide in Rwanda, when the killing rate actually topped that of the Nazis: some 600,000 people were killed within six to eight weeks of the start.

Of course it is important to reflect and remember, but I think the most important thing that we should do is try to understand. I have long thought that killing the people who were convicted at Nuremberg was a mistake. I think that we should have kept those people alive, and tried to understand what on earth drove them to behave in such a way. And what of justice? Of course it is important to bring people to justice, but fewer than 10% of people were ever charged with any crime in connection with the holocaust. The numbers are not much better when it comes to the Khmer Rouge, and certainly not when it comes to the Armenian genocide of 1915.

We need to understand how people could do those things by day, and then be normal by night. There are famous photographs of Hungarian Jews arriving in June and July 1944, when 12,000 a day were being gassed, and there is the Höcker album showing SS men and women partying in the evenings and afternoons in the intervals between gassing thousands of people. How can that have been?

It is very easy to stand here and make speeches. It is very easy to say that we should not be bystanders, but should act. It is very easy to say that we should not do this and we should not do that. Forgive me, but we have stood idly by in the case of Rwanda, idly by in the case of Darfur, idly by in the case of Syria, and in the case of the Yazidis in particular. We are not doing much better than our predecessors. Indeed, I suspect that we do not have the determination and courage of some of our predecessors, who actually went to war to defeat evil. I think it is about time that this country rediscovered that determination, that courage, and that strong belief in the values of freedom and the equality of people, irrespective of their faith, gender or sexuality. It is about time that Britain, France and, yes, Germany—and America—rediscovered that courage, because otherwise such genocides will continue to happen in the future, and I very much hope that they will not.

16:27

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

So much has already been said during this extremely powerful and thoughtful debate, but let me add two stories from my own life and my constituency.

I recently took my parents-in-law, who were visiting us for the holidays, to a museum in my constituency of which some Members may be aware. Remarkably, the National Holocaust Centre, a few miles north of Newark, is the only museum dedicated to the holocaust in this country, although I hope that that will change in the near future.

My parents-in-law are the children of holocaust survivors. My wife’s grandfather and grandmother were Jews who lived in a village near the city of Pinsk. The Nazis came to their village. At the time, Pinsk was 90% Jewish; today it is 0.05% Jewish. The Nazis rounded up the able-bodied young men and took them to labour camps. The young men were told that if they tried to escape, their families back in the village would be killed. As we can imagine, however, word came to the camp pretty quickly that everyone in the village had been shot. Most had actually been burnt to death, and their bodies had been dumped in an open grave outside the village.

Furnished with that reality, my grandfather-in-law narrowly succeeded in escaping from the camp, and spent the remainder of the war fighting as a partisan in the forests of what is now Belarus. At the end of the war he returned to the smouldering ruins of his former village, amid the wreckage of his former life, and discovered that every single member of his family had been killed. Remarkably, the following day he met my wife’s grandmother, who was herself a holocaust survivor with a similar story, and every single one of whose family had also been killed, most of them at Auschwitz. They fell in love, and the rest, of course, is history. My mother-in-law, my wife and my three daughters are the result. So it is a great privilege for me to represent that museum.

Let me tell the House briefly about the two founders of the museum. Their story is not as well known as perhaps it should be, and it is worth retelling today. Twenty years ago, two brothers from Nottinghamshire, who are not Jewish and have no family connection with the holocaust, visited Israel to study and were captivated—if that is the right word—by Yad Vashem, which was being constructed at the time. On returning to their parents’ farmhouse in a remote area north of Newark, they persuaded their parents, who were extremely socially aware individuals themselves, to convert their farm into a holocaust education centre and over the next 20 years they have done exactly that. They have realised a remarkable vision and James and Stephen Smith—those two constituents of mine—are now among the most extraordinary individuals leading in holocaust education and genocide prevention around the world. They have founded the Aegis Foundation that works to prevent genocides and runs the genocide museum in Kigali in Rwanda, which is partly funded by the Department for International Development. They also run Steven Spielberg’s Shoah Foundation, which is now attempting to create 3D visualisations of remaining holocaust survivors so future generations can hear, to some extent first-hand, the stories when survivors have long departed.

The brothers had two profound driving ideas behind their mission. The first was that when the survivors are gone, we need to be able to tell the story—that although there are many museums all over the country, and even in my own rural constituency, at least one museum should be our conscience. It should be here for future generations, and I hope it will be. Secondly, they believed this museum should remind us of our common humanity by showing that whatever motivated the attacks on the Jews was a virus—a virus that exists in all of us and which exists in the world today. We see that alive and well, as we have heard already—in ISIS, in Boko Haram, and in anti-Semitism in Paris and in this country.

As an individual who grew up in the Church of England and walked though my village in Shropshire to Sunday school classes, it is a deep sadness and a shame to me to take my children to Hebrew classes and have to knock on the door and pass through security and sophisticated alarms so they can join four and five-year-olds learning a bit about their Jewish heritage. That is what we are fighting for today—to remember, to keep the flame alive, and to try at least to ensure that it does not happen again.

16:32

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)]

It is an honour to be speaking in this debate today. We have heard many very moving and thoughtful contributions from Members across the House, and it is evident that this is a topic of great concern to all of us. I must add my voice to those commending the outstanding work of the Holocaust Educational Trust.

It is an honour for me to represent East Renfrewshire. My constituency is home to Scotland’s largest Jewish population, as well as to other engaged and active faith groups. Their congregations and leaders add so much to our local communities, promoting positive relations and the importance of working together and learning lessons from the past.

As a number of Members have rightly pointed out, as fewer and fewer holocaust survivors are able to share their story, it is more important than ever that we take steps to make sure that their stories continue to be told, and it is fitting that the theme of this year’s commemoration is “Don’t stand by”. The message this gives could not be clearer or more important. It is about us all: we must not stand by—and we must also be aware, as we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) and others, that these terrible acts often involved ordinary people.

I am very proud of the diversity of modern Scotland. It makes us all better to live in a diverse, vibrant country, but we can never take the diversity and tolerance of our society for granted. Scotland’s Jewish community is a vital and important part of our society. Every member of that community has the right to feel safe and we on the SNP Benches join the others here today who have condemned anti-Semitism; it is wholly unacceptable.

We have heard about our duties to refugees from the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) and, as Europe struggles to get a grip on the refugee crisis stemming from Syria, we must not stand by and ignore cries for help from men, women and children fleeing not only the barbaric control of Daesh, but the evil regime of Assad.

In 1999, the then Prime Minister Tony Blair asked Jewish community leaders in Britain whether they felt it would be a good idea to have a Holocaust Memorial Day. They told him that they themselves did not need one, because Jews already had Yom HaShoah, a memorial day on which the whole community remembered all those who had been lost. However, they pointed out that it was important for our whole society to have a Holocaust Memorial Day for the Jewish people and for the other victims of the holocaust, including Roma people, trade unionists, people with disabilities, gay people and Jehovah’s Witnesses—all those who, along with the Jews, were so terribly singled out for the crime of being different, as the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) said. This is important for wider society too, so that we have the opportunity to listen and to learn.

It was a huge honour for me to be invited to march with the Jewish war veterans at the Remembrance day service in Newton Mearns in November and then to join the community at the Newton Mearns synagogue for an excellent, thoughtful service at which their brave and selfless contributions and the losses and sacrifices of so many were remembered.

We must remember not only the horrors of the second world war but the subsequent genocides, including those in Rwanda, Cambodia and Bosnia. This year marks the 21st anniversary of the genocide at Srebrenica, which has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart). The cemetery there has more than 8,000 obelisks marking Muslim graves. Organisations including Remembering Srebrenica and the Mothers of Srebrenica work to ensure that we remember and help us to try to learn.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

I attended the Srebrenica memorial service last year, and one of the most moving parts of the service was when I went out at the end and saw the thousands of schoolchildren who had gathered in the nave of Westminster Abbey to learn and to witness that remembrance. Does my hon. Friend agree with the other Members who have spoken in this moving debate about the importance of educating future generations, and young children in particular, so that we and they never forget and never stand by?

[Kirsten Oswald]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I entirely agree with him.

I am pleased that in Scotland our Government have made a clear commitment to understanding and protecting faith through education, and to the importance of holocaust education. Our young people must have the opportunity to really understand what happened. We have heard about Scottish students and teachers participating in the Holocaust Educational Trust’s valuable Lessons from Auschwitz project. I have met some of those young people, and their commitment to understanding and sharing the story of the holocaust is very important.

Our First Minster, Nicola Sturgeon, reflecting on our annual Scottish interfaith week, described Scotland as a country where all people can live together in harmony, follow their religion or belief and achieve their potential. Our diversity is a strength, as the First Minister emphasised when she recently came to speak to the Scottish Jewish community at the Giffnock and Newlands synagogue. She said that with that strength comes the responsibility on us all not to stand by but to speak up against anti-Semitism and discrimination in all its forms.

Holocaust Memorial Day allows schools, colleges, faith groups and communities all over Scotland to consider that, and to remember the 6 million men, women and children who were murdered by the Nazi regime in occupied Europe. Six million people. That is more than the entire population of Denmark. But even when I make comparisons such as these, it is still impossible to comprehend the numbers. As the hon. Member for Ilford North pointed out, however, we really need to try to do so, so that we can understand the terror and magnitude of that genocide, and its repercussions and impact on all of us, on those who survived and on the generations who came after, such as the family of the hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick).

This time last year, I was fortunate enough to be at a holocaust memorial service at the Giffnock reform synagogue, where I heard the son of a holocaust survivor speak movingly about the impact of his father’s experience on him as a person. It was an incredibly moving testimony, and it illustrated very well the broad effects of the holocaust, which extend much further than even the terrible magnitude of the number of victims would suggest.

Yesterday, I visited the Kindertransport statue at Liverpool Street station. There is no doubt that the Kindertransport saved many thousands of young Jewish lives, and those children and their families have added greatly to our society and made huge contributions to our understanding. But it was heart-breaking to learn that at the end of the war, when the British Government committed to taking in another 1,000 unaccompanied children, they could not do so because only 732 orphaned children remained.

The plight of children at that time also exercised the mind of Jane Haining, a farmer’s daughter from Dunscore in rural Dumfriesshire. A devout Christian, she was inspired by a job advert she saw in Queen’s Park church for the post of matron in a Budapest school run by the Church of Scotland’s Mission to the Jews. The school was popular with Jewish parents because of the quality of education that all children, particularly girls, received. As the political situation in Hungary became increasingly precarious, with the Jewish population steadily stripped of its freedoms, the Church of Scotland sent her repeated letters urging her to return home to Scotland for her own safety. Jane refused, and wrote back saying:

“If these children needed me in days of sunshine, how much more do they need me in these days of darkness?”.

As Hitler’s troops marched into Hungary, Jane Haining is said to have wept as she sewed yellow stars on to her charges’ clothes. This sympathy was known, and very soon she was informed upon, arrested and held in a local prison. She was soon moved to Auschwitz and taken to the labour camps. The treatment being so brutal, she survived for just two months before dying at the age of 47. Many years afterwards, after a 10-year investigation and an initiative by Queen’s Park church, Jane was named as Righteous Among Nations in Jerusalem’s sacred Yad Vashem, recognising her quiet sacrifice for her Jewish children.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson), I want to talk briefly about the late Rev. Ernest Levy, previously the cantor of the Giffnock and Newlands synagogue in my constituency. In 1938, when he was a child, he and his family had to flee to Hungary from their home in Bratislava. When Germany invaded Hungary, they were deported to the concentration camps. Ernest was held in seven concentration camps in all, including Auschwitz. His brothers had to dig their own graves. His sister was gassed to death. Ernest only just survived and he was found lying in the dust in Bergen-Belsen. He ultimately returned to Budapest, before making his home in Scotland, marrying Kathy Freeman, a fellow concentration camp survivor, in 1965.

Rev. Levy worked with the Holocaust Educational Trust to launch his holocaust testimony, “The Single Light”, in the Scottish Parliament. He brought a sardine tin with him. This tin had literally been his guiding light. During a forced march to Belsen, towards the end of the war, he picked up the tin, discarded by a German guard, made it into a wick and lit a flame. He and his fellow inmates gathered round the flame to sing a hymn. In Holyrood, he again lit the wick in the sardine tin, telling assembled MSPs and guests:

“We sang, and it gave us hope. This tin gave us light.”

16:41

[Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)]

It is an honour to be able to contribute to this debate. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions today and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for bringing the debate to the House. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) for his eloquent and moving opening speech. Like many Members, he pointed out that the holocaust was perpetrated by ordinary men and women carrying out acts of extraordinary evil.

I thank the right hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Sir Eric Pickles) for highlighting, among many issues, the disgraceful recent attack on Jewish students in King’s College. I thank the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) for bringing his experience and knowledge of conflict to the debate. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Joan Ryan) for emphasising the need to preserve the memories of survivors. I thank the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) for speaking of the courage of those who did not stand by. I thank the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) for bringing us her experience as a teacher and highlighting the importance of holocaust education. I thank the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for his passionate speech and for highlighting the work of Yad Vashem. I thank the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) for, again, emphasising that ordinary people are capable, in the wrong circumstances, of diabolical acts, and I thank the hon. Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee) for giving us his personal experience as a doctor with holocaust survivors. I thank the hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) for his very personal speech and his support for the National Holocaust Centre. Finally, I thank the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) for her comments on the importance of learning lessons from the past.

The UK played a leading role in establishing Holocaust Memorial Day as an international day of commemoration in 2000, when 46 Governments signed the Stockholm declaration. Our first Holocaust Memorial Day was held on 27 January 2001. In the weeks leading up to and after Holocaust Memorial Day, thousands of commemorative events are arranged by schools, faith groups and community organisations across the country, remembering all the victims of the holocaust and of subsequent genocides. It is vital that we continue to remember and to learn from the appalling events of the holocaust, as well as ensuring that we continue to challenge anti-Semitism and all forms of bigotry. This year’s theme is “Don’t Stand By”. Bystanders are encouraged to speak out against persecution to prevent the horrors of the holocaust and other genocides from ever happening again.

The Holocaust Memorial Day Trust is the charity that promotes and supports Holocaust Memorial Day. The UK Government, through the Home Office, had the responsibility of running the Holocaust Memorial Day from 2001 to 2005. In May 2005, the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust was registered as a charity, and the then Home Secretary, David Blunkett, appointed trustees for the first time.

The Department for Communities and Local Government has funded the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust’s work since 2007, and, to date, HMDT has overseen massive growth of Holocaust Memorial Day activities. More than 3,600 activities took place across the UK on Holocaust Memorial Day last year. Independent opinion polling in February 2015 showed that 83% of UK adults are aware of Holocaust Memorial Day, and 31% say that they know it well. Some 1.3 million people watched the 2015 UK commemorative event on BBC 2.

Many Members have paid tribute to the work of the Holocaust Educational Trust, which aims to educate young people from every background about the holocaust and the important lessons to be learned for today. The trust works in schools, universities and the community to raise awareness and understanding of the holocaust, providing teacher training, an outreach programme for schools, teaching aids and resource material. It continues to play a leading role in training teachers on how best to teach the holocaust.

I was very proud to sign the Holocaust Educational Trust’s book of commitment, thereby honouring those who were murdered during the holocaust and paying tribute to the extraordinary holocaust survivors who work tirelessly to educate young people.

I wish to say a few words about the connection between the European convention on human rights and the holocaust. The ECHR was the first international instrument designed to bring into effect, through a dedicated court, the rights contained in the 1948 universal declaration of human rights. The convention came into force in 1953 and now applies to all 47 countries of its parent organisation, the Council of Europe.

The convention aimed to prevent a recurrence of the horrors and atrocities of the second world war. It followed on from the UDHR, which was proclaimed by the UN General Assembly in Paris on 10 December 1948. It is easy to forget that, until then, there was almost no system that enabled criticism of, let alone action against, Governments who mistreated people within their borders if their own law allowed such abuses.

Professor Francesca Klug, commissioner of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, notes that

“however morally repugnant, Nazi Germany’s racial purity policies were all in accordance with the law.”

It is from the universal declaration of human rights that the international system of human rights protections was born.

As the UDHR was being drafted, European leaders drew up the European convention on human rights. During that time, Winston Churchill spoke about the strength derived from our “sense of common values” and of such a convention being

“guarded by freedom and sustained by law”,

which ensured that people owned the Government, and not the Government the people.

When the UK Parliament passed the Human Rights Act in 1998, it made our human rights more accessible for people here in the UK. There is now a duty on all our public bodies—not just central Government, but the police, NHS, social services, housing and education—to respect, protect and fulfil our human rights. The legal protection of human rights for all is a direct and lasting legacy to emerge from the horrors of the holocaust.

16:49

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Marcus Jones)]

I am grateful to hon. Members on both sides of the House for their wise, passionate and insightful contributions to the debate. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi) and the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) for securing this important debate.

Last year, the Prime Minister marked the 70th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau by pledging to build a new national holocaust memorial and learning centre. What was unique about the announcement was that it had cross-party support. That support has continued with the creation of the United Kingdom Holocaust Memorial Foundation, which is turning the recommendations made to the Prime Minister’s Holocaust Commission into reality.

Today is as much about remembering other genocides as it is about Jewish persecution. This year marks 21 years since the genocide in Srebrenica. It is important to remember the innocent lives lost in the holocaust, in the killing fields of Cambodia, in the churches of Rwanda, in the camps of Bosnia and in the arid desert of Darfur. This year’s Holocaust Memorial Day theme, “Don’t Stand By”, is all the more poignant if we think of all the hatred and prejudice in the world today, some of which has been mentioned in the debate.

Survivors of the holocaust and other genocides would not be here today if it were not for those who did not stand by: people such as Robert Townsend Smallbones, consul-general in Frankfurt, who worked night and day to issue Jewish families with visas as he knew that a visa meant the difference between life and death; or Captain Mbaye Diagne, a Senegalese military officer and a United Nations military observer during the 1994 Rwandan genocide who saved many lives during his time in Rwanda through nearly continuous rescue missions, at great peril to himself.

This year’s theme focuses on the contemporary relevance of the holocaust and subsequent genocides. We are asked to consider our individual responsibilities. We are asked not to be bystanders to hate crime and prejudice. In 2009, I joined a number of Conservative colleagues on a visit to Srebrenica, where more than 8,000 Bosnian Muslim men and boys were massacred during the 1990s. It truly brought home to me the scale of this merciless atrocity, which took place on our continent just a few years ago. While in Srebrenica, we undertook a number of projects, one of which was installing a computer suite at a local school. I mention that project because I think that schools are vital in the context of this debate as education has the power to bring communities together.

Holocaust education matters. It brings to life the names, the memories and the identities of those who suffered, but none of that would be possible without the dedication of survivors and their families, who visit schools and communities up and down the country urging us to take a stand against hatred and prejudice. A number of survivors were honoured in the new years’ honours list and I want to take this opportunity to mention them each in turn. Zigi Shipper works tirelessly in schools and universities up and down the country. He is so popular and inspiring that students set up a fan page on Facebook. Susan Pollack sees herself as part of a dedicated team ensuring that the lessons from the holocaust and more recent genocides are never forgotten. Ivor Perl gave evidence in the trial of Oskar Gröning, a former SS guard known as the “bookkeeper of Auschwitz”. Lily Ebert ensures that our young people are aware of the dangers of hatred and intolerance and is an inspiration to us all. Jack Kagan played an inspirational role on the Prime Minister’s Holocaust Commission in 2014. Renee Salt was recognised for her commitment to holocaust education and awareness. Rudi Oppenheimer visits schools up and down the country and spoke at a Holocaust Memorial Day event in my own Department a couple of years ago. Agnes Grunwald-Spier has served as trustee of the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust and earlier this week published her book entitled “Who Betrayed the Jews? The Realities of Nazi Persecution in the Holocaust.” Freddie Knoller, at 95, still talks to young people about the horrors of the holocaust and encourages them not to stand by. Finally, Chaim Ferster is a survivor of Auschwitz, who uses his experiences to educate others to ensure that we never forget.

I echo the tributes paid today to Karen Pollock, the chief executive officer of the Holocaust Educational Trust who, along with her team, is an inspiration to all of us. I pay tribute to the work of the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust and its CEO, Olivia Marks-Woldman, who with her team delivered the most successful Holocaust Memorial Day to date last year, with over 3,600 local events. I would like to mention some of the other holocaust remembrance, education and survivor organisations that enrich the work we do, such as the Holocaust Survivors Centre in Hendon, the Anne Frank Trust, which uses Anne’s diary to fight hatred and prejudice in schools, the Wiener Library, the Association of Jewish Refugees, and the National Holocaust Centre in Newark, Nottinghamshire.

It would be remiss of me not to mention the work of the Prime Minister’s new envoy for post-holocaust issues, my right hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Sir Eric Pickles), who made an excellent contribution to the debate. I am glad to hear that he will be focusing on the restitution of property and art, the opening of archives and the role of bystanders as collaborators. My right hon. Friend replaced Sir Andrew Burns, and I hope this House will join me in thanking Sir Andrew, the UK’s first post-holocaust issues envoy, for his wisdom and guidance over the past five years.

I do not have time to mention all the contributions, but I shall reply to questions asked in the debate. First, my right hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar referred to the terrible incident at King’s College this week. I concur with his comments. The actions of a few at King’s College were unacceptable and we expect the police and the university authorities to take the incident extremely seriously, fully investigate what happened and hold to account the perpetrators of that awful action. As my right hon. Friend will know, my Department hosts a cross-Government working group on anti-Semitism, which will be taking the issue very seriously in its future work. In response to the hon. Member for Ilford North, I can assure him that we will continue to do all we can to promote, support and fund the teaching of the holocaust.

It is clear from the contributions made today by hon. Members that we can never be complacent, especially when we continue to see the growth of anti-Semitism and anti- Muslim hatred in Europe and on our own shores. I can only echo what Simon Wiesenthal, a holocaust survivor turned Nazi-hunter after the war, said so eloquently:

“For evil to flourish, it only requires good men to do nothing.”

16:58

[Wes Streeting]

I would like to place on record my thanks to all the right hon. and hon. Members who spoke so passionately, eloquently and thoughtfully in this afternoon’s debate. As we draw the debate to a close, I want to leave us with the words of Primo Levi:

“It happened, therefore it can happen again”.

Those words are a lesson for all of us to reflect upon, with reference to our individual actions and taking up the challenge presented by the hon. Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee) in his speech. It is for the House to think about how this country can rediscover the best of its internationalist traditions. That is something for all of us to think on in the days, weeks, months and years ahead.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered Holocaust Memorial Day 2016.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

The House has been so well disciplined that I find myself with a spare 30 seconds. It just occurs to me that a pause is very unusual, but perhaps—

[Wes Streeting]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would just like to place on the record, as a new Member of the House, my apologies for not realising that I really should have spoken until 5 pm precisely, so as not to put you in the awkward position of having to find something to say from the Chair in order to take us through to the Adjournment debate, which I am sure we will hear very shortly. It is on the important matter of transport for vulnerable adults, and will be led by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey). Although I am unable to stay for the debate, I for one am looking forward to seeing her rise to her feet imminently.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

That was an excellent point of order. The hon. Gentleman has done absolutely nothing wrong. On the contrary, he has made not one but two excellent speeches this afternoon.

Vulnerable Adults: Transport

Thursday 21st January 2016 Commons Chamber

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

17:00

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

Before my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) leaves the Chamber, I would like to wish him a very happy birthday and congratulate him on his point of order.

I thank the Minister for attending what I have no doubt will be a lively and informative debate. It might be helpful if I first define what specific kind of transport I am focusing my comments on today. Adults with special educational needs often attend day centres or schools. Until recently, many councils have provided accessible transport to allow the most vulnerable to access these facilities, often by way of a bus or the provision of a driver plus an expert escort on board to ensure safety. That support is a vital service in many communities, providing independence for those with special needs and peace of mind for their parents and carers. It also provides a much-needed break for the unsung heroes of social care who struggle with the commitments of family life and work alongside caring for their loved ones.

Let me set a backdrop for the harrowing tale I am about to tell. In 2014 my local council, Salford City Council, was ordered by the Government to find £25 million of so-called savings in its budget. That was in addition to £97 million in spending cuts that it had already suffered since 2010. As an already efficient and well-respected council, it had already sought to find every possible means of saving money through genuine efficiency gains. It had fought for four years to find ways to save money or reduce spending here and there in order to ensure that all services for the most vulnerable residents across Salford were unaffected. By 2014 the council was way beyond being able to salami-slice budgets and, as a result, was forced to look at making real changes to a wide range of services. Our mayor, councillors and council officers were put in the agonising position of having to prioritise which types of care they provided and to determine who was the most vulnerable, instead of simply protecting all the vulnerable, as it had done before.

[Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)]

This year, £16.4 million has been taken out of Tameside council’s budget for adult social services, £11.1 million has been taken out of Oldham council’s budget for adult social services and a deficit of over £20 million has been forecast for Tameside general hospital. Cuts to front-line local services not only cost more in terms of the quality of life for the individuals affected, but cost us all more in the long run. Does my hon. Friend agree that these cuts are really short-sighted and damage not only our local services, but our NHS, which has to pick up the pieces afterwards?

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

I thank my hon. Friend for those helpful comments. I completely agree. As she will hear, Tameside is not alone in suffering such savage cuts.

Salford City Council had to face the difficult decision to cut the in-house provision of vulnerable adult transport for over 200 families across the city, amounting to a £500,000 cut in transport support for those with special needs. That was alongside the £400,000 that the Government’s cuts took from the provision of adult social care support to those with learning difficulties in the same year. I must add that prior to the cuts the transport service was rated excellent as a council service. It was not inefficient and there were no plans to cut it had the funding been available.

Commenting on the Government cuts at the time, our mayor, Ian Stewart, stated that

“this is not about efficiencies any more. These cuts will cause untold damage to the services we provide”.

Even in this desperate funding crisis, the council worked hard to make the best of a terrible financial situation. In partnership with the individuals affected and their carers, appropriate alternative arrangements were made. Transport was not ended for anyone until suitable alternative arrangements had been agreed. The good news is that a number of parents were generally happy with the council’s new arrangements, because they can individualise their journey times. That means that they are not spending significant amounts of time on transport, which previously resulted in some people arriving at the day centre in an agitated mood. The council is very much aware that the change is not universally popular, and it continues to work with any individuals who express concern. The fact remains, however, that it does not hold sufficient funding to provide an in-house passenger transport service as it was provided.

I have spoken at length to some of the families affected. I have heard their tales of despair and their worry about which other services that they rely on might be cut in future. I have listened to the mayor, our councillors and council officers, who have frankly lost faith in the Government’s commitment to provide a welfare system, which should be there to look after the vulnerable. In the wider context, for the 2014-15 financial year, a total of £4 million had to be cut from community health and social care, £2.4 million from public health, £4.7 million from support services, £5.6 million from education, and £4 million from environment and community safety. These are not “efficiency savings”—they are cuts to front-line services.

Perhaps in 2010 there were areas where genuine savings could be made with minimal knock-on effects on front-line services, but by the time £97 million has been taken from the budget, there is nothing left to cut but vital front-line services. Even the Prime Minister’s own council leader had to explain this principle to him following the now infamous letter in which he criticised his local council’s cuts to front-line services. By 2016-17, Salford City Council will have to make budget cuts of £188 million in order to balance its budget; £83 million of that sum alone is the amount by which the Government grant has been cut. That is a cut of over 43%, but in real terms the figure is much higher.

This is not just an issue for Salford City Council. Every council has faced vast reductions in funding from central Government, and my local council is not alone in having to cut transport for those with special educational needs. Countless numbers of local authorities have reduced or completely ceased to provide transport for vulnerable adults. It is rather tenuous, therefore, for the Government to argue that all these councils have made the choice to cut such an important service when they could instead have made efficiency savings in their back offices. These councils have no such choice any more.

When my constituents visited me about this issue, my first reaction was to try to locate funding elsewhere. What about the northern powerhouse, I thought, all that money that is supposedly being unlocked in the north—surely Salford’s vulnerable people deserve a piece of that? When I examined the detail I became even more disillusioned. We have often heard the Chancellor wax lyrical about his so-called devolution revolution, which he argues will enable areas such as Salford to raise and spend revenues locally, but he fails to acknowledge that councils in poorer areas have very limited revenue-raising capacities.

For instance, the policy to allow councils to set and retain their own business rates without the safeguard of a grant scheme has the potential to create severe inequalities among different areas of Britain. Indeed, the director of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research has said that while he agrees with the principle, it would be “inconceivable” not to keep a grant scheme. He stated:

“does this have the potential to disadvantage deprived areas and advantaged rich ones?..Absolutely!”

The Institute for Fiscal Studies has expressed concern that such a move would create winners and losers, with poorer areas seeing a fall in revenue. Let us not forget that we are already seeing disparities between local authority cuts. Between 2010 and 2015, Salford saw cuts of £210 per head, while authorities such as Epsom and Ewell saw only a £15 per head decrease. With local government funding being cut in terms of the grant by 56% by the end of this Parliament, it is frankly terrifying for Members like me whose local councils will see even more significant reductions in their spending power.

The same issue arises with regard to the social care precept, which would allow councils to raise council tax by 2% in order to fund social care. The president of the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services has warned:

“The Council Tax precept will raise least money in areas of greatest need which risks heightening inequality.”

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

My hon. Friend and parliamentary neighbour is making a great speech in support of our local council and about the difficulties it faces. On the social care precept, does she agree that a council such as ours, which has lost £15 million from its adult social care budget, will be able to raise, at most, only £1.5 million to £1.6 million? The gap is enormous. We no longer want to hear Ministers saying that they have put extra funding into social care, because, frankly, they have not.

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

My hon. Friend is right: councils in deprived areas will have the greatest social care needs, yet they will raise less than a third of what more affluent areas raise through this approach. I really fear that any revenue we raise across the city of Salford will barely touch the sides of the funding crisis in social care. Sadly, the Minister may be hoping to say that services such as in-house transport for vulnerable adults could be funded through a future increase in the social care precept, but that is not likely to be an option for Salford City Council. As I have outlined, councils in deprived areas have already been hit the hardest, and they will be hit worst again by the measures in the latest spending review.

The Government have had since 2010 to convince us that their argument for local government austerity is necessary. In that time, they have slashed the budgets available to councils for vulnerable adult transport and other essential services, while at the same time handing out tax breaks for millionaires, slashing inheritance tax and, despite their rhetoric, doing very little to crack down on tax avoidance. In fact, only in December we heard that five of the largest banks in the UK paid no corporation tax at all in 2014, despite making billions of pounds in profits.

The Prime Minister gave the game away in an interview on Monday morning, when he said that

“if you are a Conservative, you don’t believe in a big state”.

I fear that that is what these cuts are all about: rolling back the state and going back to a time when the vulnerable relied on the philanthropic donations of wealthy people with a conscience.

The cuts that have been inflicted on my city are clearly a political choice, not an economic necessity. My and my hon. Friend’s city is living in fear, with the sword of Damocles hanging over our heads, waiting for the next savage cut to drop.

I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments and I hope he will be able to reassure me that my fears are unfounded. I also hope that as a result of this debate he will ensure that there is a much-needed boost to local government funding, in order to provide essential services such as the one I have outlined. I hope he amazes me with what he is about to say.

17:12

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Life Sciences (George Freeman)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) on securing this debate and thank her for allowing me, on behalf of the Government, to put the record straight on some important issues relating to funding for care generally and for this group of vulnerable patients in particular. I will start by setting the scene of how our reforms have changed the way in which funding is provided, and I will then address some of the detailed local issues in Salford.

The way we look after some of our most vulnerable people is a benchmark of how civilised we are as a society. For that reason, the Government have tried, in a very difficult funding round, to make sure that funding for the most vulnerable is protected and ring-fenced. We understand that everybody in the country is tightening their belts to pay off the debts that previous generations and Governments have left us, but we have tried to be as careful as possible and to make sure that we protect the most vulnerable in our society who have no choice and are completely reliant on public services. That is why, through the Care Act 2014, we now have a reformed care system that is already leaving local authorities in a better position to meet the care needs of their people as they see best and to target resources at those who most need them.

Councils now have greater flexibility to arrange care, as well as to give greater choice and control to individuals. We have given councils freedom on how to use the money they receive and allowed them to work with their residents to decide how best to arrange their spending, based on local priorities and need. I am not pretending for a minute that local government has not faced real pressures on its finances over the past five years. However, when local authorities account for a quarter of the Government’s entire public spending budget, it is only right that local government must find its share of the savings that we all need to make to reduce the deficit we inherited from the Labour Government in 2010. It is a tribute to local government across the country, including Labour councils, that the vast majority of them have managed to deliver more with less. It was good to hear the hon. Lady acknowledge that there was fat in the system in 2010, and that councils could do a lot to deliver more for less. Many councils have indeed done so.

[Angela Rayner]

I want to reiterate that I welcome the fact that Tameside is a pilot area for the Government’s proposed integrated care model. I mentioned the figures earlier, including the forecast £20 million deficit in Tameside general hospital’s budget. Does the Minister not think that that will completely undermine the fantastic and innovative work such areas are trying to do to ensure that people who need care can get it in the right place and at the right time? These savage cuts undermine all the proposals for an integrated care model.

[George Freeman]

If the hon. Lady had asked her question in slightly more moderate terms, I might have been able to agree, but when she talks about “savage cuts” completely undermining any progress on integration, I cannot agree with her. That extreme language does not tally with the rather better numbers—I am not pretending that there are not challenges, because there are—but I will come to them in a minute.

[Barbara Keeley]

Will the Minister give way?

[George Freeman]

I will give way briefly, but I want to answer the questions that have already been asked.

[Barbara Keeley]

Like my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour the Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey), I want to talk about Salford. It was one of the last authorities in the country that managed to hold on to moderate eligibility for social care, but the cuts that my hon. Friend spoke about mean that we have had to move from moderate to substantial. There is not the funding in the system that the Minister is outlining.

[George Freeman]

I will come on to the numbers for Salford. I rang Salford this morning to get the very latest numbers, and they make quite interesting listening.

Let me just set the scene on the settlement. In the context of the tough public sector finances, we listened to local government and took steps to protect social care services. In the spending review, we reflected that by introducing a 2% social care precept to the council tax for authorities with social care responsibilities. It is ring-fenced: it has to be spent on social care. The precept could mean up to £2 billion of additional funding for social care by 2019-20, which would be enough to support more than 50,000 people in care homes or 200,000 people in their own homes. In addition, we have secured a further £1.5 billion by 2019-20 through extra funding for the better care fund, which brings that funding to a total of £5.3 billion. Those resources are secure, and they are in the hands of local authorities.

Let me turn to transport for disabled people in Salford. Rightly in my view, the provision of social care and the question of how to meet local need are very much matters for the local authority, as I think hon. Members would agree. That is at the heart of this issue. I understand that Salford City Council has decided that the transport needs of people who require support to get to local day care and respite care services can best be met, in the patients’ interests, by closing the in-house passenger transport unit and providing suitable alternatives for individuals.

I also understand from the local authority that a significant number of parents and carers have commented on how much better the arrangements are because they can individualise journey times. Instead of having to wait and then sit on the council bus to get to services, going on very long routes, the vast majority of users are getting a much more personal and bespoke service. It means that the users of the service do not spend significant amounts of time on transport, which used to result in some of them arriving at a day centre or home upset, agitated, delayed and frustrated.

The council has worked hard to resolve the concerns that have been expressed by care users and their families. Having spoken to the council this morning, I understand that all have now accepted the new arrangements. Indeed, the director of adult social services at Salford City Council has told me that he considers the change to be

“a success both in terms of outcomes for individuals and in delivering a saving to the council budget.”

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

The Minister is quite right in what he says. The ability of my local authority to do more with less has been extremely amazing, but the fact remains that the review of special needs transport would not have occurred to this extent had the funding not been taken away. I do not dispute that it is right to review the service and the needs of individuals on an ongoing basis, but it should not have been done in such a forthright and extreme way. That would not have occurred had the funding not been taken away.

[George Freeman]

I am not sure what the question was. It is interesting that the hon. Lady is saying that the review was the right thing to do and the service has improved, but the rationale for doing it was wrong. I beg to differ. If the rationale that we have to deliver more for less leads good councils, in this case Salford, to find a better way to deliver services that uses less money and provides a better service, that is good. It is exactly what we want councils across the country to do.

For far too long, local government has been hidebound by receiving far too much of its funding from central Government. For me, as a localist, it is anathema that the majority of local government spending comes from central Government. That is why we have begun the process of seriously rebalancing the funding settlement by providing more powers and freedoms locally to raise money that can be spent on locally agreed priorities. The social care precept and the retention of business rates locally are powerful things for which many of us have campaigned for years.

If Salford uses the full social care precept flexibility that we have just provided, it could raise £7.6 million in 2019-20. That will be on top of Salford’s additional income from the better care fund of £10.5 million in 2019-20.

This is not about cuts. It is about a Labour council making prudent decisions that not only improve the way in which services for vulnerable people with disabilities are delivered, but do so in the most cost-effective way. The council’s prudence extends to its decision to nearly double its non-ring-fenced reserves from £29.7 million in 2010 to £56.5 million at the end of 2014-15. I will just say that again: the council doubled its reserves to £56.5 million over the course of the coalition Government.

[Barbara Keeley]

The Minister is being rather complacent in the way that he is responding to this debate. Salford City Council has announced this week that it is having to use its reserves for flood victims, when the Prime Minister will not even apply to the EU solidarity fund for funds. On the point that the Minister makes about social care, the Prime Minister heard this week from the Conservative leader of Essex County Council, who pleaded with him to bring the money forward. The Minister is talking about money for 2019-20. We have to get through the time until then. The money is back-loaded and it is not enough. The situation is risky and uncertain because the money will be provided so late. I should tell him that council leaders are very worried about 2017-18.

[George Freeman]

I will take the question as being, what do I think about that statement? The hon. Lady is right that the funding ramps up, but she is not right in saying that it does not come on stream until 2020. Indeed, I have looked at the figures for Salford. The money that will go to Salford from the better care fund will be £1.1 million in 2017-18, £6.1 million in 2018-19 and £10.5 million in 2019-20. Similarly, the precept will rise over the course of this Parliament, depending on Salford’s decisions on raising it.

Salford’s reserves have gone from being £29.7 million in 2010 to £56.5 million. Those reserves are public money that is there to be used prudently. In this period when we are all having to make sure that our children do not inherit ever more debts, I do not think the fact that Salford City Council is having to dip into its reserves to ensure that it is able to provide services—which, remember, are costing less but delivering better quality—is the savage crisis that the hon. Lady referred to.

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

I invite the Minister to visit the city of Salford. He will see the extent of the damage that this Government have done to local authority services. It is not just social care that is experiencing a large funding gap. Salford is experiencing a large-scale regeneration and is coming out of its post-industrial decline, but all that is at risk. He made the fantastic comment that we have increased our reserves, but there is much more that needs to be done in Salford.

[George Freeman]

I would happily welcome the chance to debate more widely the economic regeneration of Salford, which I hugely welcome. Since the floods have been mentioned, may I extend my sympathy, and that of the Government, to those who have been affected? However, this debate is on transport for vulnerable adults and when I spoke to Salford Council this morning, it told me that all those affected—I believe there are 200 families—are happy with the new service and believe that it is providing a better service for vulnerable adults in Salford.

The hon. Lady has cleverly used the debate to make wider points about the Government’s approach to care, which is perfectly within her rights. I have tried to deal with them. She says that we are underfunding local government, but in the recent comprehensive spending review, local government made clear to central Government that it foresaw a shortage of £2.9 billion that it was worried would not be met. That is why we gave local government a funding settlement of £3.5 billion, to ensure that the shortage we were warned about was properly met. We went further and gave local government the right to raise up to what will equal £2 billion in 2020 to fund that care gap, and a four-year settlement so that it can plan ahead—one of the other key asks. We have put an extra £1.5 billion into the better care fund, which now totals £5.3 billion for the integration of health and care.

The plea may go up that that is not enough, but money does not grow on trees and we can only fund what we can from our strongly recovering economy. However, I do not believe that that fits the pattern of “savage cuts” described earlier. I merely repeat that if the picture that the hon. Lady painted about transport for vulnerable people in Salford were true, I would be very concerned. However, when I spoke to the Labour-run council, it told me that it believes it is delivering better services at a more efficient cost, and that all those in the families involved have settled and are happy with that. The council’s reserves are up substantially on where the Labour Government left them, to the extent that over the next one or two years, while the extra money that we have put in comes on stream, it will have those reserves that it built up during the coalition Government. I simply do not recognise the picture of savage cuts and austerity that the hon. Lady presents.

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

I am quite concerned about the Minister’s comments. I spoke to the council this week and received similar comments, including notification that large numbers of the families were happy with the new service—I outlined that in my speech. I also highlighted that the council was aware that some families are not happy with the amended service, and it continues to work with them to try to reach a sensible conclusion on the matter. That is why I have raised this issue in the Chamber today.

[George Freeman]

I am delighted that we close on a point of unanimity: we agree that Salford council is doing a good job and has managed well the issue of transport for vulnerable adults. I was merely dealing with the wider points that the hon. Lady sought to make about the Government’s more general approach to care, to which it is my duty to respond. I welcome the work that Salford council is doing to look after its most vulnerable citizens, and I hugely support it in that. The Government’s vision is to give councils more freedoms and funding to provide for local people in the way that they see fit; in that way, all councils can do what Salford has done and deliver more for less.

Question put and agreed to.

17:28

House adjourned.

Ministerial Correction

Thursday 21st January 2016 Ministerial Corrections

Thursday 21 January 2016

Transport

Thursday 21st January 2016 Ministerial Corrections

Concessionary Fares: Blackpool North and Cleveleys

The following is an extract from the Westminster Hall debate on concessionary fares in Blackpool North and Cleveleys on 20 January 2016:

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)]

My hon. Friend raised several issues, and I will begin my response by talking about concessionary travel. The Government know how important affordable, accessible transport is. It is the bread and butter of the way communities function and move around. That is especially true for older and disabled passengers—a point that he made clearly and powerfully. That is, of course, why the Government have committed to protecting the national bus travel concession in England, and why they spend some £950 million a year on doing so.

[Official Report, 20 January 2016, Vol. 604, c. 598WH.]

Letter of correction from Mr Jones:

An error has been identified in the response I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) in the debate on concessionary fares in Blackpool North and Cleveleys.

The correct response should have been:

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)]

My hon. Friend raised several issues, and I will begin my response by talking about concessionary travel. The Government know how important affordable, accessible transport is. It is the bread and butter of the way communities function and move around. That is especially true for older and disabled passengers—a point that he made clearly and powerfully. That is, of course, why the Government have committed to protecting the national bus travel concession in England, and why they spend some £900 million a year on doing so.

Westminster Hall

Thursday 21st January 2016 Westminster Hall

Thursday 21 January 2016

[Mr Charles Walker in the Chair]

Backbench Business

Thursday 21st January 2016 Westminster Hall

UK Steel Industry

Thursday 21st January 2016 Westminster Hall

13:30

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the future of the UK steel industry.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this important debate. I also thank the Minister and all my colleagues for coming to support it—it is a fantastic turnout.

As we all know, this has been a big week for the British steel industry—but, unfortunately, for all the wrong reasons. Yesterday, jobs were lost at Sheffield Forgemasters, and the week began with Tata Steel’s announcement of more than 1,000 job losses across the country. That was bad news for everybody, but it was particularly devastating for my constituency, where the Port Talbot steelworks are located. Some 750 people who woke up with a job at the Tata steelworks in Port Talbot on Monday morning no longer have a job. The steelworks are the beating heart of the economy and the community in Port Talbot, and the job losses will affect not just those being made redundant, or those in connected industries, but their families, their friends and the entire community.

What immediate action will the Government take to support those who have been made redundant? There will need to be training and support so that they can make the transition into other jobs, and the local community will need help to support those affected and their families, as well as those in connected businesses. If the Government do not act, my community will pay the price for generations to come.

However, this is not just about Monday’s announcement. The Government must act to support the steel industry and to prevent further job losses, and they must do so now. There are a number of things that I, my colleagues inside and outside this Chamber and, most notably, the Community union and Tata Steel itself want to know. We want to know why the Government have done nothing. They have talked a big game, but their warm words have been matched by frozen actions.

First, we have called for changes in UK business rates, which are up to 10 times higher than those of many of our European competitors. Will the Minister commit to consulting the Welsh Government and other devolved bodies on cutting business rates for capital-intensive industries such as steel by removing plant and machinery from business rate calculations?

Secondly, the promised Government compensation for energy-intensive industries has still not materialised. In the light of Monday’s announcement, will the Minister commit the Government to the more rapid implementation of measures on energy-intensive industries and to a deadline by which moneys will actually be available? We cannot have more of the cheque being lost in the post.

Thirdly, on procurement, we asked the Government to introduce guidelines that properly recognise social issues, local value for money and local content in projects with a major steel component. However, all that their November procurement policy note says is that steel requirements should be “openly advertised” to allow UK firms to compete. Will the Minister explain why they will not go further in using Government procurement to support the British steel industry?

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Can my hon. Friend begin to understand what got into the Government’s mind when they handed over the nuclear industry in perpetuity to the Chinese? Because of their infatuation with them, they are allowing them to prosper, while our industry crumbles. We have a policy of deindustrialisation, with our industry being colonised by the Chinese.

[Stephen Kinnock]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s long and illustrious history in the steel industry. He was a steelworker himself, so he speaks with particular experience and expertise. I absolutely agree with his point about the nuclear industry. I would bring everybody’s attention to the outrage of EDF telling a well-known British steel producer that it was not allowed to tender to make turbines that it is absolutely qualified to provide, thus denying it the opportunity of a multimillion-pound contract. The idea that this country’s procurement policies are somehow changing is a myth, and that experience of EDF and that steelmaker is a case in point.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

While my hon. Friend is on the issue of procurement, will he say whether he is as dismayed as I am that the Ministry of Defence is commissioning steel hardware from Scandinavian plants? Does that not speak to a lack of joined-up thinking and a lack of Government focus on innovation, and on research and development, into new products needed by the MOD?

[Stephen Kinnock]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. What is interesting about the MOD angle is that we are talking about national security. The steel industry plays a critical role as a foundation industry, whether we are talking about the homes we live in, the offices we work in, the knives and forks we use to eat our meals or the incredibly important contribution the industry makes to our armed forces across the world. This is, therefore, not just an issue of the economy or of pounds, shillings and pence. Our national security is at stake.

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Is he aware of the contribution that steel makes to the submarine supply chain? That led the Community union to argue forcefully that the Labour party should continue to support it. Furthermore, Graham Honeyman, the managing director of Sheffield Forgemasters, is clear that the company cannot survive if it loses the order for the Successor submarine programme.

[Stephen Kinnock]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. He will be aware that a debate is taking place in the Labour party, but I can assure him of which side of that debate I fall on. There are a number of reasons why I fall on that side of the debate, but saving our manufacturing industry—up to 20,000 jobs rely on the nuclear programme to which he refers—is critical. I will certainly contribute forcefully to the debate in our party from that perspective.

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

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. The estimated capital cost of Trident could be up to £165 billion. Is he seriously saying that if the UK Government redirected that amount of capital investment, we would be able to produce only 20,000 jobs?

[Mr Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

Order. I am not allowing Members to get into a debate on Trident. Mr Kinnock, can you continue, please?

[Stephen Kinnock]

Thank you, Mr Walker. I defer to your better judgment, but I would be more than happy to continue that debate outside the Chamber.

In the light of what we are discussing, will the Minister explain why the Government will not go further in using Government procurement to support the British steel industry? It is one thing to put in place procurement guidelines, but driving the message home across Government, let alone the private sector as well, is another matter. Words are easy, but actions are far more difficult, and those actions require leadership. With Hinkley Point B, the Government have a real chance to show leadership by using procurement to support British industry. However, they seem to be squandering that opportunity, with no British steel due to be used on the project.

I would also like to ask the Government about the Swansea bay tidal lagoon. First, they need to get on and approve the project—each day of delay is costing months or years of progress on it. However, I also ask them to show some leadership and to commit to sourcing all the steel for the turbines, or as much of it as possible, from the United Kingdom steel industry. The tidal lagoon not only provides the entire Swansea bay area with job opportunities, which are desperately needed in the light of Monday’s announcement, but supports local jobs at the Port Talbot Tata Steel plant.

British steel is among the highest-quality steel in the world, and we should make better use of it. British-based certifiers have among the most robust standard regimes, particularly on environmental and social impact, so it is unusual to say the least that the Government appear to favour BES 6001, rather than the far more robust BS 8902, as the standard for reinforcing steel. No Chinese steel meets the stringent quality and sourcing criteria of BS 8902, so its adoption as the Government standard would help to protect against Chinese steel dumping and support high-quality British steel.

The fourth area on which we have repeatedly called on the Government to act is the dumping of Chinese steel on the British market, which is the greatest challenge facing the British steel industry. The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills is no fan of the European Union, but he seems to be a fan of hiding behind it. The Secretary of State and the Minister know that far more can be done to support the steel industry without the Government’s breaching state aid rules. The Government must work with Europe to deal with the issue of Chinese steel dumping. Last year, China produced 441 million tonnes of steel more than it consumed, much of which was dumped in the UK.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is making an extremely strong speech. I congratulate him on securing this debate. Given that a number of us have been raising the issue of Chinese dumping and providing detailed statistics and examples for years, not just months, is he surprised that the Government have taken so long to take action?

[Stephen Kinnock]

I am surprised. I believe that the Secretary of State had to look up Brussels on a map to work out how to get there last year.

The critical point is that the European Union sets the rules of the game, and it is up to the member states to invoke those rules and deploy defensive trade instruments. I would like to share something with my hon. Friend. I read a very interesting interview from 2012, which was posted on Twitter by Laura Kuenssberg. She interviewed the then managing director of Tata Steel in Port Talbot—[Interruption.] I know my hon. Friend is well acquainted with it. I apologise for that connection; I assure him that it was completely coincidental. Guess what the managing director of Tata Steel asked for? He asked for action on anti-dumping, on high energy costs, on public procurement and on business rates. We have had four years of inaction, and here we are again. It is like a nightmare version of “Groundhog Day”.

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

I commend my hon. Friend for securing this debate and for the way he is outlining the practical things that can be done. May I draw Members’ attention to the House of Commons Library assessment of the state aid interventions by other European countries, which are within the rules? We are allowed to do that. Germany’s bona fide support—it is not giving handouts—for its industry is twice the level of the UK’s. Does my hon. Friend agree that we are not doing what we can for the steel industry?

[Stephen Kinnock]

I agree entirely. I feel that our Government are not acting as they should because they are driven by a dogmatic, laissez-faire ideology that has nothing to do with standing up for British steel, British industry and the British economy. That laissez-faire ideology will never enable us to act as we should.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

It is worse than standing still. Over the past few years, the British Government have led a blocking minority on further reform of trade defence mechanisms. They are still doing so, despite Ministers’ denials in the Chamber. The Minister should explain to the House and the country why they are doing that.

[Stephen Kinnock]

An explanation would be very much in order. My hon. Friend makes a very interesting point about something I will come to shortly: market economy status for China. How is it possible for the Government to justify on the one hand saying, “We are standing up for British steel and British industry,” and on the other being China’s chief cheerleader in Europe and actively agitating for it to have market economy status? I look forward to the Minister’s explanation of that entirely illogical and unjustifiable position.

[Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)]

I want to reflect on the fact that Ministers are so terrified of the EU state aid rules, but seem to have breached EU public procurement rules by failing to tender for Hinkley Point C. Will my hon. Friend reflect on that discrepancy?

[Stephen Kinnock]

My understanding is that a very prominent and well-known producer of British steel has been informed by EDF that they are not allowed to tender on the basis of what appear to be spurious health and safety grounds. I encourage the Government immediately to carry out an independent evaluation of why that producer was not allowed to tender. Let us hear it from an independent evaluator, because at the moment it is somebody’s word against somebody else’s. It is the Government’s responsibility to step in once again and stand up for British industry, rather than sell it off to foreign bidders.

The rise in the market share of Chinese rebar, which went from zero four years ago to 45% of the UK market now, can be explained only by Beijing’s distortion of the market. Some 70% of Chinese steelmakers are state-owned, and the remaining 30% benefit from tax rebates that amount to a state subsidy. We are asking the Government not for special treatment for British steel, but for a level playing field and action to correct the market distortions. We are seeing not the forces of supply and demand working away, but a marketplace that has been hijacked by subsidised Chinese state steel that has been dumped in a previously perfectly well-functioning marketplace.

The Government should take action and show leadership, but they have been asleep at the wheel. Will the Minister explain what action the Government will take against Chinese dumping? Specifically, can she tell us whether the British Government support China’s being granted market economy status? A yes or no answer will do fine.

Just over a week ago, the Foreign Secretary said on the Floor of the House that

“it is through the prism of steel”—[Official Report, 12 January 2016; Vol. 604, c. 694.]

that Chinese market economy status should be judged. On that basis, we should say a clear and resounding no to market economy status for China. Time and again, the Government have acted as China’s chief cheerleaders in Europe—particularly on market economy status. They know that MES will cost British jobs and limit our ability to impose tariffs on dumped goods, but they are more interested in cosying up to China and making Britain, in the Chancellor’s words, “the western hub” for Chinese trading.

[Andy McDonald]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way yet again; he is being very generous. Does he share my concerns about the prospects for HS2? We hear that the Chancellor has had active discussions with the Chinese about the steel that will be used in that project.

[Stephen Kinnock]

I have heard the Minister and many of her colleagues assure us on the Floor of the House that a large portion of the steel used in the HS2 project will be British. I can only go on the Minister’s words. We shall see, as we have seen before, whether the Government’s words and actions match up.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, to ensure that UK steel is in a position to gain such contracts in the future, it is important that skills and new technologies are in place? There is a role for Government in that, too.

[Stephen Kinnock]

I agree entirely. There are two elements to this crisis. One is the short-term perfect storm that we are facing. The lack of Government support for building the industry’s resilience is a major contributing factor to that. The other element is equally worrying in many ways: the complete absence of a long-term strategy—nothing on research and development and innovation, nothing on investment, nothing on building our skills base and nothing on the long-term sustainability of such a foundation industry. As long as that long-term strategy is missing, short-term action will simply be treading water and running to stand still. We are in desperate need of a Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills who is prepared to use the words “industrial strategy” and then to do something about it. The issue of market economy status for China is a chance for the Government to stand up for British jobs, for British industry and for Britain.

Finally, all those failures clearly come together into a single issue, to which my hon. Friend referred: the absence of a long-term industrial strategy for the steel industry, with a commitment to strategic investment in skills, infrastructure, energy, and R and D. Why have the Minister and her Department still not produced such a strategy—a strategy to save British steel, to save British jobs and to save communities such as mine? In the first half of 2015, the Minister almost never appeared in public without talking about her Government’s “long-term economic plan”. She now has the chance to show that that was not all hot air. Now is the time for the Government to produce a long-term plan for steel.

Back in October I said it was 10 to midnight for the British steel industry. I finish by asking the Minister what time she thinks it is now.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

Order. Many Members are standing to catch my eye. If all Members limit themselves to 10 minutes, everyone will get in.

13:51

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Walker. It is a privilege to speak in this debate—yet another one on steel in this House. I apologise that I will have to leave part way through the debate for a meeting elsewhere about steel in Scunthorpe. The hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) is coming as well, so we give our apologies.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) on securing the debate and on his good opening speech. As he said, the campaign for the steel industry has been going on for a long while—the challenges facing the industry are not new at all. We have known about them since I was elected in 2010. Even since the steel summit in October—to give credit to the Minister, she was largely responsible for taking the energy from both Government and Opposition Members and moving the summit forward—the situation has become much worse. At the end of the summit we learned about the loss of jobs at Long Products, including in Scunthorpe. Since then we have had job losses in Rotherham and at Caparo Merchant Bar, and this week in south Wales and at Forgemasters in Sheffield. Things are getting significantly worse, not better, so the Government need to step up even more to the plate than they have done so far.

[Anna Turley (Redcar) (Lab/Co-op)]

I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) on securing this important and timely debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) referred to the steel summit in October. Does he agree that there were five very specific asks on that day that the Government could have implemented on the next Monday morning? Instead, they set up working groups, which appear to be little more than talking shops. Concrete action has been extremely limited.

[Nic Dakin]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the pressures for the steel summit was the awful news of what happened in Redcar, which really focused minds.

To be fair to the Government, in many ways we have a good Minister. She puts her shoulder to the wheel and tries to move things forward. I am sure that the situation is as tough for her inside Government as it is for us outside, but one of the Opposition’s jobs is to push even harder from outside—that is our responsibility.

Let us look at the five asks. Things have been delivered on energy costs, although the Government promised delivery of the mitigations three years ago, so it took them three years. That is not a track record of fast delivery; on the other hand, it is welcome that that delivery has taken place. There is still more to do. The funding from the energy mitigation is still not immediately getting to the people it needs to reach, so that one has still not been forced through completely, although it is welcome and the Government’s movement on that should be recognised.

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

Beyond the five industrial asks, which my hon. Friend is going into, another issue is the timeline for Long Products. Before Christmas, in autumn last year, the chief executive of Tata Europe, Karl-Ulrich Köhler, put a specific timeline on when Tata would say whether it would own, or not, every single Long Products site—that includes Dalzell, Clydebridge, TBM, Skinningrove, and Scunthorpe and all the sections within—and that was April this year. What does my hon. Friend think that the Minister feels about the pressing timeline, as well as the five industrial asks?

[Nic Dakin]

That timeline is pressing and the Government will be as alert to it as everyone else is in the Chamber or, most importantly, among our constituents. It is good to remind us of the timeline, because it is there and the clock is ticking.

The second industrial ask is about supporting local content in major construction projects. Again, the Government are to be congratulated on making progress. Much stronger guidance is now in place, which has the potential to make real changes. I stress “has the potential” —we need to see the guidance driven through, so there is a job for Government to do: to force it through. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon said, this needs to be driven through Government and other contractor organisations, otherwise it will remain a nice bit of guidance sat on a shelf somewhere, which will be no good to anyone. Although we recognise that the Government have moved forward on that, they need to move further—the job is started, but not done. The energy costs job was started, but it took us three years to get it done, so we need to keep up the pressure and keep our shoulders to the wheel.

The next industrial ask is about business rates and finding a way of not penalising capital investment in energy-intensive—or any other—industries. The Government admit that they have kicked any review of business rates into the long grass, but the issue needs to be addressed urgently. Business rates in the UK are up to 10 times higher than in France or Germany, which is significantly anti-competitive.

Let me turn to the industrial ask about taking anti-dumping measures. As my hon. Friends have said, the Government have been slow to get behind the wheel and get good trade defence instruments in place. At the moment the concern in Europe is about the issue of a profit margin of 1.5%, because that is a dangerous line to pursue and would not be beneficial to steel producers in the UK or elsewhere in the EU. I hope the Minister will encourage the Secretary of State to phone Commissioner Malmström to make the UK’s position clear about the need to support anti-dumping. Perhaps he has already called her, in which case it would be positive to hear what the Minister can report.

My hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon has already said much about the threat to the UK if market economy status for China is not handled properly. The UK needs to put itself in a leadership role in Europe. The Minister often shows leadership in the House of Commons on many issues, and she and her colleagues need to show that sort of leadership in Europe to ensure that the UK steel industry has a decent future.

Finally, support for research and development and environmental improvements is a big area of need. We need the Government to look at ways in which investment can be made so that the UK steel industry produces the right quality and type of steel to win the contracts of the future. That needs investment in R and D and in future skills, and that needs to happen now. We cannot wait until those opportunities are there; we need to be in a position to take advantage of them.

I hope the Government are looking at ways to make grants available or at using contra-cyclical loans or other imaginative ways to allow such investment to take place. Unless that happens, there will not be a UK steel industry in the future. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon said in his summing up, we need a steel strategy that takes those industrial asks into account. We have ticks in boxes that show that that has started, but we now need to move that forward and get it finished. That needs more time and effort from all of us in the Chamber, including the Minister.

14:00

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. I was not planning to speak, for the reason given by my neighbour, the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin), but I could not deny the Chamber the opportunity to have some wise words put on the record—that may be a subjective statement, but I agree with it. Like him, I will have to pop out of the debate at 2.30 pm to go to a meeting organised by Baroness Redfern with Greybull Capital, which will hopefully take over the site at Scunthorpe. We may be back with some asks from them for the Minister before the end of the debate—who knows?

I agree with a lot of what the hon. Gentleman had to say in what was a sensible contribution, as is usual for his comments on this subject. I do not need to go into the history and value of the Scunthorpe steelworks to our area and the thousands of people who work in it, but it is vital to the economy of not only north Lincolnshire but the whole of the Humber.

I want to thank and pay tribute to the Minister, who has bitten the bullet and given us, the workers and others in the industry a lot of confidence that she is on our side in the fight to retain the steelworks at Scunthorpe. I thank her for what she has done on that. A lot of work has already been done. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have done a lot with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr Letwin), in his role in the Cabinet Office and he in turn has done a lot of work with Shareholder Executive and all the rest of it to try, with the necessary support from the Government, to facilitate the sale, which we hope will happen for Scunthorpe.

I agreed with some of the content of what the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), who opened the debate, had to say, but not necessarily with some of the political points made. It is frustrating that the energy-intensive industries compensation scheme took so long to implement and get approval for through the European channels—the Minister and I will be on different sides of a debate on Europe in a few months’ time, so I will not labour that point—but that cannot be laid at the Government’s door. We welcome that support and the approval for it. I echo the comments that we want to see that paid as quickly as possible—we are all on the same page.

As for business rates, this is not as simple as some Opposition Members have tried to make out. As lawyers have told us repeatedly at the taskforce, a bespoke package for the steel industry will not be allowable under EU rules, and a review of a more general change to industry across the UK is complex and expensive, as we all know. It is therefore not as simple—as has sometimes been presented locally—as the local council writing off business rates. It cannot do that, because that is not legal under EU rules, so we should be honest about that. It is not the panacea that some have presented it as—“If only we had action on business rates, everything would be fine.” That is not the case.

I welcome the change in the procurement rules. I remind the House that this Government renewed the Network Rail contract, which was really important for Scunthorpe. I think we will all be in agreement in wanting to see as much of the High Speed 2 work as possible, along with other infrastructure projects, delivered out of Scunthorpe. To have the knowledge that that is in the pipeline will be really important in the decision that Greybull Capital makes with regard to Scunthorpe. I therefore agree with the comments made about that.

We also need to pay tribute to North Lincolnshire Council and Baroness Redfern, who have really engaged with the Government on every level. In particular, they have made some innovative proposals on how we can make better use of what is a very large site at Scunthorpe. I always remind the hon. Member for Scunthorpe that the site is so big that it is split across our constituencies. He has all the plant, but an awful lot of the site that is not utilised lies in my constituency and it could help secure its future, whether that is through looking at a use for renewable energy or at a business and enterprise zone. The council has been open to that and it has been impressive to hear how much other parties have welcomed its approach. The Minister and everyone involved in the ongoing discussions can be assured that whatever the council can do, it will do, to realise the asset in that site, which we hope will give some comfort to Greybull, the preferred bidder at the moment.

As for Chinese dumping, we have to remember—this is sometimes lost in some of the stuff that comes from the Labour party—that this is the first Government to have taken action on Chinese dumping. That is a change in approach and it has come under this Government, which is important.

[Stephen Kinnock]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Andrew Percy]

I will not, because I have only got a few minutes and other people want to speak.

Yesterday, at the Canadian high commission I sat down with a group to discuss the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. The Canadians—one of their chief negotiators was there—see such agreements as a potential mechanism for creating a defensive bloc against the practices that have been going on, particularly in the economies of that region. That is a message for the Labour party. I do not know what its official policy is, because I know technically it does not have one any more—the shadow Cabinet certainly does not have one—but on TTIP and CETA it needs to get into the right place, because they are a way to build a defensive bloc. I urge Labour to embrace agreements such as CETA and TTIP.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

rose—

[Andrew Percy]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman because he has not given a speech.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. The Government’s policy is to support China’s market economy status, whether inside the European Union or outside. Of course, that comes after the recent negotiations in Paris, at which China promised to meet its own internal emissions trading scheme. The Government’s position is to support market economy status before China implements any reduction in production or emissions, but I think we should use MES as a leverage tool before any agreement.

[Andrew Percy]

As I think the Minister said in the statement on Monday, the Government have not determined what our policy will be, and it is a matter that will have to be decided at a European level, anyway.

I agree with the comments that the hon. Member for Scunthorpe made about R and D. I do not need to repeat them, but I would have said something similar. There has already been some political knockabout and, as the Minister reminded us on Monday, Labour’s record on steel is not necessarily great either. The steel workforce was halved and, during Labour’s period in government, we lost workforce and plant in Scunthorpe and thousands of steelworkers were sacked.

Trident is really important for the industry. That is a message to the Labour party—its more sensible Members will understand its importance. An important issue raised by the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) at the steel summit was our position on the future of fracking and whether it provides a market for the steel industry, as it has in the United States. I am somewhat in two minds about fracking, not least because there are eight potential sites in my constituency at the moment. We need to get a grip on that industry and make a decision on where we are policy-wise.

I will end by thanking the Minister. When she has come to Scunthorpe and met us, it has always been on a cross-party basis. I was disappointed to see the Leader of the Opposition appear at a meeting that we were not invited to. When the Minister has visited, the hon. Member for Scunthorpe has always been invited. Clearly, a political game is going on there. That is not what steelworkers need. We do not need people coming up and giving simple platitudes, saying, “The Government can just do more.” Things are not that simple. The Government have committed to us to do everything they can. I am pleased to hear the Prime Minister talk about Scunthorpe being of strategic importance to the United Kingdom.

There will always be politics in this place, but visits such as the one made by the Leader of the Opposition, who turned up to the constituency and gave steelworkers a false impression of the simplicity of the issue, are not fair to anybody—especially not steelworkers. We have to remain on the same page on this issue. I welcome the work that the Government have done. There is more to be done, as I think the Minister understands, and we hope that everything will be done to support the sale to Greybull Capital.

14:11

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

May I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) and other hon. Members for their contributions? The speech made by the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) in defence of the Government was very bold; it was also very wrong. I do not say that politically, however. Every word I say today is based on the importance of the steel industry for not only the United Kingdom and south Wales, but the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon and those in Neath, Bridgend and Ogmore. The industry is important for not simply those directly employed by it but, as my hon. Friend knows from his area, those who are indirectly employed by it in the supply chain, which is around 1,200 people in our area. It is also important for every café owner, pub owner, plumber, electrician and tradesman who relies on the steel pound.

Do not accuse me today of making political points for the sake of it. I will speak from the heart, and I will speak on behalf of constituents who are very worried at this moment in time. I want to put that on record. The hon. Member for Brigg and Goole said that politics was being played, but I am not playing politics. I believe in the future of a viable, vibrant steel industry and the importance of that for the United Kingdom. I know he does as well, and while we may argue, we will do so on the basis that we firmly believe in the future of a steel industry.

The Minister has been credited in this debate and others as being doughty, feisty and a fighter with real capability. I agree, but I say to her quite directly that her important role in battling for the steel industry looks at the moment like an impotent one. I am sorry to say that, because there have been many good words spoken, and taskforces have been set up, belatedly.

The Government recognised late in the day that when they imposed carbon taxes three or four years ago—I say this as a strong environmentalist—they did not put in place the mitigation measures needed for energy-intensive industries. That should have been done at the same time for not only the steel industry, but ceramics, the paper industry and others. A thinking Chancellor would have worked that out and not waited three years. The approach has damaged the steel industry, and we need to put it right.

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend made an incredibly important point about environmental matters and carbon efficiency. Would it not be absolutely absurd for the UK’s highly carbon-efficient steel industry—whether in my own constituency, Port Talbot or elsewhere—to see its jobs offshored to the less carbon-efficient China?

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

Indeed; my hon. Friend makes a wise point. I commend the Government for their high-level negotiations at COP21 in Paris—tremendous. The UK led the high-level coalition of ambition. The EU led as well, and yet we could end up in a situation in which we are not only offshoring jobs, but offshoring them to countries that do not have the same standards of energy efficiency that we have at Tata Steel in Port Talbot and throughout the UK. It is in the interests of the climate to keep those jobs here in this country.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

There is another interesting factor here because if we look at Tata’s profits right up until the financial year 2007-08, nearly every slab coming off each site that Tata owned was being absorbed by the world market. China was consuming so much steel during the 12% to 13% growth period that the argument that China has been eroding British jobs over the past 20 or 30 years is false. This is a very recent phenomenon—it is in the past four years—and measures need to be taken now.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

Indeed. I believe that if any Government Minister could batter down doors and argue for a fully engaged, fully proactive and serious strategy that looks at the steel industry five, 10 and 20 years hence, this Minister could do it. I sense she is trying to do her best, but I suspect she is having some arguments thrown back in her face by others.

[The Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise (Anna Soubry)]

indicated dissent.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

The Minister will shake her head and say, “No, of course we’re all lined up on this, ” but the Government need to lay out the industrial strategy for steel, and lay it out with urgency, setting the timescale in which a range of measures will be delivered. The hon. Member for Brigg and Goole was absolutely right that no one measure will do this. There should be a package of measures on the table right now, and that includes at a European Union level. I know, as a former Minister who used to go to Europe, how difficult it is to negotiate out there.

My hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon and others outlined the issue of market economy status for China. In an open letter to the Minister, the general secretary of the steelworkers’ union Community, Roy Rickhuss, wrote:

“senior industry figures…have told me that if China does achieve Market Economy Status it will be a catastrophe for our industry and most likely the final nail in the coffin for UK steelmaking.”

The Minister does not want to see that, and I do not want to see that. In that case, we need to get this absolutely right. I need to hear—all of our constituents need to hear—from the Minister the approach of the UK Government to that matter.

The reality of granting China MES status was outlined in a study by the Washington-based Economic Policy Institute that was published last September. It stated:

“an EU decision to unilaterally grant MES to China would put between 1.7 million and 3.5 million EU jobs at risk”

by curbing the ability to impose any interventions on those dumped goods. That is the scale of risk, so we have the situation that we are already dealing with, and then we have that.

I know that the Government have been accused of being a cheerleader for China. Let me put it in a different way. Unless we hear something different from the Minister today, it will seem to many people that the Government either are proactively encouraging the opening up of markets at all costs, without any regard for not only steel but other industries, or are simply failing to realise—for whatever reason, whether ideological or otherwise—the importance of the steel industry to this country and our communities.

Let me close on this point. The steel industry has to be more competitive, as we know. When I was a little toddler in shorts, my grandfather would take me to the Baldwins steelworks in Gowerton. It was the most outdated steelworks—crikey! I remember the smell and the smoke, and the danger and the excitement of it. Those works are long gone, but Tata Steel Port Talbot and the other plants throughout the UK should have a future. They need an actively engaged Government who say, “Not only do we believe in the industry, and not only do we have the words, but here are the five or six measures that the industry, unions and the steel group of MPs are calling for.” Just do it, and we will throw our weight behind you.

14:19

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

May I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) on securing the debate? The support and turnout from Opposition Members speaks volumes about its importance. My hon. Friend articulately and ably made the case for more Government intervention on steel. I welcome the opportunity to talk about the impact of this week’s job losses, primarily on Llanwern steelworks, although I am mindful of the contribution made in my constituency by Tata’s Orb works and Liberty Steel.

The Prime Minister made great play of the employment figures at yesterday’s Prime Minister’s questions. I know that Opposition Members and people outside the Chamber who were watching him and hearing his words would very much have been thinking of the steelworkers, their families and those directly affected by the announcements this week. They are waiting anxiously as they watch the industry in crisis.

There was a statement in the Welsh Assembly yesterday. Edwina Hart, the Welsh Government Minister with responsibility for business, said:

“Behind each of the job losses announced is an individual, and in many cases a family, whose life has been changed”

by this week’s announcement. These jobs are predominantly outside London and the south-east, and they come with above-average salaries in areas of below-average income.

As my hon. Friends have said, steel is very much part of our heritage in Wales. Steelworkers, as we all know, take huge pride in the work that they do and what they produce. My hon. Friends in the Chamber know that all too well, not only because we represent steelworkers, but because many, like me, have family connections with the steel industry. I believe that the father of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) worked at Llanwern steelworks.

The job losses at Port Talbot that were announced this week affect Llanwern, too. The overall figures for job losses at Llanwern were not announced by Tata in this week’s press release, but that forms part of Port Talbot Strip Products. The people affected include those who were seconded to Port Talbot from Llanwern last year when the hot strip mill was mothballed. Any solutions should recognise that the future of Llanwern is very much tied up with the future of Port Talbot. In addition to the 750 jobs that are being lost across the sites—the majority are in Port Talbot, but Llanwern is also affected—there are job losses to come in support services and management. Any action to support steelworkers, technical staff and support staff should be mindful of the impact on the Llanwern site.

I welcome yesterday’s statement by the Welsh Government about what they can do to help. There is the taskforce, in which I hope the UK Government will play their part, action to help affected employees now, and a recognition that businesses in the supply chain will be hit, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore mentioned, along with local suppliers. The Welsh Government are looking at what can be done immediately and then at what they can do in the future on research and development, skills and training, business rates, for which they are responsible, and procurement, as was clearly set out in yesterday’s statement. The Welsh Government can and will do what they can to help, but they can only do so much. As my hon. Friends have ably articulated, we need UK Ministers to make good on the actions that were laid out extremely clearly by the industry and the unions at the steel summit, and to do so quickly.

Energy costs were discussed earlier today. The recent action involving compensation has been acknowledged, but UK Steel says that nobody is going to receive significant benefit until April. That is too slow, given the years that have been spent waiting for delivery, during which costs have increased again and again.

I wholeheartedly back the call for the Government to support anti-dumping action at an EU level. The UK should play a strong role in EU decisions over China and market economy status, and I fully support the comments that have been made so far on that.

Although there are new procurement guidelines, the Government must ensure that they are met, or we will let the benefit slip away to other nations. It is worth pointing out that Roy Rickhuss, the general secretary of the Community union, has said that the Welsh Government have a better track record on procurement than other Administrations in terms of prioritising community benefits. Perhaps UK Ministers could look at that and learn lessons from Wales.

From talking to Llanwern steelworkers this week, it is clear that their overall impression is that the Government have acted far too slowly. They have played their part with the unions in weathering the storm during difficult times to help to increase productivity in the business. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon put it well: we are used to the Government parroting the line about a long-term economic plan, but we need to see action from the Government, not just words, and steel must be at the heart of that.

14:25

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

It is a huge pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker, and to follow some of the excellent speeches we have had this afternoon, not least the very passionate speech we heard from the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies). If he succeeds in his ambition of gaining the seat in the Assembly for his constituency, he will be a great loss to this place, although I understand his aspirations to return home to the motherland once and for all.

We face two distinct choices as policy makers: first, do we just accept that the days of the domestic steel industry are over, that production in the UK cannot compete with cheaper production elsewhere, and that, in a global market, only the fittest will survive? Or secondly, do we stand firm in the belief that steel production is a vital strategic industry in Wales and in the UK, and that all options must be explored and taken to save the industry, much in the same way that the Treasury responded to the banking crisis in 2008?

Plaid Cymru and I are firmly of the second view, because it is difficult to comprehend the impact on the Welsh economy if steel production was to cease in our communities. Tata and its supply chain supports nearly 20,000 jobs in south Wales and, according to the Welsh economy research unit at Cardiff University, its operations are worth £3.2 billion annually to the Welsh economy.

The industry is undoubtedly facing a perfect storm of a glut of cheap imports from China, Turkey and Russia, as well as falling prices and rising energy costs. Reuters recently reported that Chinese imports of reinforcement bar steel have increased from zero to 250,000 tonnes a year since 2012—a quarter of the market, directly undermining Celsa in Cardiff which specialises in that product. I think the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) mentioned the figure of 45%, which is 20% more than the figure that I mentioned. That just shows the impact of dumping by Chinese steel producers.

We need action, as the hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) said, at all tiers of Government—at Welsh, UK and European levels—if we are serious about saving the industry. The Welsh Government are probably in the best place to move swiftly, and I welcome the establishment of the taskforce, although I hope it will be more about coming up with ideas as opposed to being seen to do something.

Employment costs are obviously one major cost for steel producers. Tata contributes £30 million in business rates across its three Welsh sites, with 40% being measured on plant and machinery. Business rates are devolved and a Welsh Government-funded business rate relief scheme based on plant and machinery is one obvious possibility, saving around £12 million. The choice is quite simply a 40% hit on business rates from Tata on a temporary basis or a 100% hit if its Welsh plants go.

Secondly, the Welsh Government should be considering a Welsh public stake in Tata’s Welsh steel operations. I notice that a similar policy is Labour’s UK answer to the difficulties of the industry, yet at a Welsh level, the First Minister has ruled that option out. I do not particularly want to make partisan political points today, but if Labour is not prepared to pursue that policy in Wales where it has the power to do so, why should anyone take their UK policy position seriously? Our position, which we have put forward this week in the Welsh media, has been supported by Gerry Holtham, a member of the Labour party and perhaps the closest to a rock-star economist that we have in Wales.

A public-private partnership to develop the planned power plant at Tata’s Port Talbot site would be a huge vote of confidence in the plant, making it more sustainable. The planning process would need to be streamlined—perhaps the hon. Member for Aberavon will want to talk about that when he winds up, given the discussion we had privately a few days ago.

I notice that the UK Government are willing to loan £400 million to Greybull Capital, a private equity firm, to help it purchase Tata’s Scunthorpe site. The UK Government should be looking at similar support for Tata in Port Talbot—or to the Welsh Government, or on a combined basis. That sort of intervention would constitute an environmental improvement and therefore, in my understanding, would be legal under state aid rules. If the UK Government do not pursue that idea, many in Wales will be left wondering why they are willing to support steel plants in England and not in Wales.

The Welsh Government must radically change their procurement policy to promote domestic steel—I disagree somewhat on that with the hon. Member for Newport East. They have by far the worst record of the Governments of the UK. Again, state aid rules should not be used as an excuse. Domestic producers are competing against heavily subsidised and state-owned Chinese steel. In other words, it is not a fair and open competitive market in the first place.

At UK Government level, we need a clear indication that Ministers are on the side of the industry. I note that only one Conservative Back Bencher is present, none from the Liberal Democrats, some from the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru, and many from the Labour party. If there were a groundswell of support for the industry from Government Back Benchers in a debate such as this, I can imagine what effect it would have on the Government’s mindset.

[Stephen Kinnock]

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the important issue of the power plant at Port Talbot, which has a green light for its planning. I understand that construction of the plant and its operation would save between £25 million and £30 million a year on energy bills for the Port Talbot plant, so it would be a huge saving and a great boost to the plant. Does he agree that it would be welcome if the UK Government and the Welsh Government came together in a dialogue, pooled resources and gave some support to Tata Steel, both financial and in kind, to facilitate construction of that plant?

[Jonathan Edwards]

I fully agree with the hon. Gentleman. That was the point I was endeavouring to make. A one-off capital cash injection could have tangible benefits and would be a huge vote of confidence in Tata at Port Talbot and the communities of south Wales.

I challenged the Prime Minister yesterday about the huge contradiction in cheerleading the case for China to have World Trade Organisation market economy status, which would make it impossible to impose tariffs on steel, while at the same time belatedly calling for unfair price tariffs against China. Many hon. Members have spoken about that so I will move on to my next point.

The UK Government have a defining choice. Do they put the interests of the City first and deliver their wish that London becomes a centre for trading in the Chinese currency, or do they protect manufacturing workers? I hope that, for once, they will put the communities I serve before the City of London.

Port Talbot, Trostre and most of the supply chain are in a tier 1 European Union assisted area. As I told the Minister during the debate on a statement last week, the UK Government should be looking at innovative operating aids to reduce employment costs, such as a national insurance contributions holiday. State aid is permissible under EU law if there is unfair competition or market failure, as is the case in this instance. We should be taking action now and pressuring the European Commission for a derogation. We cannot afford to wait years for a decision.

Similar to what the Welsh Government are doing, the UK Government should be looking at its procurement policies to ensure that domestic steel is used in large infrastructure projects. The hon. Member for Aberavon made a valid point about EDF.

The difficulties facing the industry are not, of course, confined to Wales. The UK Government should introduce a temporary reduction in business rates for steel in England. That would trigger consequential funding for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to help their industries within the devolved Government areas.

At European level, the Commission must wake up and smell the coffee. China is producing steel, selling it at below production cost and dumping it on the European market. It is a purely aggressive strategy aimed at decimating steel production in the EU. The Commission’s job is to act. We can contrast that with the response of the US Government who, according to Bloomberg, are taking steps to impose a 265% tariff on Chinese steel. As I have said, it is the UK Government’s job to press the Commission. If they refuse, my party’s call for the Welsh Government to have a direct role in EU decision-making processes to protect Welsh interests will become a battering ram.

The Commission’s investigations into Chinese steel dumping are taking far too long and its recommendations have been pitiful. For reinforced bar steel products, it recommended a measly tariff of only 9%. It is estimated that an investigation into coiled steel, which is made at Port Talbot, will take a year. The US—I am not usually a cheerleader for the US Government—takes only 45 days to conclude such investigations.

While European bureaucrats dither, Welsh workers are losing their jobs and the pace of action is simply not good enough. To those who argue that a Brexit is the solution to my complaint, I respond by telling them to look at what happened to the coal industry—we would be leaving the steel industry in the hands of a Westminster Government.

In reality, the steel industry in Wales faces massive challenges. I am informed that Tata in Port Talbot does not produce specialised products and therefore faces the brunt of the exports from China and other economies. The transition to a more modernised production system creating specialised steel will not be easy. It will require significant capital investment, but if we are serious about securing a future for steel production in Wales and across the UK, we need a range of temporary interventions to create breathing space for the necessary investment to be delivered.

In conclusion, this has been a deeply troubling week for Wales and our economy. The ongoing problems have been highlighted for a long time, yet the Labour-run Administration in Cardiff seem to stand passively by and do precious little, apart from blaming the UK Government. The Tory Westminster Government seem more interested in helping their friends in the City than in helping the working communities that I represent.

14:35

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker, for what seems the umpteenth time. My mother sends her regards again—private joke.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) on securing this important debate. The situation in his constituency at Port Talbot is grave, with devastating consequences for the community he represents, the prosperity of his local economy and the entire Welsh economy. It is also another body blow for the UK steel industry, which has suffered punch after punch in recent months. Since August last year, the industry has seen 5,000 job losses. One in six of all jobs in British steel have been lost in less than six months and there have been major site closures. We have seen redundancies and reductions in capacity in Redcar, Scunthorpe and Lanarkshire, as well as further job losses this week at Port Talbot, Corby, Sheffield Forgemasters, and in my constituency at the Tata Steel pipe mill.

In response to the acute crisis facing the steel industry, in autumn 2015, the Select Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills conducted an inquiry into the Government’s response. We published our report just before Christmas, saying that at the time of publication, and as a result of site closures and job losses, the steel industry was on the verge of terminal decline. The announcements this week make a serious matter even worse and run the risk of pushing British steel over the edge and facing a truly existential threat in a matter of weeks or months.

The Committee found that although the Government identified the steel industry as being of vital importance—a point that the Minister established and reiterated during her evidence—they were not alert to the many warning systems being raised by the industry and issues that had been raised for years. We found a lack of action at EU level and a failure by UK Governments to push for a co-ordinated EU approach. Other countries have safeguarded their steel industries against the onslaught of cheap Chinese imports in recognition of the strategic importance of their domestic steel making capability. The UK has not done that, leaving this country and its steel industry particularly exposed.

[Anna Turley]

My hon. Friend is making some extremely important points about the role of the EU in this crisis. As the situation was unfolding in Redcar, the Government made great play of saying they could do nothing to intervene because of state aid rules. My hon. Friend will share my concern that we have had agreement from the European Commission that research and development, developing innovation, supporting training and, crucially, employment, and protecting and enhancing the environment are all grounds on which our Government could have intervened. The Government have done too little, too late for Redcar, but I hope that for other areas they will step up and use those opportunities to get through the state aid rules they hid behind in Redcar.

[Mr Wright]

My hon. Friend has been a fantastic champion of the steel industry generally, and particularly in fighting for SSI and for it to be retained. She will know that EU state aid rules are often a smokescreen for lack of political will. An excellent programme on BBC 1 this week, “Inside Out North East and Cumbria”, looked at the plant closures here and compared them with how the Italian Government could keep steel plants open. There is a lack of political will, because that could have been done. SSI could have been at least mothballed.

[Anna Soubry]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Wright]

I certainly will, because I was interviewed for the programme and I know the Minister was too.

[Anna Soubry]

Yes, I was. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Italian steel plant was not a blast furnace? The blast furnace had been mothballed.

[Mr Wright]

I will come to mothballing of blast furnaces, because that is another key finding by the BIS Committee. We found that job losses, plant closures and factors that have worsened since we published our report just before Christmas mean that the prospect of any future growth in the steel sector had been irrevocably damaged. We regretted that Ministers were unable to prioritise preserving existing capability and retaining skills in the steel sector in particular.

The Minister talks about a blast furnace. The blast furnace at Redcar was one of the most efficient in Europe. My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop) talks about it as having been second only to Dunkirk, and he knows more about steel than anyone else I know. However, it has now been lost forever to the British manufacturing base. Why was it not considered for mothballing rather than cold closure? The cost of cleaning up the site is destined to be in the region of half a billion pounds, and that is likely to fall to the taxpayer. It is an absolute disgrace, and our manufacturing base has been forever undermined as a result.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

What are my hon. Friend’s thoughts about the fact that there was a vote in the European Parliament last Tuesday, when a Labour motion was passed, thank goodness, to look at reviewing the effect on steel of European state aid rules, whereas last December when there was a similar motion—looking at the European state aid rules, but also at the dumping of Chinese steel—Conservative Members of the European Parliament voted it down? What is going on? Why are we catching up? What does it say about the Government that they say one thing here and another in Europe?

[Mr Wright]

That is an absolute disgrace. We should all, regardless of where we sit and to which party we belong, be identifying steel as a major and important foundation industry for the British manufacturing base and having a co-ordinated approach to ensure that we can safeguard and retain those assets and, crucially, those skills as much as possible. If we are moving towards the high-value-steel end, where we are producing steel, metals, and materials that are stronger, more flexible and lighter, we need the skills to be able to do that. The 2,000 people in Redcar are not coming back to the steel industry. The 750 people in Port Talbot will in all likelihood not come back to the steel industry. And the hundreds of jobs in the steel industry that have been lost in my constituency will not come back. That is to the detriment of the British manufacturing base and the future competitiveness of the UK steel industry.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

My hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) has said that if I was ever on “Mastermind”, my specialist subject would of course be blast furnaces, given that I dealt with the mothballing of the Redcar blast furnace back in 2010. That was mainly down to the expertise of the area and people such as Dave Cox, who is a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Anna Turley). The real issue now—this sticks in the throat of most people—is the costs of having to maintain that site, which are about a quarter of a million pounds a week. Over the period of a year, that would have been approximately the same amount of money as it would have taken to pay for the three grades of coke that were sitting on a vessel just outside Teesport and which could have been brought in to save the Redcar coke ovens.

[Mr Wright]

Despite the fact that my hon. Friend says that his specialist subject would be blast furnaces, he is still a great colleague to go for a pint with. He makes a very important point, and I do worry about this. It is not just this Government but successive Governments who have placed short-term cost considerations over long-term value for our economy and society. That is incredibly important. For an industry that has been deemed to be strategic by the Minister, who has been a champion of this sector, the process seems to be one of chaotic yet managed decline. Can the Minister outline how much further she thinks the British steel industry will slide and what, for a strategic industrial sector such as steel, the right level of employment, capability and production is, both now and in the future?

We on the Select Committee acknowledged that the Government had recently woken up to the crisis and begun to take action, but today, exactly a month after the publication of our report and over three months after the closure of SSI and the steel summit on 16 October, no concrete steps have been taken. I am not suggesting that a silver bullet—or a steel bullet—could be fired to withstand the massive global forces affecting world steel demand and production, but swift action on the five asks from the steel industry could have provided a buffer for British-based steelmaking plants. I therefore have specific questions for the Minister with regard to some of the five asks. Can she outline how much extra cash has been provided to steel firms since the steel summit, in the light of the decision made on energy-intensive industries compensation? If steel is a strategic industry, why can a special exemption not be given for steel manufacturers in relation to business rates to retain some capacity?

[Anna Soubry]

It’s state aid rules. You know that.

[Mr Wright]

If the Minister will allow me to continue, why can investment in plant and machinery not be exempt for an uplift in valuation? On the issue of procurement, the Minister issued new guidelines in the immediate aftermath of the steel summit. Three months on, can she outline the value of the contracts that have been awarded to British-based steel firms as a result of those changes? Has work actually been put into steel plants as a result? What has the Minister done to talk to sectoral groups, such as the Aerospace Growth Partnership and the Automotive Council, to maximise the proportion of British steel used in successful industrial sectors such as aerospace and automotives? I am very pleased to see a Sunderland MP, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott), with us today. We on the Select Committee were told during our inquiry that Nissan in Sunderland—a great example of cost-efficient car production anywhere in Europe, if not the world—uses 75% British-sourced steel in the production of its Juke model. If Nissan can do that, why cannot others? What is the Minister doing to cajole others within supply chains?

[Anna Soubry]

Force them?

[Mr Wright]

No, talk to them in a strategic manner rather than force them.

When it comes to moving research and development into new technologies, renewables are a great way to secure a real, viable UK steel industry for the future, yet the Government seem hell-bent on ensuring that we cannot do anything. One example is carbon capture and storage. Real help could have been provided, certainly for steel on Teesside, yet that has not been provided. That is a shame. What can the Minister do to ensure real co-ordination for what is meant to be a strategic industry?

I want to finish on constituency matters. This week in Hartlepool, 62 job losses were confirmed at Tata’s steel plant. That is on top of the 80 jobs lost at the end of October, when Caparo Industries’ Hartlepool forging plant went into administration. Although Caparo, the national group, has been sold, the factory in my constituency remains closed. Unemployment in Hartlepool rose in December, and the jobless rate is two and a half times the national average. In Hartlepool, we simply cannot afford to lose these jobs and these skills from our strong manufacturing base.

I understand that the redundancies affecting Hartlepool are not on the same scale as those affecting Redcar and Port Talbot, but as I have just outlined to the House, the employment situation in Hartlepool is precarious. Given the real problem with the global price of oil going down to something like $28 a barrel and given that the Tata Steel plant in Hartlepool is a provider, in the supply chain, to the oil and gas industry, we are going to see even more problems, so what is the Minister doing to be alert to these warning signs in order to retain capacity? I have previously written to her, asking whether the same level of support could be provided to Hartlepool workers affected by Caparo’s closure as was the case with SSI. The Minister replied that that could not be granted, but I ask now, in the light of this week’s redundancies affecting Hartlepool, whether that decision by the Minister can be looked at again.

[Jonathan Edwards]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his speech. He has come up with some very interesting ideas and spoken with great passion. What would be his advice to his colleagues in the Welsh Government, who are deliberating on these issues now? If he was a Member of the Welsh Government—of course, a Labour Government—what things would he be directly calling for now?

[Mr Wright]

One thing that strikes me about these issues is this. As I said, these are global forces. The price of steel has halved. However, there seems to be a remarkable consensus from industry, unions, MPs and devolved Administrations about what could be provided as a buffer to help to safeguard the steel industry. The five asks from the industry are achievable and realistic and could be provided, but they have not been provided. It is a case of finding out from the Minister in her winding-up speech whether that will be the case.

The British steel industry is incredibly important as a foundation sector for much added value throughout our manufacturing base. If we lose the steel sector, we lose a large part of manufacturing. We cannot allow it to slide any further. We need to be acting. We needed to act years ago; we needed to act in the aftermath of SSI; and we certainly need to act now, in the light of further real trauma in the steel industry this week.

14:49

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

I do not intend to take up too much time, because there are hon. Friends wishing to speak who have had job losses in their constituencies in the last week or so in the ongoing steel crisis. However, I do want to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) and to the Backbench Business Committee for allowing us to have the debate. I also praise my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) for his excellent speech, and the fantastic BIS Committee report on steel. That excellent piece of work illuminated many points that we needed to look at and raise. It is because the all-party parliamentary group for the steel and metal related industry is one of the most effective APPGs in Parliament, especially for using Parliament’s time to raise issues in the steel industry over the past four or five years, that so many Members have spoken today on this important issue.

In the past week there have been redundancies in Port Talbot, Llanwern, Hartlepool, Trostre, Corby, Sheffield and South Yorkshire. As a former union officer for the trade union, Community, I know some of those sites well and some of the people individually. The redundancies come off the back of a situation relating to Tata long products and, of course, the well documented and tragic events in Redcar at SSI.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden), who raised a lot of issues about strip products. I will go into a few issues that my colleagues have gone into, but I want to check what industry is doing. I will be making critical comments about what the Government have and have not done but, as a trade unionist, I still wear my trade union hat and I still want to question what industry is doing. Employees trust employers to hang in there. I know that is very difficult for the industry at the moment. The five industrial asks are acute and critical, but I often ask myself what Tata—just one example—is doing regarding its relationship with this country.

I ask myself about Tata’s integrated industrial strategy in relation to Port Talbot, Llanwern and its own automotive sector. Jaguar Land Rover, as well as the rest of the automotive sector, is growing, developing and doing well but, irrespective of the fact that both companies are owned by the same parent company, one does not necessarily procure from the other. The Government have to step in and, not necessarily force, but certainly induce and use clever mechanisms to try to encourage ways and means by which that relationship could be bettered for workers in the steel industry. I find it hard—I am sure that colleagues do too—to make the argument that a parent company is not procuring from its own site. It is for not just the Government, but the very industries that sit in our nation to justify their industrial actions and procurement policies.

I have spoken at the Sheffield rally, as have my colleagues. A year ago, I managed to get our Front-Bench team to lead the debate on the UK steel industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) spoke from the Front Bench in that landmark debate. I believe that the issue of steel had not been brought forward as an Opposition day debate for some time, so it was a significant indicator of how bad the situation was getting.

[Stephen Kinnock]

On chronology, we hear very often from the Government that all the problems have existed for a long time and that many were building up on Labour’s watch from 1997 to 2010. I accept that point, but there was no Chinese rebar in the British market in 2011. Today, 45% of rebar is Chinese. In the past four years we have seen a total absence of action. The Government have been asleep at the wheel and the crisis has come to a head. It is important, for the record, that we recognise that the situation has come to a head over the past three to four years.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

Until 2008, which was a big year for the steel industry, profits were massive. Everything coming out of any plant was getting bought up. The demand in the world was so high because it was driven by Chinese growth. Any bit of steel—slab or whatever—was being absorbed by the Chinese market. Steel producers made very good profits, as did their workforce, who made very good bonuses. I remember negotiating terms and conditions, and pay and pensions for those workers at the time and they did very well.

The anticipation after that was that the lull in the market would pick up at some time but, if anything, it has remained the same. It has flatlined—never picked up. It is usually an indicator of world economic performance, and nothing has happened. In many ways, the best-laid plans always go awry. The real issue is the ability of Governments to react. For some time now, there has not been a proper reaction. There has just been an expectancy or a desire—a hope and a prayer—that the market would pick up again. If anything, it has been quite clear that the domestic policy in China has been to prop up its own industry while that market stays at such a low, with ever-increasing production and increasing emissions.

We must talk about the backdrop. The big factor, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool mentioned, is the “sheikhs versus shale” argument. There is a global, geopolitical war going on between oil and shale gas, as well as the onstream effects of renewables. They have forced down the price of oil, which has been a key factor for steel, whether that is in procuring contracts or gaining work, particularly at Hartlepool or Corby, where tubes are made.

There is a mismatch, in that the new markets developing for potential steel contracts and the R and D that could be invested in them differ very much from the steel sites that already exist. If we are looking at the new future for a tube site, it is more than likely going to be non-conventional onshore or offshore gas. The industry —we will be talking about this next week in a separate debate—requires a different type of tube, which is non-welded. There are no non-welded tube sites in Britain. At some governmental level, there has to be liaison with industry to find out what new industries are coming and to ask whether we are investing and helping those industries or potential suppliers to put in the new factories that will supply the product they require to develop that market.

This is the issue: steel or a steel strategy is one thing; what we really require is a real, integrated industrial strategy. That strategy should look across the piece and across regions to work out who needs to liaise with who to make whatever happen in the future. It should identify which industrial partners to bring on board and what they want to see, and ensure that investment is solid and sound and that we bring investors along with us to make those decisions work in our nation’s favour. There just does not seem to be any of that.

In the Chancellor’s autumn statement we heard that an announcement to the stock exchange had been made about the withdrawal of the last £1 billion to support carbon capture and storage. That is integral to any future of shale or non-conventional gas. In a world in which oil has fallen below $30 a barrel and the world market will retrench and retain fossil fuels for the current period, CCS should, in many ways—mainly because of the emissions targets that we are all now signed up to—precede renewables as the step for any nation to take to develop its power generation if, indeed, that country is going to buy in cheap fossil fuels while shale, oil and conventional gas all fight one another for customers. That is a massive opportunity for the steel sector to take hold of.

I have spoken so much about the steel sector, in relation to my local area and the whole UK. There is a positive story to be made for British steel, if we have an integrated industrial strategy. The Government could roll up their sleeves and actively engage with bodies, partners, business and finance to invest in the country. The right and adequate policy could be put down, with long-term futures secured, so that people know that their investments are sound and can deliver. However, in every single situation—for example, after the Paris climate change talks, when the world is looking at CCS as the future, and it is going to develop, the Government removed funding for it—we run away and concede the ground to competitors, which gives completely the wrong message to the industry we are talking about today.

[Stephen Doughty]

Signals.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

Exactly. We need to send market signals to potential investors to demonstrate that we have industries that link up with each other.

That brings me to defence. The future of sites such as Dalzell and Clydebridge in Scotland, which are linked to long products, is not certain. They produce the sonar-specific coated plate for the renewal of the four nuclear submarines, but they also produce the plate used for offshore renewable technology. That is where we have to shoot some sacred cows. There is no dichotomy between renewables—the green argument—and, say, the four nuclear submarines. Often the technologies are shared and cross over different markets.

We have to reassure steelworkers at those sites that we will be making the case for their industries and the products they make. However, their future is uncertain. Although the Government make a strong argument for the nuclear deterrent, I am not entirely sure where they are going to procure the plate from. What is the future for Dalzell and Clydebridge? Where is the sonar-specific plate going to come from if those sites are not bought and kept running? At the moment, Tata’s plan is to mothball them both. The certainty that the Prime Minister gives at the Dispatch Box about national security certainly is not there, and he has big questions to answer on national defence because those two sites do not have a certain future.

[Andrew Rosindell in the Chair]

On long products and the future of Skinningrove and Lackenby beam mill—TBM—in Redcar, we know that Greybull Capital is interested. We want those sites to have a successful future, and there is now a better prospect than under Klesch. However, I have not heard any certain clarification about long products per se. Most of what I read second hand is about the Scunthorpe site. The APPG has already pre-empted that in wanting to talk to Greybull to hear its intentions for Longs, but I want clarity for the men and women who work across all the Longs sites.

15:03

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I pay tribute to the previous Chairman, Mr Walker, for his handling of today’s proceedings. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) for securing this high-quality debate, during which important and passionate points have been made. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

The industry, as we have heard repeatedly, has gone through the most difficult and catastrophic times in recent years, but it is important to stop and reflect for a moment. Obviously, the ultimate tragedy for anyone in the steel industry is the loss or injury of a loved one, so I start by paying tribute to Peter O’Brien and Mark Sim, the two workers who were tragically killed at the Celsa plant in my constituency—it was a terrible day when I was informed of that. The plant is close to where I live in Splott. I have visited it many times, and it really is at the heart of the Cardiff South community. To hear of those deaths and the other injuries was a deep shock to everybody involved, and I pay tribute to those workers, their families and the entire Celsa workforce.

I will now reflect on the workforce in the steel industry as a whole. We have heard from many hon. Members about workers’ sacrifices and effort. Whether by accepting wage restraint or changes to shift patterns, they have done their bit to ensure that the industry has a viable future while it is buffeted by global market forces. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) spoke passionately about the role that steel plays not only across the UK, but particularly in south Wales. There is a backbone of steel running through south Wales from Llanelli and Carmarthenshire through Swansea and Port Talbot, through Bridgend and Ogmore, through Cardiff bay and into Newport. That is reflected on the Opposition Benches today.

[Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab)]

rose—

[Stephen Doughty]

It runs into Neath, too.

[Christina Rees]

Approximately 1,000 of my constituents work either at Tata in Port Talbot or at Trostre, and they are waiting to find out whether they will be affected, which would be devastating for them. Neath constituency is still reeling after what happened with coal.

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend sets out clearly how the situation affects her constituents. The impact on not only the directly employed workforce in all the plants and operations across south Wales and the UK, but all those working in the associated industries, cannot be overemphasised.

While we have the steel backbone that I described, we also have steel veins and arteries running out into many other industries—related manufacturing, training and expertise, and engineering. The loss of highly skilled jobs in the plants themselves has a knock-on effect on communities right across south Wales and the UK.

I pay tribute to the trade unions and especially Community, which plays a constructive role not only in these debates, but in facilitating the relationship between us and workforces in the plants to enable us to understand what is happening on the floor of the melt shop, and in the rod and bar mill, so that we can see with our own eyes the efforts that the workforces are putting in.

I will not reiterate a lot of points that I have made in previous steel debates, whether from the Front or the Back Benches. Instead I shall emphasise several of the points that have been made and ask specific questions of the Minister. I will focus on constructive solutions. I praise the work of the current steel Minister, and the Secretary of State for Wales has been open about and engaged on this matter with me and other south Wales Members but, to be honest, a lot of this is far too little, far too late. When I was elected in November 2012, one of my first meetings was about the steel industry. The Celsa management and I went to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to meet senior officials and Ministers. We presented detailed and carefully constructed warnings about what was happening in the market in terms of Chinese dumping and energy costs. We presented thought-through solutions, and we wanted to work together co-operatively and in partnership to find solutions. Unfortunately, a lot of the warnings were ignored.

I think back to a particular meeting I had in November 2014 in the Wales Office with the Secretary of State for Wales and the then steel Minister, who is now the Minister for the Cabinet Office. To be fair, the Secretary of State made an effort—I genuinely think that he cares about the future of the industry in south Wales—but I am sorry to say that that was simply not matched by the former steel Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and officials in the Treasury and elsewhere. There has been a constant battle between those in government who genuinely accept that there is a problem and want to do something, including the current steel Minister, and others who either act with typical Whitehall caution, saying, “Oh, we can’t do this, Minister. We can’t do that, Minister,” or are actively not interested at all and are pursuing a laissez-faire ideology.

[Stephen Kinnock]

The promises, and the lack of delivery on those promises, specifically on market economy status for China, have been a constant theme. China’s current non-market economy status will be up for review in December 2016. The first step in reaching a decision will be the European Commission making a recommendation. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is time for the British Commissioner, Lord Hill, to stand up for British interests in Brussels and to make it absolutely clear that the British Government will not support market economy status for China? Surely it is time for that promise to be made and, for once, not to be broken.

[Stephen Doughty]

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend, who is absolutely right. Such promises have been the hallmark of much of the relationship with Europe of this Government and the previous one. There has been a lack of engagement. We can argue about the reasons why, but things have not been followed through until far too late in the day. I know that the Minister will talk about the actions she took, which were very welcome—I praised her for them publicly—but that was the first action after many similar requests in terms of our relationship with Europe.

My hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon talked about market economy status, and my biggest concern is China. It is basic economics. The statistics show that Chinese steel exports have increased every year—they rose in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015. If we look specifically at statistics for the EU, we see an upward trend of Chinese exports since the start of 2011. In 2014, they increased by 53%. They peaked in quarter 4 of 2014 at 27.1 million tonnes, but in quarter 3 of 2015, a new record was set of 29.4 million tonnes, which was an increase of 17% in one quarter.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

To return to the point about MES, there is the issue of what our allies are doing and what China demands. China wants MES almost automatically, without debate. On the flip side, there was an OECD steel committee meeting before Christmas at which nations from around the world wanted to talk specifically to the Chinese delegation about the amount of dumped steel in their markets—this is not just a European Union phenomenon; it is a global one—and China did not attend. Those factors need to be raised by the British Government with the European Union. We should be looking seriously at MES, not just taking it for granted.

[Stephen Doughty]

I agree wholeheartedly. We have already heard about a letter from Roy Rickhuss, the general secretary of the union Community, to the Minister. The letter, which he made public, says clearly:

“As you will know, it is widely understood that the UK Government has taken a decision to support China’s bid to receive market economy status from Europe. This would be a complete disaster for our steel industry, as it would make it even harder for European producers to gain protection from unfairly traded Chinese imports.”

This is not just about what we have seen, as there are also issues involving the Chinese currency. Many experts agree that the recent devaluation suggests that there is an increased chance of further growth in Chinese steel exports and dumping into markets. We have discussed this in many debates, but there is also a problem that if China is exporting all that steel, and certain other countries and Administrations around the world are taking measures to prevent imports of that steel, the impact on the UK market will be even greater.

[Jonathan Edwards]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the point about currency devaluation. We have been in huge market turmoil since the new year. It is likely that the Chinese Government will devalue the currency further. If that happens, the problem is likely to get even worse.

[Stephen Doughty]

Absolutely. I would certainly be interested to hear the views of the Minister and experts within the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills about what impact that might have, and whether it is likely to increase the pressure further.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

To what extent does my hon. Friend think that the deal allowing Chinese currency to be exchanged in the City of London is affecting the Government’s decision to support Chinese MES?

[Stephen Doughty]

I would certainly be interested to hear the Minister’s response to that point. My hon. Friend rightly talked about an industrial strategy and having an overall strategic look at these industries and their interaction in the globalised economy that we face. There are tensions in government between the Treasury, BIS and the Department of Energy and Climate Change. The Minister may shake her head and wave her hands, but she knows that those tensions are there, and that there is not one voice on these matters in government. She works for a Secretary of State who, as we know, would not utter the words “industrial strategy”.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

Does my hon. Friend believe that maybe, just maybe, we need Treasury Ministers to attend these debates? Despite all the confidence that we have in this Minister, we are now in a situation in which, if we are to talk adequately about UK steel, we need to hear Treasury Ministers justifying decisions and views on things such as MES.

[Stephen Doughty]

That is important, because a whole-Government approach is needed. We saw the disjunction between DECC and BIS about the package for energy-intensive industries and the measures that were taken. The approach needs to be co-ordinated. The Chancellor has been warned repeatedly, and I have letter after letter from Celsa to him and Treasury officials. We ensured that we always kept them informed, but there was very little engagement by the Treasury.

I would be grateful if the Minister would respond to a number of questions. Given the welcome steps that have been taken on compensation, exemptions and so on, after all the changes come through, will companies be paying more tax or less? What will be the net impact of the introduction of the compensations and exemptions? This has been a key concern for the industry when big figures are bandied around. What will be the net impact on their balance sheets?

Secondly, on procurement—other colleagues have asked this, but I would also like to know—since the Government announced their various procurement measures on a UK level, has any work been given to UK steel producers that would not otherwise have taken place or that had not already been contracted? That point is crucial. Celsa played a crucial role in supplying rebar—I think it supplied some 45% of it—to the construction industry for the Crossrail project. Unless the infrastructure pipeline goes through, and without a commitment from the UK Government that major infrastructure projects—whether in defence, construction or major energy—will support UK steel, we will have a serious problem.

Finally, as the Chair of the BIS Committee and others have mentioned, what does the Minister think is the acceptable bottoming out of the steel industry in the UK? Does she have a sense of where it ends, or is this, frankly, just a managed decline? People want to know and understand the situation. If we do not have clarity of vision from the Government, we unfortunately risk continuing to be buffeted. We will lurch from one crisis and set of job losses to another, as has happened over the past few months, which we warned would happen. Can we prevent any further loss of the expertise, skill and national security provided by our steel industry, let alone the productivity?

I made this point in an intervention, but I cannot emphasise it enough. As somebody who believes in tackling global climate change, operating sustainably and having responsible industry, I find it absurd that we would offshore from this country steel jobs and production involving the most carbon-efficient methods, because that will result in more global carbon production and an increased chance of climate change, less security of steel supply in our own country, and less quality and safety of supply. Those are serious points that we must be aware of, which is why a strategic approach is required across Departments, with people all singing from the same hymn sheet.

I am proud of what the Welsh Government are doing to respond to the immediate crisis in Wales. I am proud of what the Economy Minister said this week and I am proud of what Carwyn Jones has been doing to respond, but a fundamental change in approach on working together is needed from the UK Government, because otherwise I do not know where we are heading.

15:17

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

We have had an amazing debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) for securing it, and for the leadership he has shown to Members from south Wales who are deeply concerned about what is happening.

The Select Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills has produced one of the best reports on the future of the UK steel industry and the Government’s response to the crisis that we could have asked for. It sets out everything clearly and succinctly. What I do not understand is why the Government are not grabbing it with both hands and running with it, saying, “Here’s the template. We know what to do; let’s get on with it.”

We have also had wonderful support from the UK steel industry in its briefings. Dear God—if any of us needed a clear example of what is happening in the world of steel, the briefings have laid it out succinctly. The charts are brilliant and demonstrate the decline that has been coming over the years, growing and growing and being ignored, and the crisis that is now upon us.

Perhaps one night I too will be able to go for a pint with my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop) and find out the totally fascinating character that I am told he is—a raconteur on the issue of blast furnaces. I look forward to that drink and conversation.

My constituency of Bridgend is right next door to Aberavon. One of my communities, which used to be a large council estate, in North Cornelly, was built to house workers for the newly established steelworks of Port Talbot, when it was expanding. I live in Porthcawl, and the town is full of people who used to work in the steel industry and who chose to retire there having worked in that industry. I was in a meeting on Friday with the First Minister, talking about how we would be dealing with the crisis—that is what it is. I hope the Minister takes on board what a crisis it is for ordinary families across south Wales.

Among the people who came to see me was a lady called Jen Smith. She has emailed me and talked to me about the issue, and about her fears. Her son works at the steel company. He has just bought his first house. She is worried about what will happen to his family and home if he loses his job. The family had plans to work on the house and develop it. They had a plan for perhaps a new kitchen or bathroom, and for decoration. All the small companies that my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) mentioned will lose that work; so it is not just the steel industry—everyone else in the south Wales business community will be devastated by the job losses. There is an impact on people’s sense of security and worth. Their trust that work will be there for them in future has been undermined. That is the huge worry that we are here to talk about: not just the steelworks but the confidence of people in Britain that manufacturing jobs are safe jobs. That is a huge and frightening problem.

The excellent report from the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, which I cannot commend enough, talks about steel being supplied to

“multiple strategic manufacturing and construction supply chains”.

I spend a lot of my time talking about defence and security issues, and in that context we often talk about the importance of sovereign capability: the things that Britain needs to maintain, to be safe and secure—things that we cannot let go. I have to ask Members whether they can imagine Britain in 1913 and 1914 saying, “We can let the steel industry go. We can allow our capability to manufacture our own defence capability slip.” No, they cannot imagine that.

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point about national security capability. Celsa in my constituency produces rebar, which is used in reinforcing steel, and that is often used to reinforce important buildings. I know that Celsa tests it rigidly, and knows exactly what goes into it. There is regular testing—I have seen the steel being tested. How will we have those assurances if we import stuff from China, where there are not the same safeguards, particularly in relation to defence and security projects?

[Mrs Moon]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, who has done valuable work fighting for his constituents, to make sure our cherished and valued capabilities stay within our national infrastructure. I cannot imagine how we would have fought the second world war if we had not had our steel industry and been able to manufacture the steel that kept our fleets and troops going, and our tanks rolling across the countryside.

We must stop thinking of the issue in terms of China and its need to dump its excess supply of steel on the European market. I understand what China is doing. It faces its own economic crisis and needs to keep its workforce going, because it does not want instability.

[Stephen Kinnock]

We understand, of course, that the Chinese economy needs to grow, and China has every right to do that, but does my hon. Friend agree that potentially there is an agenda about dumping? That agenda is to dump the steel, drag the price down, kill the British steel industry and, as soon as that has happened, move in and put the prices up: profits go back up and we are nowhere to be found.

[Mrs Moon]

My hon. Friend has stolen my best line. That is exactly where I was going in my speech. The dumping is helping China in the short term to keep a workforce going, but let us be honest: it has a long-term agenda of destabilising not only the British but the European steel industry. We are our own worst enemies, because we are allowing that to happen. It is time we were realistic and said no. There are opportunities that we can take, and there is a simple one: we can say no to the Chinese market economy status. We can say that; we can do that; we can fight for that. I do not understand why we are not doing it.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

I referred in my speech to the Washington-based Economic Policy Institute, which looked at the scale on which jobs would be lost if we gave pure unilateral market economy status to the Chinese. The work also showed that the impact could be as much as 1% or 2% of GDP across the European Union. If that is not cause for Ministers to go out and argue and play hardball, what is? It is a question of jobs and economic growth—all of that. There is a time when we must stand up. If we agree that the issue is strategically important, we fight for it tooth and nail.

[Mrs Moon]

What is inspiring today is the fact that we are all here doing that—fighting tooth and nail. I know the Minister. We have worked together on defence matters and have a history of sparring across the Chamber, but we also have a history of working together constructively. I hope we are able to carry that on, because there is an unfairness of status in this situation. China can ignore climate change in a way we cannot. It is not bound by the high cost of energy, because it subsidises its companies in the use of energy. It has quadrupled its output of steel since 2000, so its plan has been quite a long-term one. We must deal with the market distortion and think about how we protect our own industries.

The wonderful Business, Innovation and Skills Committee report points out that over the past four decades production in the UK has fallen behind production in France, Spain, Italy and Germany, and that, in those countries, support within the European rules has protected their critical steelmaking skills and industries, helping them to withstand some of the global competition much more efficiently and effectively than we have in the UK. It is important that we look at the five asks. Those are not the Labour party’s five asks. They are the steel industry’s five asks. The issue is not a party political one. The steel industry says, “Give us these, and we have the opportunity to move forward.”

On business rates I want to raise one issue. I was deeply concerned about this at the statement on Monday. My hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) and I both raised the issue of assistance in terms of business rates. The Minister replied, saying, in relation to the Welsh Assembly: “They wanted that”—business rates—

“as part of their devolution settlement, of course. There is a good argument that if one gets what one asks for, one has to take the consequences.”—[Official Report, 18 January 2016; Vol. 604, c. 1144.]

Well, the Welsh Assembly cannot make the changes to business rates that will bring the exemption for plant, equipment and machinery, which is what we are asking for, and therefore we need the Minister to address that issue and take it forward constructively.

[Anna Soubry]

Can the hon. Lady tell us why the Welsh Assembly cannot do it?

[Mrs Moon]

Because the legislation is primary legislation that will come out of the Westminster Government.

I do not want to take up additional time, Mr Rosindell, but if we can meet the five asks, we can save an industry that we all know we need, not only for this country’s economic future and economic stability but for its strategic defence and security.

15:30

[Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)]

Thank you, Mr Rosindell, for calling me to speak, and I also thank Mr Walker, our previous Chair.

I could stand here and individually thank all the Members who have contributed so much to this debate, but I will refrain from doing that. I will just thank them collectively, and then thank one or two of them especially. First, I thank the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) for securing the debate with the backing of fellow colleagues on the all-party group on steel and metal related industries.

Ravenscraig, which is in my constituency of Motherwell and Wishaw, was once the beating heart of the European steel industry and on closure much of the plant was sold to China. The Ravenscraig site is still mostly a barren wasteland, which is an issue we continue to deal with on a daily basis. All that remains of our steelworks is the Dalzell plant, which is only minutes from my office, and the Clydebridge works, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier).

As well as providing jobs to the communities across Lanarkshire directly and indirectly for generations, our steelworks are a source of pride. Some of the finest steel in the world was produced in Motherwell and it was still being produced until recently. For people in Lanarkshire, our steelworks are iconic and represent the decades of industry that are the foundations of our community. Our legacy is now in danger and so, too, is the legacy of towns in both England and Wales that also have a proud industrial past.

The reaction of the UK Government to the crisis that we face will determine whether or not steel will merely be a memory in our towns and villages or an industry that can remain for generations to come. The Scottish Government have some of this responsibility as well. However, I believe that both Governments starkly contrast with one another in their reaction to the steel crisis.

The Scottish Government reacted within four days of the announcement of the closure of Dalzell and Clydebridge. They set up a steel taskforce, which I am a member of, to find a buyer for the plants, emphasising our commitment not only to strengthening and building our steel industry but to the wider manufacturing sector. Working with the community, Unite, GMB, Tata Steel, Skills Development Scotland, Scottish Enterprise, Transport Scotland, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, the UK Government, North and South Lanarkshire Councils, the Scottish Trades Union Congress and others, the Scottish Government have vowed to leave no stone unturned in finding a new owner for our steelworks. They have invested £195,000 in a support package to retain and upskill key staff, to ensure that plants can reopen quickly as and when production resumes. Working with Skills Development Scotland, those workers will also be upskilled. The training will provide them with a mix of skills in varying fields, including management and new processes.

For workers who have unfortunately worked their last shift at Dalzell and Clydebridge, the Scottish Government have created a project to get ex-steelworkers back into work through the Partnership Action for Continuing Employment scheme. The Scottish Government have agreed with the business rates assessor to ensure that the state of the business will be taken into account in the 2017 revaluation. The Lanarkshire Valuation Joint Board is open to agreeing and pre-agreeing the 2017 valuation with any new operator, to save the plants hundreds of thousands of pounds.

The Scottish Government have also looked at the efforts of other steelworks to reduce energy costs by using renewable energy and investing in energy-efficient furnaces. Scottish Enterprise has been invaluable in that process. It has been working with Tata since before the plants’ closure in an effort to bring down energy costs.

Holyrood has almost exhausted the powers available to it to aid our steel industry. Already, two potential buyers have expressed an interest in our Lanarkshire plants, which is surely testament to the hard work of the Scottish Government’s steel taskforce. We recognise that it is essential that our domestic economy is diverse, so that it can provide employment to those with differing skill sets and aspirations, and not just to those with the skills for the service sector.

Steel in particular is an essential, strategic resource required for a range of purposes, and I thank the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop) for referring to both Scottish plants and the contribution they make in that regard. However, the importance of steel in realising those interests is continuously ignored by the UK Government. Time and time again, they fail to take the urgent action that is required, putting further steelworks at risk, as per Port Talbot, Redcar and other plants that are extremely vulnerable and that have suffered great losses.

The Scottish Government have made tremendous efforts to find a new owner for the Dalzell and Clydebridge works, but the powers to resolve the underlying problems facing our steel industry do not lie in Edinburgh; they lie here in London. For years, trade unions and the steel sector have warned both this Government and the previous one about the fragility of the steel sector and the challenges affecting it, but those warnings fell on deaf ears. The dumping of inferior Chinese steel on the markets and extortionate energy prices have crippled the steel industry.

Even now, the British Government merely respond with too little, too late, to aid our steelworkers. They have finally gained EU approval for rebates under the energy-intensive industries compensation scheme, but where is the cash? I remind the House that there was no such delay in intervening to save the lavish lifestyles of London bankers. There is no urgency to save the livelihoods of steelworkers in Lanarkshire and across the rest of the UK.

Last year, the Prime Minister welcomed the Chinese President to the UK to seek ever-closer ties and to discuss trade as our steelworks went into meltdown. He gave only the promise that he would raise the issue of Chinese steel being dumped in Europe and gave no indication as to how strongly he would defend our steelworks. We should not seek to open our markets further to China or allow China to gain market economy status, as alluded to—

[Anna Soubry]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Marion Fellows]

No. I would like to continue at the moment.

As I was saying, we should not allow China to gain market economy status, as alluded to by the hon. Member for Aberavon. To do so would make it near-impossible for our workers to compete, pitting worker against worker in an impossible race to the bottom. Have the Government sought to address that imbalance by strangling our trade unions and attempting to repeal the Human Rights Act, all in the hope that we may finally be able to compete with the Chinese, who have an atrocious record on workers’ rights? The Tories have embarked on an ideological crusade to roll back the state and to deregulate our economy, allowing big business and executives to decide what is important to the country and what is not.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

As part of the future for Dalzell and Clydebridge, does the hon. Lady see the integrated nature of Scunthorpe, Dalzell and Clydebridge being maintained in order that we retain virgin steel creation within the United Kingdom?

[Marion Fellows]

I think there is an issue about whether Dalzell and Clydebridge will be maintained by one of the buyers as part of the deal to buy long products. That will be important, but the real issue that the plants face is rising costs, and that is what the Scottish Government have been trying hard to cover.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

I made that point because the integrated nature of long products sustains each mill. In effect, we have one site spread over a geographical distance, and in many ways that reflects the United Kingdom. That is why I am asking the hon. Lady whether she thinks it important for us to keep that blast furnace link from Scunthorpe to Dalzell and Clydebridge, through which we can help sustain virgin steelmaking in blast furnaces in the United Kingdom.

[Marion Fellows]

To answer the hon. Gentleman, I have doubts about and issues with what he says. I want production to continue, but I want Dalzell and Clydebridge to be able to continue in any case. It may be that the best route for them is another road if someone does not want to buy the whole long products division.

The laissez-faire approach is endangering our steelworks and our manufacturing base. I hope the Prime Minister, in his future negotiations on the UK’s position within the EU, seeks radical reform to state aid rules and the ability for states to favour domestic products in the tendering process. As the hon. Member for Aberavon said, the Secretary of State needs a map to find Europe while Scottish Ministers are battering on the door to represent UK fishing rights, for example, where they have real expertise and experience. I do not believe the UK Government are constrained from developing and bolstering a strong steel sector. I believe that what constrains them from saving our steel is their priorities, which are mainly raising their military profile, cutting public services and cutting tax for the richest while the poor are hammered.

The Prime Minister was willing to grant an audience with the Chinese President and Lincolnshire MPs, but when he was asked to meet Lanarkshire MPs, he gave no such courtesy. I very much enjoyed meeting the Minister in his stead, and thank her for her time. The Government show contempt for steelworkers in Scotland. In an address to the House, the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills failed even to mention the Scottish plants. More recently, the Minister referred to the UK’s steel industry as consisting basically of Scunthorpe, Port Talbot and “other bits and bobs”. Those “other bits and bobs” are a source of pride and livelihood for communities across the UK, from Motherwell to Redcar to Port Talbot.

I hope for the sake of my constituency that a new owner is found for our steelworks. The Scottish Government have gone to unprecedented lengths to secure a future for Scottish steel. I give my sympathies to people elsewhere facing a similar uncertain future. The UK Government should note that people in Scotland are watching this Parliament. The UK Government saw no issue or hindrance in bailing out bankers, but they see only roadblocks to intervening and saving our steelworks. They are allowing a core industry of my community and this country to crumble. I hold in my hand a copy of the strategic framework for supporting the steel sector in Scotland. The UK Government should have an equivalent. Do they? I don’t think so.

[Anna Soubry]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Andrew Rosindell (in the Chair)]

Order. Has the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw finished?

[Marion Fellows]

Yes, I have. Thank you.

[Andrew Rosindell (in the Chair)]

The hon. Lady did not give way. I call Kevin Barron.

15:43

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Thank you very much, Mr Rosindell. It is not the first time I have been called Kevin Barron, even though that is not my name. On one occasion I was briefly knighted by the Daily Mail online, much to my surprise. I am not Sir Kevin Barron; I am much more shovelry than chivalry.

[Andrew Rosindell (in the Chair)]

Order. I apologise.

[Kevin Brennan]

We are very grateful, despite that slight slip on your part, Mr Rosindell—it was very uncharacteristic—that you are chairing our proceedings today. You are very welcome in this Welsh-majority debate. I know that you were left off the list of English MPs the other night when we had the first vote under the execrable new English votes for English laws arrangements in the House of Commons. I hope you feel you are receiving a warm welcome from your Welsh colleagues, who would like to be on an equal basis with you as MPs. Perhaps we can change that ridiculous rule in the future.

Let us get to the debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), who made an excellent start in kicking off the debate. He speaks from great knowledge, given the location of the Port Talbot steelworks in his constituency. He described the Government’s approach to this issue as “warm words” and “frozen actions”. He made a powerful case, I thought, on the Government’s failure to act on dumping and on market economy status for China. He challenged the Minister to say how close we were to midnight in terms of the future of the steel industry, and we would very much like to hear her response.

We also had a contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin), who pointed out that the situation facing the industry has got much worse since the steel summit on 16 October. He listed all the jobs lost in the steel industry since then. He speaks with tremendous expertise on the industry, and he should be listened to.

We had a contribution from the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy). In making a political speech, he seemed to be criticising politics being carried out in the House of Commons. When he expressed shock, or feigned shock, about politics occurring in this place, he reminded me a bit of Captain Renault in “Casablanca” complaining about gambling at Rick’s establishment. The hon. Gentleman, however, has a close constituency interest in the subject and, when we are not jousting across the Chamber, he works closely and across parties with colleagues in the interests of his local steelworks.

The next speech was a passionate one by my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies). He will be a great loss to this place when, we hope, he becomes the Assembly Member for Ogmore in the near future. He spoke well about why the Government had not introduced the necessary mitigating measures at the same time as the carbon tax. They should have been introduced at the same time, and he outlined the scale of the consequences if market economy status is awarded to China without any attempt to leverage from the Chinese an end to the dumping of steel in European markets.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) sent a note to me, as she did to you, Mr Rosindell, saying that she could not stay for the whole debate. She is the Member of Parliament for the Llanwern steelworks and she, too, spoke passionately. She mentioned the work of the Community trade union and Roy Rickhuss, whom I first worked with many years ago on the Allied Steel and Wire pension problems when I first became a constituency MP. She also mentioned the work being undertaken by the Welsh Government.

The hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) made an important point about the small 9% tariff that the European Union appears to be planning in relation to rebar. That is too little and too late. I saw the Minister nodding when the hon. Gentleman made that criticism, so I hope she will tell us what the Government are doing to persuade the Commission that it has not done enough on those short-term measures. At the same time it would be nice to hear about what is really going on with the long-term reform of trade defence mechanisms and what the UK Government’s game is in that. The Minister shakes her head from time to time, but the Government have been involved in organising a blocking minority in the European Union on the long-term reform of trade defence mechanisms. If we are to have a future for our steel industry, that reform will be vital.

We also heard from the excellent Chair of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright), whose excellent report is available at £10 from good bookshops and Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. [Interruption.] I am sure he will tell us it is also free online. He spoke with tremendous knowledge, expertise and passion about the failure of the UK Government to push for a co-ordinated European Union approach, and about the failure to retain blast furnace capacity at Redcar, which has been lost, as he pointed out, because of the lack of effort by the Government. [Interruption.] From a sedentary position, the Minister suggests that she is considering nationalising the steel industry to achieve these aims.

Nationalisation is not necessary. This is not a choice between inaction and a laissez-faire approach to the steel industry and the full-scale command economy ownership of all of the means of production in the steel industry. It is about an active industrial policy and Ministers using all the levers at their disposal, including their influence and every Government Department, including the Treasury, and using their imaginations in working with industry to bring about the saving of the capacity of this country to produce steel. That is what is at the heart of this debate. There is a question that the Minister will have to answer at some point about the Government’s view on the minimum strategic capacity that they believe they can allow the industry to go no further beyond. However, I will come to that question further into my remarks.

My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop) talked about blast furnaces. If there was a professorship of the blast furnace, he would be the professor. He raised very appropriate questions about what industry is doing. In his remarks, which bear reading and studying, he showed a real vision for the future of the British steel industry that the Minister would do well to listen to.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), who is also my neighbour, who is literally a doughty defender of his constituents, rightly referred to the tragedy at the Celsa plant and the deaths of two of the workers there. He also raised the big question about the strategic level at which the British steel industry should be protected. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) spoke well and with clarity and passion, as always, about the human impact of the job losses at Port Talbot, and the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) spoke with sincerity about her constituents and about the impact the changes will have on them. Also, perhaps not purposefully, she showed the importance of the UK for the future of the steel industry, because for us to have a strategic steel industry there has to be a certain level of scale and integration, as my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland pointed out.

Now, who have I missed out? [Interruption.] I think only one Conservative spoke and I have referred to him.

Like many people here—anyone from south Wales probably has links to the steel industry—I come from a family whose life chances were pretty much determined by and strongly influenced by the steel industry. My father was part of the group of people who helped to build Llanwern steelworks in 1962. On my birth certificate, his occupation is listed as a platelayer. He was involved in bringing the railway line that was necessary for an integrated steel plant into Llanwern steelworks, and then he stayed there and got employment at the new steelworks for the rest of his working life. Indeed, before I went to university, I had an opportunity to work at Llanwern steelworks for six months, where I worked mainly in the steel plant, but also as a platelayer, which was a rather nice rounded end to that period of my life—as a platelayer, replacing and maintaining railway lines within the steelworks at Llanwern. That is why we hear—I know the Minister understands this—the passion that comes from my hon. Friends and colleagues. They understand how steel underpinned their life chances and the life chances of their constituents and their communities. The availability of well-paid, stable employment in their areas was the foundation of the creation of the life chances of many of my hon. Friends here today.

[Mr Iain Wright]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Christina Rees]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Kevin Brennan]

I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Christina Rees) first, who I forgot to mention, but who intervened on behalf of her constituents.

[Christina Rees]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend about life chances. My father worked at the site of the Steel Company of Wales. The Abbey went into the Steel Company of Wales, which moved on to Tata. When I was a schoolchild I played hockey at the Steel Company of Wales—it was the centre of the community. As for life chances, it put food on our plates at home. The threat of the closure of Trostre and Port Talbot is more than I can contemplate, given the devastating effect on communities.

[Kevin Brennan]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I know that the Minister understands this, but it is important to make it clear why Members feel so passionately about the importance of maintaining the steel industry both as a strategic asset to the country, and as the underpinning foundation of many of the communities we represent.

[Mr Iain Wright]

My hon. Friend is making an incredibly eloquent and moving point about how steel is in his blood, as it is in the blood of other hon. Members. Both my grandfathers were steelworkers in Hartlepool, so this is important for me personally, as well as for my local community. However, can we not fall into the trap of talking about the British steel industry as somehow in the past? It is vital to ensure that we have a vibrant and competitive steel industry for the future to make sure that we remain competitive in the world markets for manufacturing and much of our supply chain.

[Kevin Brennan]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of my central points is that the British steel industry is competitive. I freely admit that the British steel industry of the past often was not competitive, often had poor industrial relations and weak management, and sometimes had, in the distant past, very low productivity. However, over the years, it has become one of the most efficient industries anywhere, with some of the best working relationships between workers and employers, because of their understanding of the common interests that bind them together, and because of the workforce’s desire to ensure that the British steel industry has a future, with them often prepared to make real sacrifices to enable that to happen. That is why we have such a competitive steel industry. The only sense in which it is not competitive is because of the issue raised by many Members today: Chinese dumping of steel at well below what it costs China to produce.

China’s steelmakers, 70% of which are state owned, are not profitable, and, according to our UK Steel briefing, are believed to lose close to $34 per tonne on all crude steel produced in China. In 2015, they produced 441 million tonnes more steel than China itself consumed. China’s 101 biggest steel firms lost $11 billion in the first 10 months of 2015. In 2003, China exported 7.2 million tonnes of steel, which was 5% of the steel trade between the main global regions; by 2015, total export levels from China had exceeded 107 million tonnes.

It is impossible for the highly competitive and efficient British steel industry to compete with a state entity of that size—the country contains one in five of the world’s population—that is determined to use that capacity to kill off its competitors and to destroy the British steel industry. That was what was going on while Ministers were talking to Chinese officials when they were over in the autumn. At the same time as its officials are smiling and talking about future trade deals, China is pursuing a policy of deliberately killing off the British steel industry.

[Mrs Moon]

Does my hon. Friend agree that if we do not successfully beat this back in relation to steel, other industries will follow? It is not just about steel; it is about Britain and Europe saying no and defending our industries.

[Kevin Brennan]

I fear that my hon. Friend may well be right. It is clear that the Chinese state is absorbing the losses to kill off the competition, which is why it is essential that we have a UK Government who understand that and are prepared to take the action necessary to protect the strategic asset that is the UK steel industry.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

It is worth remembering that the Redcar blast furnace was constructed by the Callaghan Government in 1978 and 1979. There was supposed to be a second furnace, but that mysteriously disappeared after the change of Government. The current world market is effectively a free market for China, and it is interesting that the one nation with a state-owned steel industry is dominating the market. That is not a defence of a nationalised steel industry, but it is certainly something that Ministers should pore over when they consider which policies, regulation, instruments of trade defence they should be implementing in the steel market.

[Kevin Brennan]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I listened carefully to what the Prime Minister said about market economy status in yesterday’s Prime Minister’s questions. It was clear from his tone, demeanour and words that the Government have already made up their mind that they are going to ease the path to market economy status for China, rather than putting up a real fight for the British steel industry.

[Anna Soubry]

Oh God!

[Kevin Brennan]

We all like the Minister immensely, but although she sighs and she huffs and she puffs, anybody with two eyes and two ears could see and hear what was going on at Prime Minister’s questions yesterday.

[Nic Dakin]

My hon. Friend will have heard the Foreign Secretary say last week that market economy status will be judged through the prism of steel. We need to hold the Government to those words.

[Kevin Brennan]

Indeed. We need to know what is going on regarding market economy status. Let us have some transparency from the Minister. I visited Brussels last week with the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), to talk to officials, including Britain’s European Commissioner, to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon referred, along with representatives from UKRep, officials from the Commission and Members of the European Parliament. Following that visit, it was absolutely clear to us that the UK Government have the door to Chinese market economy status wide open.

[Stephen Kinnock]

Another important avenue to explore is exactly what deal the Prime Minister did with President Xi Jinping on the China visit.

[Kevin Brennan]

Indeed. I am not sure whether the Minister was party to that deal, but it would be interesting to hear what she knows about it.

As hon. Members have said, the Government must give a much clearer signal about their position on the minimum strategic capacity of the British steel industry.

[Jonathan Edwards]

The hon. Gentleman is making important points, but will he help me out with something? In November last year, at Labour’s eastern regional conference, the leader of the Labour party was calling for direct Government intervention in the steel industry. That is common sense, given the problems in the industry, yet the First Minister of Wales has completely ruled it out. As a Welsh MP, does he support the position of his leader in Westminster or that of the First Minister of Wales?

[Kevin Brennan]

I do not think that anything the hon. Gentleman said is going to solve the dumping problem we are discussing now. We all understand how Plaid Cymru works on these matters. Its only interest is not speaking up for UK steelworkers throughout England, Wales and Scotland, but trying to drive a wedge between people to make its argument for a separate Wales, which incidentally would mean, as I said earlier, along with a separate Scotland, the end of any kind of strategic capacity for steelmaking in this country.

[Jonathan Edwards]

You should be ashamed of yourself.

[Kevin Brennan]

The hon. Gentleman does not like it up him, unfortunately, but he is going to get it if he tries that tactic on me.

I shall turn to my concluding remarks so that I can leave plenty of time for the Minister to answer the many questions that have been put. As well as answering those questions, will she explain the UK Government’s position—

[Anna Soubry]

With all the time that you have left me?

[Kevin Brennan]

The Minister has 25 minutes. Will she explain the Government’s position on the blocking minority that they have been exercising in the European Union in relation to the longer-term reform of trade defence mechanisms? She has said throughout—certainly many times from a sedentary position—that all five of the asks from the—

[Anna Soubry]

No, I did not. Do not misrepresent me. I said four of the five.

[Kevin Brennan]

Oh, now it is four of the five. The Minister has said that four of the five asks have been completely delivered. I am afraid that that is not the view of UK Steel which, in its briefing for the debate, agrees that there has been some good progress—we can all agree with that—but sets out clearly five actions that must be taken: more action on anti-dumping measures; action on the market economy status issue, which has been emphasised in the debate; bringing business rates for capital-intensive firms in line with their competitors in France and Germany—

[Anna Soubry]

Quite right.

[Kevin Brennan]

The Minister says that, but we need to know when it is going to happen. The final two actions that UK Steel called for were support for much more local content in major construction projects, and direct funding for the sector on research and development and environmental improvements. We need to hear the Government’s position on that.

In order to leave enough time for the Minister, I will finish on this point—

[Jonathan Edwards]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Kevin Brennan]

No, I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman and I can have a chat later, if he wants.

Will the Minister finally answer the question that she has been asked many times, and that I asked her in the debate in October: what is her and the Government’s view about what represents the minimum capacity for steelmaking in the UK’s strategic interests? If she can answer that question and give us clarity, everybody will be extremely grateful.

16:07

[The Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise (Anna Soubry)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell, as it was to have Mr Walker in the Chair before you. I congratulate the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) on securing the debate through the Backbench Business Committee. It is pertinent that it is being held in this very sad week when, yet again, we have seen a huge number of job losses at Port Talbot and other parts of south Wales, followed by yesterday’s news that Sheffield Forgemasters will be making 100 of its employees redundant.

I apologise, Mr Rosindell, for often not even chuntering but speaking quite loudly from a sedentary position, but I get somewhat agitated because I am a little tired of Opposition Members consistently misrepresenting not only my own views—there is nothing that makes me more cross than when somebody tells me what I think—but the views of the Government, and questioning our determination and all that we have achieved to secure the future of a sustainable steel industry. Nobody but nobody has a monopoly on compassion, support and care for any of the workers in this country. We all come to this place—at least I hope we all do; this is certainly my experience—with the same passion and care for all our constituents and, indeed, everyone. Where we disagree is on how we achieve the things that, by and large, we all want.

[Jonathan Edwards]

Will the Minister give way?

[Anna Soubry]

In a moment.

I want to put something on record. I do not know whether it is significant, but my great-grandfather worked as a cutler in Sheffield. He then became a teacher, and then music teacher. In fact, he was knighted, but those are matters that do not concern us.

[Mr Iain Wright]

Just like Kevin.

[Anna Soubry]

Just like the shadow Minister, apparently, although not if he wants a future in his party, if he holds a pro-Trident view and is at odds with his leader on many other matters.

[Mr Wright]

You can do better than that.

[Anna Soubry]

I can do better than that, and I intend to.

My grandmother came from south Wales. We do not know much about her history, but we believe that her family also worked in the steelworks. Many of us can draw on our family experience, which is perhaps why I have a passion for securing the future of the steel industry, as does my Prime Minister. When I was appointed in May, one of the things that he asked me to do, apart from effectively being the Cabinet representative for small businesses, was to help to support and assist the steel industry in difficult times.

[Jonathan Edwards]

Based on the Minister’s opening remarks and the disgraceful comments from the Labour Front-Bench spokesman, will she explain why during Prime Minister’s questions yesterday the leader of the Labour party had six opportunities to ask about steel, but did not raise the issue once? It was left to Plaid Cymru to raise the matter during the most important parliamentary event of the week.

[Anna Soubry]

The hon. Gentleman has put all that on record.

My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) quite rightly said that some of this should be well above party politics. It is tedious that Opposition Members do not understand that they judge everyone by their own standards; the Government are genuinely not as tribal. Opposition Members—

[Kevin Brennan]

That is a tribal remark in itself.

[Anna Soubry]

Hang on. When Opposition Members, such as the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin), have said to me, “I need to talk to you about the steelworks,” I have absolutely no problem. If the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop), who made a good speech, and the hon. Member for Redcar (Anna Turley) want to speak to me, that is no problem. If the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) wanted to speak to me immediately, it would not be a problem. My door is open to everyone, whatever their political party.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

Will the Minister give way?

[Anna Soubry]

No, because I want to make some progress and to address all the points that have been made.

I do get agitated because I know the five asks regarding the steel industry. We have delivered on four and as for the fifth, which is business rates, the review continues. I hope that the Chancellor will agree with my view, for what it is worth, that rates should not rise after investments in plant and machinery which, as I have said many times, is bonkers. I hope that the representations that the Secretary of State, BIS and I make on behalf of all businesses affected by that peculiarity will advance that argument and that the Chancellor will agree with us.

Let us be honest, however, and recognise the problem: the price of steel has been tumbling. The price of slab has almost halved in 12 months. Production across the world—this is not just China—has increased, but consumption has fallen and is yet to return to pre-2008 crisis levels, so what is the Government’s priority? I will not put a figure on it, but the priority is to secure the production of steel at Scunthorpe and Port Talbot. I want to pay tribute to everybody who works in the steel sector, especially to all those workers who have so far found themselves being made redundant. We will not forget the more than 2,000 workers at SSI in Redcar and the many more in the supply chain. I and all my Conservative colleagues do not need to be patronised by being told about the huge impact that redundancies have on communities and right across the workforce, because we understand that. I pay tribute to all those who work at Scunthorpe and Port Talbot, and to those who have lost their jobs, while also remembering what is happening at Forgemasters.

Forgemasters makes steel particularly well. It effectively has a contract with the Ministry of Defence, but it is not with the MOD, in that it supplies the steel for Trident. If Opposition Members want to secure Forgemasters’ future, they need to ensure that they support Trident—that is an absolute fact.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

Will the Minister give way?

[Anna Soubry]

In a moment.

Turning to Scunthorpe, as we have heard, Tata’s long products division has been on the market for some two years. We know that Greybull Capital is the preferred bidder and that it is in talks with Tata as to the sale of the long division and, notably, the future of Scunthorpe. I pay full tribute to Baroness Redfern, who is present today, who has done an outstanding job as the leader of North Lincolnshire Council in ensuring that it plays its full part in securing the steelworks at Scunthorpe, in particular ensuring that the blast furnaces remain open, so that they continue to make their fabulous steel. The Government have been actively involved in that. One of my first trips as Minister was up to Scunthorpe. Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Scunthorpe could not attend, but he was of course invited. That is how we do business: we invite everybody. We do not have meetings that exclude people who are not part of our political party. We invite all interested parties, because securing the blast furnaces and the production of steel at Scunthorpe, about which we are absolutely determined, matters more than cheap party politics.

Turning to Port Talbot, we have already been in long discussions, and I have visited the plant and have spoken to workers and management. There are huge challenges in securing the production of steel at Port Talbot, but discussions have been continuing for several months. Consultants have been brought in and have apparently gone through everything with a fine-toothed comb. We await their report. Tata will then come to us and tell us, frankly, what its asks are, but we already have a good idea. There is a good argument to be made for improving or creating a new power plant.

As it happens, just before this debate I was at the working group, which I chair, on the international aspect of steel, and we specifically spoke about the sort of help and assistance that Government can give when it comes to, for example, the improvement or the introduction of a new power plant. There is a good argument that we could find a way and a means of effectively lending money to a business such as Tata, but we would still have to ensure that the repayments on that loan were at commercial rates. If they are not at commercial rates, they breach state aid rules. No debate, no messing around—that is a fact.

When the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw talks about what the Scottish Government have been doing in relation to Clydebridge and Dalzell, she says, “We have had a look at this, and we have had a look at that.” She has not told us what she has done. I wanted to intervene to say to her, “Well, have you looked at whether you can change your business rates and not be in breach of the state aid rules?”

[Marion Fellows]

indicated assent.

[Anna Soubry]

So you have done that. Are you going to change your business rates?

[Marion Fellows]

As far as I am aware.

[Anna Soubry]

I put it on the record: “As far as I am aware,” the Scottish Government are going to change their business rates for the benefit of the steel industry—I will give way to the hon. Lady at any time. Have the Scottish Government changed their procurement rules? Interestingly, have the Scottish Government—as they must have done—looked at the state aid rules and found that they are exceptionally onerous?

[Marion Fellows]

I am not a member of the Scottish Government, and I do not represent the Scottish Government, but as a member of the Scottish steel taskforce I understand that, under the revaluation rules that are going to take place next year, rates are being looked at. The state of the steel sector is being taken into account and the rates will be reduced accordingly.

As far as EU state aid rules are concerned—the Minister asked me about that—she will know more about them than I do as an ordinary Member of Parliament, but I know that some amounts of money are allowed; I believe it is something in the region of €200,000 over three years. If that falls within the Scottish Government’s remit, they will, and certainly have, checked it.

[Anna Soubry]

With great respect to the hon. Lady, one of the things that she will find here is that when a member of a political party stands up and makes assertions about the Government when their political party is in government elsewhere, they hold responsibility and have to provide answers. Someone cannot just stand up and make bland statements saying, “We have had a look at this, and we have had a look at this. Oh, and by the way, the UK Government are absolutely hopeless and useless, but we are absolutely brilliant,” and then not have an answer when they are asked, specifically, “So, have you delivered on this? Have you delivered on that?”

[Tom Blenkinsop]

Forgemasters creates the vessels for the reactors within the four replacement submarines, and plate for their hulls is made by Dalzell and Clydebridge. The future of those steelworks is uncertain, so any commitment to four submarines is dependent on those sites unless the Government find alternative solutions, because it is sonar-specific plate.

[Anna Soubry]

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman; I specifically asked my officials for an answer to that very important point. At the moment I have not got that information, but I will of course write to him if I am able to obtain it.

Let me move on to the five asks of the steel industry made at the steel summit. On energy-intensive industries and electricity prices—absolutely delivered. Opposition Members say, “Well, they go back, and they say you didn’t do this and that,” but a lot of the delay was not the fault of any tardiness on behalf of the British Government; it was unfortunately due to the slow cogs and wheels of the European Union.

I am not going to engage in all this silly, patronising nonsense about the Secretary of State not knowing where Brussels is. Hon. Members do not do themselves much credit by taking such cheap shots. The Secretary of State went to Brussels and called an emergency meeting. He has been advancing the cause of ensuring we get the compensation signed off under the state aid rules, and I am hugely and deeply proud of that. It is because of his efforts and instructions to officials to expedite it without any further messing about that it is absolutely being delivered. Ask one—delivered.

[Nic Dakin]

The Minister must realise that the industry was promised this by the coalition Government three years ago. It still has not got it, and the expectation is that it will not have it until April.

[Anna Soubry]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the forms have gone out and people are already bringing back their submissions. There was not a Conservative Business Secretary in the coalition Government, but there is one now—and, goodness me, what a difference it has made to getting on and getting the job sorted.

[Stephen Doughty]

Will the Minister give way?

[Anna Soubry]

In a moment.

Ask two on emission directives—delivered. Ask three is about dumping. I get particularly agitated here. There is no debate; there is no dispute. The first vote after the Secretary of State and I were in our positions was in early July. For the first time, the UK Government voted in favour of taking measures to stop Chinese dumping, and it is unfortunate that the great British media did not report that.

The next time we had the opportunity to vote against dumping was in November. Fact: we took that vote. Hon. Members know—they have heard me say it before, but I have to say it again—that when we did it the first time in July, such was the surprise of the officials that they went back to the UK to check the vote. It had never been done before, and we did it.

[Stephen Doughty]

Will the Minister give way?

[Anna Soubry]

In a moment.

On both those opportunities, we voted in favour of taking the measures that will go a long way towards stopping the Chinese dumping.

[Stephen Doughty]

Will the Minister give way?

[Anna Soubry]

I will give way, but then I have to make some progress; otherwise, we will run out of time.

[Stephen Doughty]

I will be very brief. The Minister blamed the Liberal Democrats—I blame the Lib Dems for a lot of things in this country. However, the Conservative steel Minister was informed about the dumping—they were shown very detailed graphs and given examples about what was going on—and about the detailed financials of the energy-intensive industry’s packages and what was expected. What did the former Conservative steel Minister do to address both those issues?

[Anna Soubry]

I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an answer to that, but I can say that every Department needs great leadership, and I am delighted that the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has exactly the sort of great Conservative leadership it needs.

I get slightly cheesed off at nonsense about the Government not being joined up and not working together. That could not be further from the truth. The current level and degree of co-operation within Government has never been seen before. I can give many examples of exactly where the Government are joined up. I am particularly proud of my working relationship with Ministers in the Department of Energy and Climate Change, for example. We get on well and work well together. At the moment we are looking at why too few of our steel fabricators buy British steel. We are doing a piece of work on the supply chains to see how we can ensure that British steel is bought all the way through the supply chains.

The fourth ask made of the steel industry was on procurement. We are the first EU country—

[Stephen Kinnock]

Will the Minister give way?

[Anna Soubry]

The hon. Gentleman cannot have a go until I have finished my sentence. He will have to bear with me one moment.

We are the first European Union country to use the new powers available to us to change the Government’s procurement of steel and, indeed, other materials. There are now no excuses when it comes to Government contracts for not buying British. A number of claims were made about Hinkley B and Areva. In the case of Areva, that steel is not made in Britain. I am told that at least 60% of the steel at Hinkley Point can be bought in Britain. The other 40% is not made in Britain.

[Stephen Kinnock]

We have very little time left. It is clear that the burning issue, which was raised by all hon. Members present, is market economy status. It seems that the Minister has moved off the dumping ask on to another ask.

[Anna Soubry]

indicated dissent.

[Stephen Kinnock]

I assumed the Minister had finished on dumping and ignored the most important point.

[Anna Soubry]

I am so sorry; the hon. Gentleman should read his brief better. There were—[Interruption.] No, no. There were five asks. I have dealt with four; the fifth is business rates, and I think I have dealt with that. The status of China is a new ask, not one of the original five. Let us deal with the market economy status for China. The Prime Minister has made it clear, and I think he makes a good case, that there is a good case for China to be given market economy status. This is where I get agitated with Opposition Members. I do not have a problem with people when we disagree on politics or argue about policies; I have a problem when they tell their constituents that if China gets market economy status, we will not be able to vote in favour of tariffs to stop it from dumping steel or anything else. That is not true. Russia has market economy status, but the EU is able to, and does, vote in favour of tariffs to stop Russia dumping.

For example, in the meeting I was talking about earlier, even though the task groups had come to the end of their time, we specifically looked at Russia and Iran. We are gravely concerned about the amount of steel that they are producing and about the threat of it flooding into the UK economy. So, again, we are looking at the issue of tariffs, but let me make it very clear. The Government do not make the complaint to the European Union; the complaint comes from the steel industry itself—it must raise the complaint. It is wrong for hon. Members to say to their constituents that if China gets market economy status, we are precluded from introducing tariffs. We are not, so Members should please not mislead their constituents.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

rose—

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

rose—

[Anna Soubry]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman first and then to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland; no problem.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

May I ask the Minister whether those same concerns are why France and Germany have not yet come to a conclusion? Should they come to the conclusion that they share the concerns expressed today, will she swing the weight of the UK Government behind them to oppose full status?

[Anna Soubry]

I have made it absolutely clear: the decision will be taken by the European Union. As I have said, if China wants to be in the game, it has got to prove that it can play by the rules. To be clear, let me repeat: MES will not preclude future tariffs.

[Andrew Percy]

Will the Minister confirm whether the Government or anyone else interested in the future of our industry has made any request about market economy status for China?

[Anna Soubry]

To my knowledge, absolutely no.

I must say that all questions will be answered by letter, but I want to make it absolutely clear now: the Government, under our Prime Minister, have described the steel industry as vital to the economy of this country—and it is. That is why the Government will continue to do everything they can to protect the steel industry and ensure that steel continues to be produced at both Port Talbot and Scunthorpe.

[Andrew Rosindell (in the Chair)]

In normal circumstances, Mr Kinnock would be asked to wind up, but we have completely run out of time. It is a pity that we cannot continue the debate, but sadly we have to end at this point.

16:30

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

Written Statements

Thursday 21st January 2016 Written Statements

Thursday 21 January 2016

ECOFIN: 15 January 2016

Thursday 21st January 2016 Written Statements

[The First Secretary of State and Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne)]

A meeting of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council was held in Brussels on 15 January 2016. Ministers discussed the following items:

Current legislative proposals

The presidency updated the Council on the state of play of financial services dossiers.

Presentation of the presidency Work programme

The new ECOFIN chair, Jeroen Dijsselbloem, provided an outline of the Dutch presidency’s Work programme.

European semester

The Council adopted conclusions on two European semester reports: the annual growth survey and the alert mechanism report. A Council recommendation on the economic policy of the euro area was also approved and will be sent to February European Council for endorsement.

Implementation of the banking union

The Commission gave an update on implementation of several dossiers linked to the banking union: the single resolution fund, the bank recovery and resolution directive and the deposit guarantee scheme directive.

Combating VAT fraud in the EU: Use of the reverse charge mechanism

An exchange of views was held in relation to widening the use of the reverse charge mechanism to combat VAT fraud in the EU.

Counter-terrorist financing

The Commission updated Ministers on progress to bring forward new proposals to reinforce the European framework in the fight against the financing of terrorism. The Council welcomed the update and will revisit the issue in February.

[HCWS484]

Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council

Thursday 21st January 2016 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Greg Clark)]

On 26 February 2015, my predecessor the then Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Eric Pickles) and the Secretary of State for Education (Nicky Morgan) confirmed that, having considered the report of the inspection by Louise Casey CB and advice note from Sir Michael Wilshaw (HM Chief Inspector of Education, Children’s Services and Skills), Rotherham Metropolitan Borough was failing to comply with its best value duty. They therefore concluded that it was both necessary and expedient for them to exercise their intervention powers. Moreover, given the complete failure of political and officer leadership in the council at this time, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government decided that the intervention should be broad and wide ranging with commissioners exercising many of the authority’s functions until these could be confidently rolled back for the authority to exercise in compliance with its best value duty. A team of commissioners were appointed to exercise all executive functions of the authority, as well as some non-executive ones (e.g. licensing). They also had to oversee a rigorous programme of improvement to bring about essential changes in culture and ensure there is in future effective and accountable political and officer leadership.

Nearly a year on, a number of challenges remain but there have been significant areas of progress. Following consideration of submissions from the lead commissioner in support of his proposal, including the views of lay and expert panels and the results of a public consultation. Today I am therefore proposing, on the recommendation of the commissioner team, my intention to return certain functions to Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council.

After careful consideration of the proposal and this further information provided by the lead commissioner, I am satisfied that the council is now able to exercise the functions identified by the lead commissioner in compliance with the best value duty, and that the people of Rotherham can have confidence that this will be the case. I am therefore considering exercising my powers under section 15 of the Local Government Act 1999 to return certain service areas, including all associated executive and non-executive functions, to the council to exercise. Returning these functions is of the start of building the effective and accountable political leadership and represents a clear milestone on the road to recovery.

The functions to be returned are:

Education and schools; education for 14-19 years in all settings; school admissions and appeal system; youth services.

public health.

Leisure services; events in parks and green spaces.

Customer and cultural services, libraries, arts, customer services and welfare programmes.

Housing.

Planning and transportation policy; highways maintenance.

The council’s area assembly system and neighbourhood working; responsibilities under the Equalities Act.

Building regulation, drainage, car parking; environmental health; business regulation and enforcement (not including taxi licensing); emergency planning.

ICT; legal and democratic services; corporate communications; corporate policy; procurement; financial services, including benefits and revenues, but not including audit.

Budget control in these areas and budget planning.

Policy arising from Sheffield city region.

The returned functions do not include licensing; children’s services; adult social care; audit; and other functions which still remain high risk.

I am confident that this is the right time and these are the right functions to return to the council. The commissioners will provide oversight of the returned functions to ensure that they are exercised in accordance with the best value duty. In addition they will continue to implement the rigorous programme of improvement they have started to bring about the essential changes in culture and ensure there is in future effective and accountable political and office leadership across the council.

I am placing a copy of the documents associated with these announcements in the Library of the House and on my Department’s website.

[HCWS482]

Childcare Bill: Joint Online Childcare Application

Thursday 21st January 2016 Written Statements

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

During Second Reading of the Childcare Bill, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education announced that our extended childcare entitlement will be delivered via a joint online application being developed by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC).

As I outlined during Committee Stage of the Childcare Bill, the Department for Education will be providing HMRC with funding for the development of the joint online application and eligibility checking system.

I can confirm today that for 2015-16, urgent expenditure estimated at £1 million will be met by repayable cash advances from the Contingencies Fund.

The development of the joint online application will mean that parents and children who will be eligible to benefit from both the extended entitlement and tax-free childcare will be able to apply for both schemes through one simple and straightforward system, saving them valuable time.

[HCWS481]

Reformed History of Arts Subject Content

Thursday 21st January 2016 Written Statements

[The Minister for Schools (Mr Nick Gibb)]

The Government are reforming GCSEs and A-levels to be more knowledge-based and to make sure that they give students the best possible preparation for further and higher education, and for employment.

Schools are now teaching some of the new reformed GCSEs and A-levels, and we have already published reformed subject content for those GCSEs and A-levels to be taught from September 2016 as well as for some of the GCSE and A-levels to be taught from September 2017. Content for reformed GCSE subjects can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/search?q=gcse+subject+content

and content for AS and A-level subjects at:

https://www.gov.uk/search?q=gcse+as+and+a+level+subject+content.

Today I am publishing revised subject content for history of art AS and A-levels that will be taught in schools from September 2017.

Students will study a wide range of art and artists from different movements and periods including pre and post 1850, ensuring good breadth and depth of study. The content also includes the development of art over time, and the connections and interrelationship between different artists, periods and movements.

[HCWS480]

Family Justice

Thursday 21st January 2016 Written Statements

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

Just prior to the Christmas recess, an error was identified in an online version of form E. This is the form provided by Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service in order to enable people to disclose financial information during divorce and similar proceedings.

This fault meant that the automatic calculator in the form calculated the wrong total for an individual’s net assets by failing to deduct certain liabilities.

The Ministry of Justice was alerted to the fault on 10 December 2015 and a corrected version of the form was put online on 14 December. However the wider implications of the faulty form were not immediately recognised.

As soon as I was made aware of this issue on 16 December, I ordered an urgent investigation.

The investigation found the faulty formula was present in versions of form E which were online between April 2014 and mid December 2015 and between April 2011 and January 2012.

A total of 36,527 cases contain a version of form E filed from these periods. HMCTS staff have now reviewed all these cases and found that 3,638 files—10%—contained the faulty calculator version of form E with an incorrect figure for net assets figure in the summary table.

A total of 1,403 of these cases are still live, allowing HMCTS to intervene immediately to clearly flag these cases to the courts in order to avoid the error affecting the final orders in these cases.

The remaining 2,235 files—6.1%—were closed cases. Although the faulty form was used in these cases, it will not necessarily have had any effect on the ultimate outcome. Form E is only a part of the material used by the parties and the court and is used at an early stage, so the information is often disputed or superseded by further information introduced during proceedings.

Following the error coming to light, HMCTS established a dedicated email address which people could use if they were concerned about their own case: [e-mail]. This email address was advertised on our website and also in all responses to media enquiries. As of 21 January, 51 members of the public have emailed us about their case.

I have instructed HMCTS to write to all parties in the 2,235 closed cases. The letter expresses our sincere regret for the error, sets out what happened and explains that, although form E is just one part of the evidence used in their case, there remains a possibility that the error affected the final outcome.

The letter sets out options available to people involved in these cases. Some may wish to do nothing, if, for example, they know that the error was corrected during the proceedings or they do not wish to reopen their cases. If people think they have been affected by this error then they can apply to the court to vary or set aside their order. My officials consulted the president of the family division about the court rules and procedures that would apply to such applications or for any other proceedings that might be open to the parties. My officials also consulted the president on the development of a specific form for such applications. We have provided a link to the new form in our letter to the parties, as well as guidance on how to complete the form.

I have instructed that no court fee will be charged for making this application, and this is also made this clear in the letter from HMCTS.

We are also uploading a new version of form E which makes clearer how the calculation of net assets should be made. We will also consider the future of form E as part of our broader court reforms and the automatic calculator function will be disabled during this process.

This failure should not have happened. Divorce proceedings can be very difficult and I sincerely apologise for this situation and any distress it may have caused.

[HCWS485]

Independent Commission on Information Retrieval

Thursday 21st January 2016 Written Statements

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

The cross-party talks that ran from 8 September to 17 November last year, which culminated in the “Fresh Start” agreement, brought us closer than ever before to consensus on the best way to deal with Northern Ireland’s past. While we established much common ground, it was not possible to reach agreement on all issues. I am committed to working with the Northern Ireland parties, with the Irish Government as appropriate, and with representatives of victims and survivors, to build on the progress made during the talks. The UK Government are determined to resolve the outstanding issues that are preventing the establishment of the legacy institutions set out in the Stormont House agreement.

One of these institutions is the Independent Commission on Information Retrieval (ICIR). This will be an independent body designed to enable victims and survivors privately to receive information about the troubles-related deaths of their next of kin. As set out in the Stormont House agreement, and building on the precedent of the Independent Commission on the Location of Victims’ Remains, the ICIR will be an international body. To that end, the UK and Irish Governments have signed an international agreement to enable the establishment of the ICIR and to set out its functions. Today I have placed a copy of this treaty in the Libraries of both Houses.

The ICIR will be an important institution which will help victims and survivors to seek information which it has not been possible to obtain by other means. Engagement by families with the ICIR will be entirely voluntary. Information provided to the ICIR about deaths within its remit will not be admissible in court, something which families will always be told in advance. The ICIR will not, however, provide any form of amnesty or immunity from prosecution. This Government believe in the rule of law and would not countenance such a step. As the Stormont House agreement set out, information provided to the ICIR will be protected but no individual will be protected from prosecution if evidence is obtained by other means. It is the Government’s intention that the legislation needed to implement the ICIR will contain provisions clearly setting this out.

It had been our aim to lay the treaty before Parliament at the same time as introducing the legislation required to establish the legacy bodies. However, as agreement has not yet been reached on this legislation, this is not possible. Once any treaty is formally laid, Parliament has a period of 21 sitting days, in which it can resolve that the treaty should not be ratified, in accordance with the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. I believe that it would be best if this consideration took place alongside the legislation, which will contain more detail about how the ICIR will function. I propose therefore formally to lay the treaty once we are able also to introduce legislation. These particular circumstances mean that placing a copy of the treaty in the Libraries of both Houses is an appropriate way to ensure that Parliament is aware of the text of the treaty, without instigating the formal process of consideration.

In addition to the ICIR, the Stormont House agreement envisaged the establishment of the Historical Investigations Unit, the oral history archive and the Implementation and Reconciliation Group. Together, this set of institutions provides the best opportunity to help Northern Ireland deal with its past and provide better outcomes for victims and survivors, the people who we must never forget suffered more than anyone else as a result of the troubles. The Government are committed to implementing the Stormont House agreement and to establishing the legacy bodies it contains. I will continue to meet victims’ representatives and others over the coming days and weeks to discuss these matters and to build support for the new institutions.

[HCWS479]

Contingencies Fund Advance

Thursday 21st January 2016 Written Statements

[The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Matthew Hancock)]

The Cabinet Office has received a repayable cash advance from the Contingencies Fund of £37,199,000.

The requirement for this has arisen because the Cabinet Office cash receives a relatively high proportion of its voted resource programme funding at supplementary estimate, and so can only draw the related cash from the Consolidated Fund after the Supply and Appropriation Act has received Royal Assent in March 2016.

HM Treasury’s supply estimates guidance provides for a repayable cash advance from the Contingencies Fund in order to meet an urgent cash requirement for existing services when cash provision from the main estimate has been exhausted.

The cash advance will pay for programmes which will generate Government-wide benefits or savings and are urgent in the public interest.

The following programmes are funded from the reserve:

various technology and property programmes announced in the 2015 summer budget which will generate savings across Government (£46,000,000);

individual electoral registration (£9,750,000); and

various Office for Civil Society programmes (£690,000).

The following programmes are funded from budgetary cover transfers from other Government Departments:

various national security programmes (£17,465,000);

a cross-government secure IT programme (£15,931,000);

an identity assurance programme (£19,657,000);

cross-government shared services (£3,836,000);

common technology services (£3,500,000);

cross-government Gulf strategy commitments (£1,491,000);

various Office for Civil Society programmes (£1,300,000);

financial management review target operating model (£300,000);

and diversity and inclusion (£279,000).

The requirement for an advance is reduced by cash proceeds from the sale of Admiralty arch (£65,000,000), and budgetary cover transfers to other Departments for the GREAT campaign (£18,000,000).

Parliamentary approval for additional resources of £37,199,000 will be sought in a supplementary estimate for the Cabinet Office. Pending that approval, expenditure estimated at £37,199,000 will be met by repayable cash advances from the Contingencies Fund.

[HCWS483]

House of Lords

Thursday 21st January 2016 Lords Chamber

Thursday, 21 January 2016.

11:00

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Derby.

Health: Hormone Pregnancy Tests

Thursday 21st January 2016 Lords Chamber

Question

11:06

Asked by

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is the timeframe for the inquiry into the safety of hormone pregnancy tests, and when they expect the report to be published.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Prior of Brampton) (Con)]

My Lords, an expert working group of the Commission on Human Medicines has been convened to review all available evidence on whether use of hormone pregnancy tests may have been associated with adverse outcomes in pregnancy. The group met twice in 2015 and a number of further meetings will be held in 2016. A report of the group’s findings will be published once the review is complete, which is expected before the end of the year.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, the terms of reference of the inquiry still do not include past regulatory failures and the campaigners fear a veil of secrecy and an inability to get to the truth. What can the Minister say today to alleviate people’s fears? Will he agree to meet a delegation of campaigners and interested Peers to discuss how we can shine a light on what happened to learn the lessons of the past so that they are there for the future?

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

My Lords, this issue goes back to the 1950s, so trawling back over that period may not be that helpful. What is helpful is that we learn lessons from the past so that the existing regulatory system can learn from those errors. I am, however, very happy to meet the noble Lord and others who are interested to discuss this further, if they wish to do so.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, given that many of the survivors of Primodos, the drug in question here, were not told that they were taking part in a clinical trial, will the noble Lord assure us that today nobody would take part in a clinical trial without their knowledge?

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

My Lords, I understand that to be the case but I will double-check and, if it is not, I will of course write to the noble Baroness.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, is it absolutely clear that there will be full disclosure of all public documents and the regulators’ documents for this review?

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

I understand that all the relevant documents are being made available to the expert working group. The chair of the association looking after the children who have been damaged by these pregnancies is an observer on that committee.

[Lord Winston (Lab)]

My Lords, with deference to my noble friend’s Question, is it not a fact that 40 years on—it is actually more than 40 years because the last letter in the British Medical Journal was in 1977 on things that had happened previously—it is now really impossible to decide the precise nature of what happened after the dosage of Primodos? While an inquiry might be helpful to some people, it is very unlikely that we will uncover anything that will be really useful in the future. Is not the message to pregnant women that they are not advised to take any kind of drug during pregnancy?

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

My Lords, the noble Lord is clearly an expert in this field. If the advice is that pregnant women should not take any kind of drug during pregnancy, that must be the right advice. I agree with him that many of these documents go right back to the early 1950s and many are in German rather than English. The quantity of documentation is enormous. That is one reason why this review has taken so long. However, the people on the expert working group are very distinguished clinicians and are doing the best they can in very difficult circumstances.

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con)]

My Lords, will the Minister confirm the reply he gave that no one will be asked to take any of these experimental things without being aware of doing so, because pregnancy is a time of great anxiety, particularly in view of the accidents that have happened in the past?

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

All I can do is entirely agree with what my noble friend says. That must be right.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, there has been great fuss about the Prime Minister’s wish to ensure that all women, particularly Muslim women, learn English. What steps can the Government take to make sure that all pregnant women receive directly the medical advice that they need during pregnancy?

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

Much advice is available on NHS Choices and elsewhere. Clearly, GPs have a primary responsibility in giving initial advice to women, of whatever nationality, when they become pregnant.

Income Inequality

Thursday 21st January 2016 Lords Chamber

Question

11:11

Asked by

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they intend to commission research into the impact on social cohesion of income inequality.

[The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord O'Neill of Gatley) (Con)]

My Lords, income inequality is falling and is close to its lowest level since the mid-1980s. The Government have taken action to reduce inequality and poverty by boosting the incomes of those in work through the new national living wage, by taking 3.8 million working-age individuals out of income tax since 2010 and by reducing worklessness, with more people now in work than ever before.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)]

My Lords, with FTSE 100 chief executives—only four of whom actually founded their companies—earning 183 times the median earnings for a full-time worker, and with the chief executive of HSBC, for example, receiving £7.5 million in the year that its profits went down by 17%, does the Minister agree that it is a miracle that there is not more social unrest in this country? Will the Government consider setting up a commission to make recommendations on ways in which this terrible income inequality can be dealt with?

[Lord O'Neill of Gatley]

My Lords, as I suggested in my opening formal comments—and I am happy to provide plenty of data to back up the substance because it is so wide—true measures of income inequality, whether in terms of disposable income or of what is called original income, have for many years shown a decline in income inequality. How chief executives are remunerated by their companies, particularly in the quoted sector, depends on the decisions of their boards and shareholders.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, do this Government expect that the planned changes to universal credit will increase or decrease the number of children living in households with below-average incomes? Given the public interest, will the Minister report back to this House on that measure?

[Lord O'Neill of Gatley]

My Lords, I am sure that we will have further debates on this topic in the weeks and months ahead, but, as has been clearly articulated by me and others on a number of occasions in this place and the other place, our prime policy is to ensure that as many people as possible throughout our society achieve employment, supported by an increase in the national living wage. I should add that I make these comments after remarkably strong employment data published yesterday.

[Lord Kinnock (Lab)]

My Lords, this Question, as the Minister will have noticed, is about social cohesion. Is it not clear that there is a relationship between social cohesion and social equity? By not accepting the proposition in my noble friend’s Question, is he really saying to us that the Government, who are supposed to be strongly committed to social cohesion, are not willing to investigate the relationship between social cohesion or lack of it and social equity or lack of it?

[Lord O'Neill of Gatley]

My Lords, the Government are focused primarily on pursuing the appropriate economic policies to promote sustained economic expansion and higher productivity, including better opportunities for those who have been most disadvantaged, whether it be commitment to the northern powerhouse or the Midlands engine, and the devolution of policies that go with that, particularly skills and education. Those are the policies that are attracting more and more of our policy attention.

[Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister says he has data that show inequality reducing. I would very much welcome any submission he intends to make. I can only assume that he is measuring the past few months and that some of the inequality that has been reduced is because assets have dropped in value for the very rich because of the collapse of prices on the FTSE. Let us be absolutely clear: from 2010 onwards, wages were effectively frozen in this country as there were no pay rises at all for workers. I cannot understand how the Minister can suggest that the Government have been pursuing policies of reducing inequality.

[Lord O'Neill of Gatley]

My Lords, it is very dangerous to goad someone with my background about data, but there are considerable and widespread data on these matters published completely independently of the Government. In fact, the data show that the so-called Gini coefficient, which is one of the widely accepted global measures of inequality, has been showing a slow decline in British inequality since the mid-1980s, as I said earlier, both at the disposable income level and before disposable income.

[Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister mentioned the Gini coefficient. I was a member for some time of the Royal Commission on the Distribution of Income and Wealth. Obviously, there are different measures. I assure the Minister that we can swap anecdotes about data. But to be specific, is it not long overdue to remove the charity status of the public schools, given the inbuilt inequality of opportunity which that concrete part of our social structure creates?

[Lord O'Neill of Gatley]

My Lords, one of the widely regarded measures shows that inequality may have widened, which is the one that would include the broadest measures of wealth to account for house prices. That is the only one that shows that; all the others, as I have said, show the exact opposite of the tone of most of these questions. That is why we are also focused, as part of the productivity plan and otherwise, on trying to do something about broadening the supply of houses and to discourage the degree to which landlords have been influencing the housing market. These policies, along with the others I mentioned, will continue to attract the justifiable prime focus of our economic policies.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, will the Minister confirm that yesterday’s employment figures showed a further fall in productivity? Why do the Government think that happened and what are they doing about it?

[Lord O'Neill of Gatley]

My Lords, of course one can infer some tentative implications about productivity from yesterday’s data on employment, but it would be very premature to do so. We know from the very latest productivity statistics that, if one uses a magnifying glass, there has been a modest increase in productivity in the last two quarters for which data have been reported. It is an ongoing observation that, in what are generally currently regarded as some of the most successful economies in the world, cyclically, the US included, they have, if anything, an even bigger apparent conundrum on this than we do here in the UK, because of the evidence of the past 12 months.

[Lord McFall of Alcluith (Lab)]

My Lords, the latest figures indicate that the salary of a chief executive in the largest corporations in America is now 333 times the average wage, while in Britain it is now 180 times that. The Minister is right that inequality has been growing in Britain for the last three years. It is now at the level of World War 2; if in 20 years’ time we continue this trend, it will be at the level of Victorian standards. As a distinguished economist, the Minister could do us all a favour by telling the privileged members of the Cabinet that GDP is not the best way to measure the prosperity of a country; it should be a measure of well-being. If we focused on that area, we might start to tackle this horrendous problem.

[Lord O’Neill of Gatley]

My Lords, I take the noble Lord’s suggestions with great interest. I repeat that it is the responsibility of boards and their shareholders to analyse and support the compensation of their chief executives. As we have touched on in parts of the productivity plan, those boards and shareholders should think carefully on an ongoing basis about the justification for those levels of remuneration.

[Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab)]

My Lords, I think that a number of us were surprised by the Minister asserting that inequality has actually been decreasing over recent periods. Does that take into account the zero-hours contracts and the regional variations?

[Lord O’Neill of Gatley]

My Lords, it is a reality of life that, when evidence gets in the way of perception, it surprises people. But on the widely accepted global measures—of which ours is one—measured inequality has been declining slowly since the 1980s, whether they include disposable income or are without it.

Marriage: Humanist Ceremonies

Thursday 21st January 2016 Lords Chamber

Question

11:22

Asked by

[Baroness Thornton]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to establish humanist marriage ceremonies in England and Wales.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) (Con)]

My Lords, the Government gave an Answer to the noble Baroness on 2 June last year saying that given the broader implications for marriage law, they would consider the next steps after the Law Commission had reported in December on its preliminary scoping study of the law concerning how and where people can marry in England and Wales. The Government are carefully considering the report and will respond in due course.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his Answer. He will understand why I keep returning to this because Scotland is a long way for one to go for one’s children to have a humanist marriage. Two gay people can now marry in a church but they cannot have a humanist wedding in England and Wales. It is two and a half years since this House agreed that it thought that should happen. Can the Minister say whether it would be possible, and indeed preferable, for a modest extension of the law to accommodate humanist marriage rather than overhauling marriage law, as recommended by the Law Commission report? If Scotland and other countries can do this in a simple way, should England and Wales not be able to do so as well?

[Lord Faulks]

What Parliament decided, in Section 14 of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013, was of course that the Secretary of State should arrange a review, which the Secretary of State did—that is the Law Commission review—and that he has a power rather than a duty to make the order which the noble Baroness refers to. It is of course quite right that Scotland has operated a different arrangement, whereby you may go to a registry office and have a schedule permitting you to get married anywhere. Marriages have taken place on the top of a mountain and in the middle of a loch, identified only by a GPS reference. However, these are serious matters. The Government think it necessary to consider marriage as a whole and it is interesting that the Law Commission’s thorough report does in fact not recommend simply activating that order-making power, as the noble Baroness will have seen.

[Baroness Barker (LD)]

My Lords, following that answer, can the Minister confirm that the system in Scotland is that the celebrants are registered rather than the locations where the ceremonies take place? That is the material difference. However, opinion polls consistently show public support for humanist marriages, so can he tell us why the Government keep trying to kick this into the long grass rather than using the powers that they have to bring it about?

[Lord Faulks]

The noble Baroness is quite right of course that it is a celebrant-based system. A schedule is issued by the register office stating where the marriage can take place, and the celebrant then goes back to the register office and the matter is registered there. The Government have considered the matter and will continue to do so, and will bear in mind the very cogent representations that have been made on behalf of humanists. At paragraph 3.20 of its report, the Law Commission said that,

“activating the statutory order-making power to permit marriages according to the rites of non-religious belief organisations is simply not, in our view, a viable option”.

The Government have to take that into account and consider the integrity of marriage as well as, of course, the wishes of individuals.

[Baroness Warsi (Con)]

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that Islamic religious marriages are recognised in the UK in law only if they are conducted overseas and not in the United Kingdom? This anomaly is the main reason why women turn to sharia councils when their marriages fail, an issue which my right honourable friend the Prime Minister was discussing earlier this week. If he is aware of that, and if the recognition of these marriages would stop references to sharia councils and indeed the practice of polygamy, why will the Government not adopt this provision? They have been aware that this is a solution as far back as 2011.

[Lord Faulks]

These are complicated issues. As my noble friend quite rightly says, the Home Secretary has initiated a general inquiry into the use of sharia councils. One area of particular concern is the circumstances in which marriages take place and the fact that there are some people in the Muslim community for whom marriage can be used somewhat oppressively. It is certainly important that all the information is available before we come to any conclusions.

[Baroness Whitaker (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords—

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con)]

It is the turn of the Cross Benches.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss]

I find this very difficult to understand. Why, if it was right to have a review of marriage generally, did we have the same-sex marriage Act but not allow the same for humanists? There is an unacceptable discrepancy there, and I speak as someone who is not a humanist.

[Lord Faulks]

It is not of course, as the noble Baroness would confirm, that we do not allow humanist marriage—a civil marriage can take place followed by a humanist ceremony. The gravamen of the complaint is that they cannot take place simultaneously.

[Baroness Whitaker]

My Lords, speaking as a humanist, may I ask the Government what the majority of respondents to their consultation on this subject of humanist marriage thought about it?

[Lord Faulks]

The vast majority—well over 90%—were in favour of humanist marriage. Humanists represented by far the greater majority of those who responded to the consultation. Pagans and naturists also responded—the latter, for some reason, were particularly keen on outdoor ceremonies, which might be challenging at this time of year.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, it seems to me that the Minister is taking the Law Commission view ahead of Parliament. It was this Parliament that decided that the Secretary of State should have this power. Is it not now time to move on that?

[Lord Faulks]

I respectfully reject what the noble Baroness says. She is quite right that it is a matter for Parliament, and it is also a matter for the Government to consider. The Law Commission has produced a very valuable and thorough report—as I am sure she will agree, having read it—which provides material for the Government to consider. The report was only produced just before Christmas. After considering that report, the Government will then make a decision.

Health and Social Care: State Pension

Thursday 21st January 2016 Lords Chamber

Question

11:30

Asked by

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their response to the suggestion by the Chief Executive of NHS England that they should look at all the options for adequately funding health and social care, including revisiting the guaranteed annual increases in the state pension until 2020.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Prior of Brampton) (Con)]

My Lords, the Government are committed to both a state pension system that ensures financial security in retirement, and a sustainable health and social care system. We are increasing funding for the NHS by £10 billion a year in real terms to fully fund the NHS’s plan. Alongside this, local authorities have been given access to up to £3.5 billion extra a year by the end of the Parliament with the social care precept and additional investment.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. He mentioned billions of pounds, but he will know that the analysis by the King’s Fund shows that over the five years of this Parliament the real-terms growth rate for the NHS is actually less than in the last Parliament, and social care will see a continuation of the cuts. Research published today shows that 25 other countries spend more of their share of GDP than we do on health; we have fewer doctors and nurses and less equipment and access to new drugs than many comparable countries. The NHS is facing a huge crisis. When are Ministers going to tackle this and get a grip?

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

My Lords, the NHS produced its five-year forward view 18 months ago, which called for additional spending in real terms from the Government over the five-year period of £8 billion. The Government have met that in full and are front-loading that investment, as the noble Lord knows, spending £3.8 billion in the forthcoming year. So the Government are fully supporting the NHS’s plan.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, there are two issues here. One is the short-term funding issue, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is absolutely right to say that there is a crisis. Simon Stevens’s reference was about much more than just the pension; there are intergenerational fairness issues and a whole string of other things. My honourable friend in another place, Norman Lamb, suggested that there should be a cross-party commission to look at these issues, which cannot be resolved overnight. Is there progress on the Government accepting the principle of this cross-party commission and, if so, when might an announcement be made?

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

The Government believe that we have a plan—it is the NHS’s plan, which we fully support—and that to set up an alternative commission or other kind of look at the future would be a distraction at this time.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, it is over 70 years since Beveridge and almost 70 years since the foundation of the National Health Service. In the debate brilliantly introduced by my noble friend Lord Fowler last week, there were many calls for a commission or an inquiry from all parts of the House—from the Cross Benches and all the political parties. Cannot my noble friend give us some hope that he has a chink of an open mind?

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot today give my noble friend that chink or that hope, because we are supporting the NHS’s plan, which was developed and produced by the NHS. We believe that it would be wrong to set up an alternative at this stage.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, would my noble friend agree that, while the Government are fully funding the NHS five-year forward view, which is very welcome, the sustainability of NHS funding depends on the sustainability of social care services as well? Before establishing any other commissions, would not it be advisable for the Government to make progress on implementing the Dilnot commission’s recommendations? In that respect, will the Government specifically consider enabling that to proceed by removing the exemption on one’s principal personal residence when calculating the means test for domiciliary social care?

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

My Lords, as my noble friend knows, the Government accepted the findings of the Dilnot review but felt that now was not the right time to introduce them, given the financial pressures on local government. We are committed to introducing the Dilnot reforms by the end of this Parliament.

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)]

Is not the plan inadequate? Many noble Lords come with requests for quite justifiable changes to health services and the Minister very generously and kindly kicks them back because of inadequate resources to meet those demands. Surely it is the case that in looking at the plan we need to look at the longer term and not just the short term in five years.

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

The NHS plan is for the whole five-year period—the lifetime of this Parliament. It was signed up to by all the arm’s-length bodies within the NHS. The Government support that plan and are front-loading the financing to support the plan as well, so we believe that the plan is achievable.

[Lord Fowler (Con)]

Is not the key point exactly the one that has just been made? We are talking not about the five-year plan but about the years that come after that and how you get a National Health Service which can be financed over the long term. Surely that is what we should also be looking at, apart from the Government’s own plan.

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

I know my noble friend feels very strongly that we should have a royal commission to look at the long-term affordability and funding of the NHS. That is not the Government’s view.

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans]

My Lords, in last week’s NHS debate, which very helpfully explored a number of areas, a number of noble Lords referred to the independent American research pointing out that among the—I think—11 most developed countries, our health service came out right at the top, except in the area of prevention. The worry that many of us have is that a lot of the money is being front-loaded on to the NHS, which is responding to immediate needs, but that the long-term need for a cross-party agreement on how we get much better at preventing illness and having health programmes is lacking. Can we yet again press the Minister to see how we can get some sort of cross-party agreement on this proactive approach?

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

The right reverend Prelate is right to remind the House of the report by the Commonwealth Fund which indicated that the National Health Service is the most efficient and overall the best healthcare system in the world. He also referred to prevention. The childhood obesity prevention strategy is due to be announced by the Government in the next couple of months. We have made huge progress on reducing smoking and in other areas of prevention, but I agree with the right reverend Prelate that prevention is a critical part of our long-term approach to healthcare.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister talks about the support for the five-year forward view, but is he aware that more than 80% of finance leads within the health service do not believe that the five-year forward view can achieve the savings that it says it can? It just cannot be done without extra resources. Surely, particularly with the state of affairs in social care, where the Government’s extra money is being back-loaded, not front-loaded, we need to take an overall holistic look at health and social care and how much we should be spending as a country and how we are prepared to raise that money fairly.

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

My Lords, I think that the same question is being asked in slightly different terms by many different noble Lords. I cannot really add to what I said before. We are supporting the NHS’s plan. By the end of this Parliament we will be putting another £3.5 billion into social care through the social care precept and an extra £1.5 billion into the better care fund. We believe that we have a plan for social care and healthcare over the course of this Parliament.

Business of the House

Thursday 21st January 2016 Lords Chamber

Timing of Debates

11:37

Moved by

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

That the debates on the Motions in the names of Lord Fowler and Baroness Wheatcroft set down for today shall each be limited to two and a half hours.

Motion agreed.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Thursday 21st January 2016 Lords Chamber

Order of Consideration Motion

11:37

Tabled by

[Lord Freud]

That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 10, Schedule 1, Clauses 11 to 25, Schedule 2, Clauses 26 to 35, Title.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in the name of my noble friend on the Order Paper.

Motion agreed.

Prison Reform

Thursday 21st January 2016 Lords Chamber

Motion to Take Note

11:38

Moved by

[Lord Fowler]

That this House takes note of Her Majesty’s Government’s proposals for prison reform.

[Lord Fowler (Con)]

My Lords, I asked for this debate because it seems to me that the statements being made and the policies being introduced by the Secretary of State, Michael Gove, give more hope for advance in prison policy than anything I have heard for many years. My hope is that this debate, with the experience there is in this House, might contribute to that process.

Back in 1970, when I was first elected to the House of Commons, the editor of the Times, William Rees-Mogg, whom we all remember with affection, asked me to write a series of articles on prisons. Like Mr Gove, I had previously worked for the Times—you do not have to have done that, but it obviously helps in the course of penal reform. I went around the country visiting prisons. We called the series “The Prisons Crisis”, on the basis that for the first time the prison population had gone over the 40,000 mark. In those 1970 articles, which I have here, I wrote that already seriously overcrowded prisons were being stretched to bursting point, that there was no hope of replacing the string of 19th-century prisons that still remained in operation and that the pressure of numbers was placing in jeopardy the whole concept of training for many prisoners.

So obviously, when I came back to this area almost half a century later, I might have expected the kind of progress that there has been in almost all other areas of government policy, with overcrowding reduced and conditions transformed. Sadly, it has not been quite like that. On the position today, I quote not from the Howard League or the Prison Reform Trust, admirable bodies though they are, but from the Government’s own Chief Inspector of Prisons, Nick Hardwick, the latest in a line of inspectors who have served this country very well. The chief inspector reports that the prison population today is not 40,000 but 85,000, with forecasts that, on present policies, that total will increase by the end of this Parliament to 90,000 or even more. He reports that the overcrowding that has resulted is,

“sometimes exacerbated by extremely poor environments and squalid conditions”—

his words, not mine. He continues:

“At Wormwood Scrubs, staff urged me to look at the cells. ‘I wouldn’t keep a dog in there’, one told me”.

He found:

“Conditions in many cells were unacceptably poor. Many were filthy, covered in graffiti, some of which was offensive, and furniture was broken or missing. Toilets were filthy and inadequately screened. Windows were broken. We found cockroaches in cells on C wing”.

Inside prisons generally, he found increasing violence; assaults have risen to more than 16,000 per year, including 3,600 assaults on staff. He says clearly that overcrowding is not just a question of two prisoners sharing a cell; it means that prisons simply do not have the activity places to support rehabilitation programmes, work training and education.

Perhaps worst of all, the reconviction rates are, by any standards, shaming: 45% of adults are reconvicted within one year of release. For those serving sentences of less than 12 months, that increases to 58%, and for under-18s it is 68%. Yet the cost of a prison place is more than £36,000 per year, more than Eton. Is it cost-effective to spend that amount of money to produce such reconviction rates? Surely it would be better to see whether there are better alternatives that we could introduce.

I do not wish to exaggerate my description of the lamentable state of our prisons—which in any event, frankly, would be difficult—and I pay tribute to the advances that have been made in some areas, such as some of the policies regarding women’s prisons and with young people. It should be said that, were it not for the work of the prison staff, hard-pressed as they are, we would be in far more serious and public difficulty than we are. One of the better figures in the report was that 70% of prisoners feel that they are treated with respect by the staff.

Nevertheless, the position remains that much of our prison system is a disgrace to a civilised country. Prisoners should not be locked up in their cells for most of the night and day, yet about one-fifth of prisoners spend 22 hours out of 24 in their cells. We should be retraining and offering education to prisoners, but in all too many cases we are not doing that. We should not be keeping prisoners in cells where you would not keep your dog. This all spells out not years but decades of neglect and, frankly, public uninterest. If this were any other part of the public service, there would have been emergency debates in Parliament and demonstrations all the way down Whitehall.

For someone coming back to this area, the questions are not just about how we got to this position but, above all, what now needs to be done. It is against that background that I propose five actions that need to be taken and which I believe are in line with the Justice Secretary’s approach. I do this with a certain humility, because I am aware that there are far greater experts than me in this House. After writing on Home Office issues for the Times for four or five years, I could once claim some knowledge, which was treated in the way you would expect when I went into government: I was appointed to head the Department for Transport. Finally, in my last Front-Bench post, I was made shadow Home Secretary, a position without power, and at a time when we were being “tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime”. It occurred to me then that if we were half as good with policies as we were with slogans, we would be world-beaters. Sadly, we are not.

My proposals are as follows. First, we should continue to state clearly that the basis of policy is that the punishment of prison is the deprivation of liberty for the prisoner. The aim is not to make life as uncomfortable as possible for the prisoner, although we too often do this accidentally, but to retrain them so that they can become useful members of society and fulfil their own potential. There is no evidence whatever that deliberate discomfort is a policy that works; we should give rehabilitation a chance.

Secondly, we must end the overcrowding of our prisons that is defeating all our best efforts to achieve success. We should see whether the people who are in prison need to be in prison. We might review the number of women being held, as over 80% are in prison for non-violent offences. We might review the position of those being held on indeterminate sentences, not knowing when they will be released. In other words, we should allow prisons to breathe.

Thirdly, if we are to reduce overcrowding, we must reduce the number of people we send to prison. Like everybody else, I want to see professional and violent criminals, such as the Hatton Garden gang, inside prison and no longer a danger to the public. However, I do not believe that prison should be a social dumping ground for those with mental health problems and those with alcohol and drug abuse problems. We must find better ways to deal with these issues.

Fourthly, if we are to send fewer people to prison, we must re-examine sentencing and the power of the courts. One of the reasons overcrowding has taken place is that average sentences have increased. Another reason is that far too many prisoners have short sentences of below 12 months, in some cases serving only a few weeks or months. There is very little chance of doing anything constructive in that time. The better way would be to have sentences in the community that were not simply written off as a soft touch. A judge said to me that sentences must have the confidence of the judges who pass them, notably those sitting in the Crown Courts day after day.

Fifthly, and fundamentally, we should pass down responsibility as far as we possibly can to the governor and the staff of the individual prison. The prison department should lay down the strategy, but governors should be encouraged to develop their own policies. Mistakes will inevitably be made, but that should not invalidate the whole approach and the whole policy.

I started with an example from my days on the Times and I will end with another, which shows what I mean here. In 1967, when I was writing another article on prisons, I visited Dartmoor, built for the Napoleonic Wars and still going. At lunch, I drove out to have my sandwich and parked in front of the entrance to a field, and suddenly noticed, working in the field behind me, an immense man, broad and tall—a rather eerie sight. Going back, I told the governor and his top staff that I had seen this extraordinary sight. “For goodness’ sake don’t report that!” they said, “That’s Frank Mitchell, the mad axeman”, so named after an incident some years before. “You would destroy all our work”. Who was I, a Fleet Street journalist on a day trip to Dartmoor, to challenge that view? So I did not. Ten weeks later, he escaped. It did not take much; all he had to do was to walk to the car that had been provided. As noble Lords will be able to imagine, a great row about prison security followed, only months after the traitor George Blake had escaped from Wormwood Scrubs.

In that case it was very easy to attack the governor, and a dozen editorials did just that. But the fact was that Frank Mitchell had been in one form of institution or another since the age of 12. The prison’s view was that the fires had burnt out and that it was possible to reclaim a man who was not yet 30. Of course, whether that policy would have been successful we shall never know. His escape had been planned by the Kray brothers and carried out by their men and, with a nationwide hunt in operation, the Krays did what they tended to do when cornered: they had him murdered.

My point is that all too often the safe thing for prisons to do from the public point of view is keep the prisoner locked up. The only trouble with that is that if you return a prisoner untouched by any serious attempt at rehabilitation to the same environment outside, you should not be too surprised when, a few months later, he appears in the reconviction figures.

I wish the Justice Secretary well. He has a massive task but he should take encouragement from the fact that our policy over the last 50 years has been a notable failure—not good for the prisoners and certainly not good for the public, who finance this system. We badly need not only new ideas but new ideas followed by action, and that action and that need is urgent. In 1970, we faced a prisons crisis; today, we face a prisons scandal. I beg to move.

11:51

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, I think that the whole House owes a debt of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, not only for securing this debate but for what has, frankly, been a brilliant speech and exposition of the issues that the prison service faces and, potentially, some of the solutions.

I cannot declare an interest as having written extensively for the Times, as I appreciate that that is clearly an important qualification for considering these matters, but last year I submitted to the Government the independent review of the deaths of young people in prisons, Changing Prisons, Saving Lives. It was commissioned by a former Minister for Prisons and the Government’s response was published in December, just as the House of Commons rose for its Christmas Recess.

That review was probably the most comprehensive independent examination of penal policy for a generation. It was rooted in an enormous volume of evidence and research, and underpinned by a detailed analysis of the tragic cases of 87 young people who died in prison between April 2007 and the end of 2013. Since then, there have been a further 29 self-inflicted deaths of young people in NOMS custody. Each of those deaths represents a failure by the state to protect the young people concerned—a breach of Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The failure is all the greater because the same criticisms occur time and time again. As the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, said more generally about prisons policy, the lessons have not been learnt and not enough has been done to bring about substantive change.

Our conclusion in the review was that all young adults in custody are vulnerable. Some have had chaotic lives and complex histories; others have been subjected to child abuse, exposed to violence or repeated bereavement; many have been in foster or residential care; and their vulnerability is often further compounded by mental health issues or lack of maturity.

Let us be clear. Prisons and young offender institutions are grim environments, bleak and demoralising to the spirit. When that is coupled with impoverished regimes, it makes the experience of being in prison particularly damaging to developing young adults. Quite frankly, the experience is not conducive to rehabilitation. Therefore, I welcome in the introduction to the Government’s response to the review that I led the ringing declarations by the Secretary of State for Justice, Michael Gove, about the primary purpose of prison being rehabilitation.

So, after those fine words at the beginning of the introduction to the Government’s response, it was disappointing that 33 of the central recommendations in the review were rejected outright. That included the fundamental concept at the heart of the review: that there should be a suitably trained professional who has personal responsibility for the journey of each individual prisoner through the prison system—what we called a custody and rehabilitation officer. That person would have a caseload small enough for him or her to know each of the prisoners for whom they were responsible and a caseload that would enable them to ensure that the health, social welfare, security, education, training and rehabilitation needs of that individual were adequately addressed during that time in prison.

Frankly, it is difficult to see how the rehabilitation revolution to which Michael Gove has committed himself can be achieved without someone ensuring and owning what happens to the individual prisoner during their period in the prison system. I feel that this is a major missed opportunity and will mean that many lives continue to be wasted by a prison system that fails to find what Winston Churchill, when he was responsible for the prison system in 1910, called the,

“curative and regenerating processes … in the heart of every man”.

When the review was submitted to Ministers I wrote that:

“Those who ignore the lessons of past failures are condemned to repeat them. And that will be the fate of policy-makers who fail to act on the proposals that we are putting forward.”

Quite frankly, much more needs to be done to support young adults before and after they come into contact with the criminal justice system. In the 87 tragic cases that we examined, many of the young people’s problems and vulnerabilities, including their mental health issues, had been evident from an early age, so why did so many of them end up in custody? There needs to be much earlier and much more effective intervention. That requires a cross-governmental input to address the multifaceted problems and needs of children and young adults and to ensure that their problems are identified and effectively addressed at an early stage, comparable perhaps to the approach of the troubled families programme—targeted and concerted support.

If the Government are serious about the changes in prison policy that have been signalled by the Secretary of State, I welcome that. But we have to make sure that we intervene early enough to divert people from ever entering the criminal justice system and, for those who do, that someone takes personal responsibility to make sure that the rehabilitation that we all want to see takes place.

11:57

[Lord Dholakia (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, for his excellent contribution and I declare an interest as president of the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders.

Although the Secretary of State is right to be shocked by the conditions that he has found in many of our prisons, purposeful activity is currently at the lowest ever level recorded. There are fewer staff looking after more prisoners than five years ago—nearly 14,000 fewer staff looking after around 1,200 more prisoners. Assaults in custody are at the highest ever level. The number of deaths in custody is also at the highest ever level. The reality is that, at the end of September 2015, 70 of the 117 prisons in England and Wales were holding more prisoners than they were built for. Furthermore, 45% of adult prisoners and nearly 70% of juvenile prisoners are reconvicted within a year of leaving custody.

I welcome Mr Gove’s plan to close all decaying prisons and replace them with newly built establishments. I also welcome his plan to review prison education, to monitor educational outcomes more rigorously and to make governors more accountable for those outcomes. But we need to tackle the root cause of the problem—namely, this country’s overuse of imprisonment.

Too many offenders are still sent to custody for short sentences, which was a point well made by the noble Lord, Lord Fowler. They are released after no more than a few months in custody. That serves very little purpose. These sentences are far too short for sustained rehabilitation programmes but long enough for offenders to lose their jobs and homes, which makes them more likely to reoffend. The syndrome of the revolving door process continues. They could be better dealt with through community orders. Research confirms that community orders have a reoffending rate which is seven percentage points lower than that for similar offenders given short prison sentences.

The penal system has had to face significant spending cuts over the past few years. When resources are so stretched, we need to make sure that we are using them in the best possible way. In my view, the Government should legislate to make sentencing guidelines take account of the capacity of the prison system. This proposal is not new. It was first made in the Carter report on the prison system in 2007, and it still makes sense. At a time when all other areas of public services have to work within the reality of limited resources, there is no reason why the courts should be exempt. Sentencing guidelines should scale down the number and length of prison sentences except for the most serious crimes.

We should also convert the sentences of the many IPP prisoners who remain in our prisons by converting them to determinate sentences once they have served a period equivalent to double their tariff, an issue that has been discussed in previous debates. In essence, we should look to our judiciary to ensure that the courts send to prison only those whose offending makes any other course of action unacceptable, but more importantly to ensure that those who are sent to prison do not stay there for any longer than is strictly necessary.

We also need a clearer strategy to reduce the use of imprisonment for women. Proposals have been made in the past to establish a women’s justice board to set improved standards for women’s community sentences, resettlement and rehabilitation, mental health services, family contact and culturally appropriate support for foreign national women in our prisons. A restorative justice approach can provide an appropriate alternative to custodial sentencing.

The Secretary of State for Justice has made an excellent start by challenging punitive thinking. He must now follow that up by taking determined steps to move this country away from the unenviable position of having the highest prison population in western Europe. We need a prison system that can genuinely protect the public by rehabilitating offenders and reducing reoffending. He can make a start by supporting my Private Member’s Bill, which will have its Second Reading next Friday, which seeks to raise the age of criminal responsibility.

12:02

[Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)]

My Lords, as Jane Austen once so nearly said, it is a truth universally acknowledged that a new Lord Chancellor in possession of a marked inclination towards prison reform must be in want of a curable injustice. One such plain injustice, together with the means to cure it, lies immediately to hand: the ever-increasing plight of those still incarcerated under the IPP regime, the scheme for the indefinite detention of certain prisoners for the protection of the public, who are often comparatively minor offenders. It is a wholly discredited system which was finally abolished in 2012 through LASPO, but there still remain some 4,500 such prisoners, of whom around 3,500 have served longer than their tariff terms; that is, longer than the terms judged appropriate as punishment for their wrongdoing. Indeed, 392 prisoners have served more than five times their tariff terms, as this House was told in answer to an Oral Question of mine last November.

It is not every day of the week that one is able, as I was last week, to plead personally to a Justice Minister the existence of a deep and systemic injustice in the criminal justice system flanked, as I was, by two former Lord Chief Justices, the noble and learned Lords, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers and Lord Judge, and for good measure by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. None of them is an enthusiast for putting the public needlessly at risk but all, thankfully, are champions of justice and for change. I am hugely indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, and, indeed, to the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, for having held a meeting and for the characteristically thoughtful and sympathetic hearing we were given.

There is no time today to outline even the rudiments of the case for the release of these post-tariff prisoners, but I will take the opportunity to put before the House some of the facts as set out in an article in the Times—again that newspaper—of December last. The article was written by three of the Lord Chancellor’s highly respected erstwhile leader-writing colleagues, Rachel Sylvester, Alice Thomson and Richard Ford. They record that 740 IPP prisoners have served between two and four years beyond the tariff; a further 587 between four and six years post-tariff; 136 between six and eight years longer; and three are still in jail more than eight years longer than the tariff.

What is the solution? Surely it must be to make use of Section 128 of LASPO, the Act that abolished this regime, custom-built as that provision was, specifically to cater to the needs of the backlog of these prisoners still in jail—namely, by changing the test whereby they can finally regain their liberty. At the moment, they have to satisfy the Parole Board that they can safely be released; the Parole Board, perhaps unsurprisingly, has a defensive and risk-averse mindset, conscious that it might be blamed if people then reoffend. But the plight of these IPP prisoners, particularly those who have long since served terms for their punishment—in the early years of the scheme, these were often terms of only a few months—who are now being detained purely preventively, surely calls for a very different approach. If their continued internment is to be justified, it should now be for the authorities to establish a positive likelihood that, if released, they would pose a real, immediate and serious threat to life or limb.

Of course, some of those released would reoffend, but that is the price that we must pay to end this ever-growing stain on our justice system. We must consider the prizes to be won. Besides ending the basic injustice of internment, we would end the nightmare of uncertainty and hopelessness suffered not just by these prisoners—many of whom over the years, alas, have committed suicide—but their families, too. We would free up places in our already grossly overcrowded prisons and save countless millions of pounds which could then be devoted instead to some of the many other calls for prison reform which have been canvassed in today’s debate.

12:07

[Lord Cope of Berkeley (Con)]

My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Fowler, who made such an excellent opening speech to this debate, I was much encouraged recently by the statements of my right honourable friend Michael Gove, the Justice Secretary. As it happens I have been involved with prisons in two ways in my life. As a Member of another place I had three prisons in my constituency which I visited and kept in touch with. I was also Minister of State in Northern Ireland with responsibility for security, including the Maze and the four other prisons which were there at that time. Of course, they had additional problems.

The three prisons in my constituency were Leyhill open prison, Ashfield in Pucklechurch, a remand centre for both males and females, which became a young offender centre and is now an adult male prison. Eastwood Park was a young offender centre, and for some time now has been a female prison and remand centre. We also had a police officers’ training school next to Leyhill which has now closed The way in which these prisons have changed reflects the huge number of changes in prison policy and organisation by successive Governments over the years. These include, of course, the creation of the National Offender Management Service at one end and successive changes of uniform, rank designation and that sort of thing at the other end.

The most interesting prison in my constituency was the open prison. Some prisoners go to an open prison as a result of being convicted for white-collar crime; some are well qualified, even in the law and medicine—and even in accountancy, my own profession, some have fallen to the sin of greed, leading to the crime of fraud. A lot of the prisoners were serving long sentences for very serious crimes of one sort or another and being prepared for release. My noble friend Lord Fowler referred to the necessity of preparing long-serving prisoners for release. He cited one example, but of course there are numerous others. Such prisoners occasionally abscond—I think five did from Leyhill last year, a high number historically—which can give rise to concern in the local population, although generally speaking the prisoners get well away before they are a risk to anybody.

My noble friend also referred to the way in which the statistics of the prison population have gone. Between the two world wars, the prison population fluctuated not far above 10,000. It has since risen by roughly 10,000 every decade, though not entirely in a straight line. I agree with all five of the points that he made. Some of my right honourable friend the Justice Secretary’s statements have been on those lines, especially on the third point. My right honourable friend was concerned with problem-solving courts, a good initiative and one that he should pursue.

Of course prisons are there to punish by the deprivation of liberty, as my noble friend said, and to prevent further crimes while the offenders are locked up. A book was published last year, The Last English Poachers, about two individuals in my part of the country. The mistake was made of sending one of them to Leyhill, an odd choice as he was by definition a specialist in moving unseen across exactly that part of the countryside by day and night. The first duty of prisons is to try to avoid their prisoners reoffending—that is ultimately the measure of success—and at present, for whatever reasons, the Prison Service is failing to achieve that. I support very much the idea that the avoidance of reoffending can be achieved only individually for each prisoner. Each is a human being with different problems and a different background, which is why I support what the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said about looking after the individual prisoner.

My noble friend said that new ideas were wanted. In a sense they are old ideas, but they can never be overemphasised. The renewed emphasis on them by my right honourable friend the Justice Secretary is right, and I commend him for his thoughtful determination to make a difference.

12:13

[Lord Bradley (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a trustee of the Prison Reform Trust.

It is clearly welcome that the new Secretary of State is considering prison reform again, and the proposals to invest in the prison estate are equally welcome. I commend the five-point plan introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, in his excellent opening speech. However, it is crucial to understand that prison reform starts with what happens long before someone is sent to prison. As we have heard, nearly twice as many people are in prison now than 20 years ago, costing the country an extra £1 billion annually. It means overcrowded prisons that are inadequately equipped to deliver the type of constructive service that successive Governments have always claimed to want. The Sentencing Council’s review of guidelines affecting the decision to imprison is a necessary and welcome step in the right direction, but a wider review of sentencing is also needed to address significant inflation in sentence lengths—up by around a third over the last two decades.

In this brief contribution I will touch on two issues regarding the prison population and need for reform: first, people with mental health and learning disabilities in the criminal justice system; and secondly, release on temporary licence, or ROTL.

It is well known that a huge number of people in prisons suffer from mental health problems and learning disabilities. On Tuesday 19 January, the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman published a thematic report on prisoners with mental health needs. Its findings underline the need to improve the assessment and treatment of people in prison with mental health needs. It found that 70% of prisoners who killed themselves had one or more identified mental health needs. The review makes clear the importance of identifying mental health issues, as without accurate diagnosis it is very difficult to provide appropriate treatment and support. Once a need is identified, effective intervention is required. Therefore, further investment in prison healthcare is necessary, building on the success of the transfer of commissioning of such healthcare to the NHS.

The report’s findings also underline the importance of expediting the rollout of liaison and diversion services, a subject I have some interest in. The current programme now covers 53% of the country and is already having a significant impact on the identification and assessment of people with complex health needs. Excellent partnership working, particularly between psychiatric nurses, learning disability nurses, the police, ambulance staff and other key agencies, often located in police stations and closely linked to street triage, is delivering extremely positive outcomes and over time should favourably impact on the prison population. Subject to Treasury approval, 100% coverage of the country for these services can be achieved over the next few years. I hope that the Minister will again support this ambition.

Secondly, release on temporary licence is a vital tool in resettlement and rehabilitation, which enables people to gain training and education, sort out jobs and housing, and establish contact with their families in preparation for their release. Less than 1% of releases on temporary licence fail. Of these, only 6.1% involve an arrestable offence. This is equivalent to five arrests per 100,000 releases. A stricter ROTL policy was introduced in March 2015 following the review commissioned by the then Secretary of State, Chris Grayling. Ministry of Justice statistics now show that the number of people released from prison on temporary licence has fallen by 41% since the policy change.

Last week, the Prison Reform Trust and Clinks published a joint briefing on the impact of changes to ROTL on charities and businesses. The key finding was that almost two-thirds of respondents to the survey had seen a decrease in ROTL, with some organisations reporting that placements had completely stopped or become almost impossible. The National Offender Management Service’s promised review of the policy presents a real opportunity to restore a more balanced approach, with less bureaucracy, more discretion for governors and more prisoners putting something back into society. Will the Minister confirm the timing and scope of the review, and whether charities and businesses will work with people on ROTL and be consulted?

These issues and many more being debated today should form the centrepiece of prison reform. I look forward to the Minister’s response to the issues.

12:19

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Fowler on initiating this debate. I agree with every word that he said.

When John Major asked me to go to the Home Office to look after prisons in 1994, I was absolutely furious with him, and told him so. I did not want to go to an English department. I was hanging on by my fingernails in a Scottish constituency after three general elections. Why on earth would I want to go to a department with responsibility for England? He said, “I think it might benefit you”. Of all the jobs I have ever done, it was the one that did me most good. I started with a view that prison was somewhere where you sent people and the longer, the better, as they could not commit crime while in prison. However, I discovered a completely different view of the world.

My predecessor, Peter Lloyd, had been ill and I had a backlog of six months of life tariffs. In those days we had the absurd situation that unqualified people like me set the life tariff for prisoners. Because a decision that involves one person is harder to take than one that involves half a million, I sat until three in the morning for a whole month going through this backlog of files on individuals who wanted to know what their life tariff would be. I was struck by the fact that in the main all these individuals shared the same characteristics: they came from broken families; had not done well at school; could not read or write; had become involved in petty crime; had drink and drug problems; and then got into a knife fight one night which led to their whole life being destroyed. When you went to the young offender institutions, you found that the inmates— these monsters, according to the tabloid journalists—turned out to be frightened boys who had never really had an opportunity in life.

I was in that post for only a year because the Prime Minister took me at my word and moved me to the Scottish Office as Secretary of State. The only thing I achieved in that year was to strengthen the work of the boards of visitors. I thought those boards were fantastic and that their work was very important because they related to individuals. But even that has been pushed back. Those with responsibility for the bureaucracy did not like them because they did not like people coming in and interfering with the system. I regret that step.

I was also struck by the fact that our attempts to introduce rehabilitation programmes in the prisons were frustrated by the large number of people on short-term sentences, which made the programmes impossible to administer. Governors did not have very much local say or control in that very centralised system. Many of the prisoners should not have been there at all as they suffered from drug or mental illness problems, some of which were caused by the drugs they were taking. As Minister of State, I tried to introduce drug testing regimes among other things, but the fundamental problem was that many of the prisoners should not have been there at all.

If we are serious about reducing recidivism—my noble friend mentioned the appalling figures in that regard—we have to look at not just what happens in prison, which is very important, but also what happens when people leave prison, and whether they then go to a home and a job. There were many initiatives involving employers guaranteeing these people jobs but none of them has really taken off.

This morning I met people involved in the Duke of Edinburgh’s award who are working in prisons. A young lady, Keeley, who is in Her Majesty’s Prison Bronzefield, in Surrey, said:

“I proved to myself that I could do something, even though I am in here. I wanted to show my kids that I’d done something positive”.

So work is being done in prisons. I declare an interest in that a friend has started a thing called the Clink restaurants in prisons, having successfully established a chain of restaurants. Those restaurants are run by prisoners, and attended by members of the public. They are doing extremely well and those prisoners are learning skills that they can use outside prison.

A lot of things to do with the prison system are gloomy and not good. The Secretary of State very kindly invited me to speak to him before Christmas and asked me to tell him about my former experience as Prisons Minister. I talked for half an hour—as I can, as noble Lords know—explaining all the problems. Then I said, “But, Michael, I am completely out of date. This all happened nearly 30 years ago”. He replied, “It is exactly the same now”. I believe that we have in our Secretary of State someone who has the drive and the ability to change things. Whatever the detail of our disagreements, we should back him 100%. What he has done for education in schools has been absolutely transformational—I have lost the Front Bench opposite now. The key thing there was to allow headmasters to have more power and control and I believe the same thing can be done with governors, subject to proper performance indices and standards of achievement. Let us seize this opportunity and work with the Secretary of State because for far too long we have been cheating the people in prisons and the public, who depend on us to get value for money and protect their safety.

12:25

[Lord McNally (LD)]

My Lords, I start this speech in some confusion. I came along quite ready to explain to the House how much I agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Fowler. It is something of an emotional shock for me to say how much I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, as well. An observer of the debate might say, “Well, where is the problem?”. I think that we all know where the problem is—and it is not in this House, which frequently has very liberal debates on issues such as this. The problem is down the Corridor, it is in the media and it is on the doorstep when we go canvassing. That is worth putting in perspective. We still have other audiences to convince.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, for this timely debate, to which he has attracted some very well-informed contributors. I declare that I am the current chairman of the Youth Justice Board. It is always a delight for me to follow my noble friend Lord Dholakia, who has been my mentor on these issues over many years. I think that we are all grateful chiefly to the Prison Reform Trust for an excellent brief, which gave us the basic figures: 85,000 people in prison, nearly 4,000 of them women; fewer than 1,000 under-18s, fewer than 50 of them girls; 45% of adults reoffend within a year of release; and 67% of under-18s reoffend.

As the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, reminded us, quoting the Chief Inspector of Prisons, Nick Hardwick, there are genuine concerns about safety in both the adult and young people’s secure estate, and genuine questions are being asked about the capacity of our penal system to rehabilitate or reform, as the reoffending rates seem to indicate. But I also believe that, as others have said, there are grounds for optimism. Since Mr Gove became Justice Secretary, he has been asking the right questions and has gone about finding the right answers.

He has asked Mr Charlie Taylor to produce a wide-ranging report on the youth justice system, and the Youth Justice Board is co-operating fully in that exercise. The longer I am in this job, the more I am convinced that a successful youth justice system is how to cut crime off at its headstream. He has appointed Dame Sally Coates to look at education in our prisons. I am sure, as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, just indicated, that his experience at the Department for Education is of value in giving education and training the proper priority they should have within our prison system. Of course, his plan to close the Victorian inner-city prisons gets rid of some real eyesores, and makes the argument to the Treasury, as the MoJ becomes a property developer, that it can use some of that money to build proper modern prisons for the 21st century.

The case for reform also benefits from parallel work being done, often under the leadership of Members of this House. As we have heard, mental health has been championed by the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, in his two ground-breaking reports. We have had the recent report of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, on deaths in custody. The benchmark for the issue of women in prison is still the report of the noble Baroness, Lady Corston. There is the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Laming, on which I have the honour to serve, looking at the overrepresentation of looked-after children in our criminal justice system. The overrepresentation of black and ethnic minorities has been the subject of a report by the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Hornsey, and ongoing work by her. My noble friend Lord Carlile produced a very useful report on the effectiveness of the youth justice system and the magistracy. My colleague and noble friend Lady Tyler also works as chair of the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service. All will supply valuable assistance to a reforming Secretary of State, as will the views of our next speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham.

Time is too short to cover all the good work being done. Let me mention just two points, partly linked to what the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, was saying. There is good work being done by my old college, UCL, on brain development, while the Disabilities Trust Foundation is working at the Keppel unit at Wetherby on the impact of brain injury on young offenders. I intend to ask them to come to the Lords later this year to present their findings. Let me also refer to the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, on IPPs. I was the Minister who brought that Bill through this House and I can say, without equivocation, that the intention of Parliament at that time was to bring to an end the scandal of IPPs. Section 128 was put into the Act specifically for that purpose. I hope that the Minister has some progress to tell the House about.

There is another real reason for optimism, which is what Michael Gove has been saying. One of his first speeches as Justice Secretary was entitled, “The treasure in the heart of man”. That is a direct quote from the speech made by Winston Churchill as Home Secretary in 2010—no, in 1910. Would that he were here to make it now. He said then:

“The mood and temper of the public in regard to the treatment of crime and criminals is one of the most unfailing tests of the civilisation of any country”.—[Official Report, Commons, 20/7/1910; col. 1354.]

And so it is. If it is in that spirit and mood that Mr Gove takes forward his reforms, he can certainly rely on support from all parts of this House.

12:31

[Lord Ramsbotham (CB)]

My Lords, in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, on obtaining this debate, agreeing with his five points and thanking him for giving me and other noble Lords an opportunity to applaud the listening and learning style adopted by the current Secretary of State, Michael Gove—in stark contrast to the rushed and unresearched approach of his immediate predecessor—I have to admit that, other than statements of intent, we do not know much more about the Government’s proposals for prison reform than that they include the selling-off of some old Victorian prisons and reviews of education and youth justice. Currently, 84,550 prisoners are held in 117 prisons, 70 of which are overcrowded. These were described by the outgoing chief inspector, Nick Hardwick, to whom I pay tribute for a job outstandingly well done, as,

“places of violence, squalor and idleness”.

In agreeing that this was correct, Michael Gove said that no one should be held in such conditions, no matter what their offence—which is why those of us who have been campaigning for improvement for years share the hope for the future expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, in his magnificent opening speech.

Let me briefly illustrate some of what those three words of description hide. Prisoner-on-prisoner assaults went up by 13% last year, and serious assaults by prisoners on staff by 42%. Suicides were up by 14% and self-harm by 21%. It is not hard to see why. There are now 13,730 fewer prison staff than there were five years ago, looking after 1,200 more prisoners. Purposeful activity was at its lowest recorded level, being adjudged “good” or “reasonably good” by the chief inspector in only one-quarter of prisons. All this points to the urgent need to reduce the numbers in prisons which, as my noble and learned friend Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood said, could begin by tackling the disgrace of the 12,053 currently serving indeterminate sentences and increasing both the numbers of staff and the amount of activities available to prisoners.

In making his plans, however, I am aware that Michael Gove is faced with some painful realities. First, holding a prisoner for a year costs on average £35,237, yet the Ministry of Justice is required by the 2015 spending review to cut its running costs by a further £600 million by 2020. Secondly, the changes made to probation by his predecessor, which are already running into serious trouble, limit the effectiveness of community sentence alternatives. Thirdly, the Prison Service lacks an effective operational structure, which is an essential of day-to day working, let alone implementing reforms.

However, three changes are in the Secretary of State’s gift. First, he should implement the recommendation of my noble and learned friend Lord Woolf, in his seminal report following the riots in Strangeways and other prisons in 1990. This was included by the then Home Secretary, the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking, in the only White Paper on prisons, Custody, Care and Justice, published in 1991 but never implemented. The Secretary of State should also group prisons into regional clusters, so that no prisoner is held too far from home, with regions under a director of offender management who would be made responsible for the rehabilitation of their own.

Secondly, as in every business, school and hospital, named people should be made responsible and accountable for directing each type of prison and prisoner, ensuring, inter alia, consistency of purposeful activity and in the selection and training of staff. If the Secretary of State does not do this, little or nothing will happen—as little or nothing has happened over the 20 years since I first made this recommendation. The best evidence of this is the Prison Service’s failure to exploit the countless examples of good practice initiated by good staff, who see their improvements dropped when either they or the governor of their prison move.

Thirdly, the Secretary of State should abolish the expensive and unnecessary bureaucracy that is the so-called National Offender Management Service and change his useless contracts branch, which awarded G4S a contract to run Medway secure training centre, as seen on “Panorama” last week, at the same time as cancelling its contract to run Rainsbrook secure training centre. One bureaucracy is quite enough for any Ministry, and he could then give staff to those responsible for running prisons.

12:37

[Lord Suri (Con)]

My Lords, first, I thank my noble friend Lord Fowler for securing this debate. This is an extremely important discussion to drive forward, especially as the Lord Chancellor has indicated that he is willing to listen to all our proposals as part of his consultations. I have worked in a number of roles in prisons, including as a voluntary associate at Wormwood Scrubs and a visitor to HM Prison Pentonville and others, and I feel that I can add something to this debate.

My main point happily coincides with another issue that is very much on the agenda, which is mental health provision. According to the Social Exclusion Unit, more than 70% of the prison population have two or more mental health disorders. When I was a member of the board of visitors to Pentonville prison, I saw a large number of prisoners who had come from broken homes and were emotionally undernourished. Mental health provision must take account of this and the debilitating and lasting effects of substance abuse, which troubles the minds of prisoners long after they have left those substances behind. At present, there is not enough support for prisoners who arrive addicted and are taken off those substances. Opportunities for mental health assessment should be built into substance misuse care pathways to avoid overlooking individuals who also require psychiatric interventions, as recommended by the 2010 reform report.

Education is another key investment that requires additional investment and focus. In my experience, the most important step in reintegrating released prisoners into society is helping them to get a job. This holds true in almost all circumstances. Education can reduce reoffending, as mentioned by my noble friends Lord Cope and Fowler, and bring down the prison population. With a job, a regular income and something that keeps them focused, they can rebuild their lives and shape them how they want to. Most prisoners have low educational attainment and poor qualifications and dropped out of school early, with barely 5% holding a degree or equivalent. Teaching them in prison, when they have the time and motivation to learn, is crucial. For those who care most about the bottom line, this is an investment that pays back significant dividends.

It is not sensible for a country that wants to win in the global race to have such a significant chunk of human capital wasting away, being unproductive. It should be noted that vocational education is often a better route to employment than academic qualifications. The idea of prison apprenticeships has been suggested in the past and remains attractive, as shown by the recent cases in HM Prison Lincoln. If a financial incentive was offered, such as a tax break on national insurance, it would boost the offering and uptake of prison apprenticeships.

Finally, it would be good to see more exercise hours offered in prisons. It is not healthy to be sitting around all day; indeed, boredom is often a factor in people involving themselves in crime. If possible, gyms and open areas should be open for longer hours, and inmates encouraged to go and exercise there, rather than watch television.

12:41

[Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, on securing this debate on prison reform at this critical time as pressure increases on staff in our overcrowded prisons.

I wish to raise the issue of women in prison. There is a growing consensus that most of the solutions to women’s offending lie outside prison walls, in treatment for addictions and mental health problems, protection from domestic violence and coercive relationships, secure housing, debt management, education, skills development and employment. I acknowledge the Government’s commitment to reduce the number of women sent to prison, but there are still far too many being incarcerated. Across the UK, more than 13,500 women are imprisoned each year. On 15 January this year, there were 3,817 women in prison, accounting for 4.5% of the total prison population. Women on remand account for one in six of the female prison population, and although less than half of those found guilty are given a prison sentence, the damage to family life has already been done. Six in 10 women in prison have dependent children, and 17,000 children are separated from their mothers each year.

The Government’s review of sentencing policy is a key opportunity to encourage more community sentences for women with children. The Prison Reform Trust has proposed practical steps such as ensuring pre-sentence reports provide enough information about the woman’s circumstances, including her caring responsibilities, to make courts aware of appropriate community-based sentencing options. Magistrates are still too unaware of community alternatives where they do exist and are reluctant to refer where they see poor services or fragmented support.

I welcome the Sentencing Council’s definitive guideline on theft offences, which encourages the use of community orders where appropriate and which will come into effect next month. Most women are sent to prison for a non-violent offence, and the majority of these are for theft and handling. The average sentence for theft from a shop—the primary driver to women’s imprisonment in 2015—was less than three months.

As is now widely acknowledged, prison does not reduce offending. More than half—51%—of all women leaving prison are reconvicted with 12 months, and for those serving less than 12 months, the reconviction rate rises to 62%. Not only do children suffer while their mothers are imprisoned, but on release from these short sentences employment outcomes for women are three times worse than for men. Fewer than one in 10 women have a job to go to on release.

Prison is not the answer to women’s offending, except in rare, violent circumstances. Specialist women’s services, on the other hand, have been shown to be highly effective in supporting and rehabilitating women in contact with the penal system. Women receiving community orders have much lower reoffending rates, and there is an even greater reduction in reoffending for those who receive support from women’s centres, according to the MoJ’s own figures. Steps must be taken to increase the funding of women’s centres, prohibit the use of short-term sentences under 12 months, limit the use of remand and reduce recalls to custody where there have been technical breaches of an offender’s licence. Where the terms of a non-custodial sentence disregard a woman’s responsibility for children, there is an increased risk of breach for non-compliance, which can lead to custodial sentences being imposed where imprisonment was outside the sentencing parameters for the original offence. This is surely wrong.

Finally, on the proposed closure of Holloway, there is widespread concern that moving women to another prison further away from many women’s homes, therefore reducing access for families and resettlement opportunities, could result in worsening the rehabilitation prospects for those women, many of whom are vulnerable, have committed non-violent offences and have so often been victims of domestic violence and sexual abuse themselves. The implications of what the Government may see as a well-meaning improvement could have damaging outcomes, as there was no or little consultation with staff and other stakeholders, I am told.

The Prison Reform Trust has called for the current visitors centre on the Holloway site to become a women’s centre providing support and supervision for women caught up in the justice system in London. Several women’s centres across London are urgently needed to support women upon release. Could the Minister tell the House how much resource is going to be used rebuilding prisons for women compared to providing the more effective community alternatives to custody?

12:47

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (LD)]

My Lords, I start by endorsing the powerful speech that the noble Baroness just made on the subject of women in prison. We should pay very close attention to her every word. I also want to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, on obtaining the debate and on opening it so powerfully. I applaud every word of his speech and the five measures he has proposed, which I shall address briefly a little later. I used to read the articles that he wrote for the Times all those years ago, and it is wonderful to see his consistency and continuing interest in this important issue.

We come to this issue at a time when we have a Lord Chancellor, with whom I have spoken about this subject, who I believe is completely credible in his determination to reform the penal system. He has applied his considerable critical faculty to whether the penal system is successful or not, and I think the answer he has reached is a resounding “No”, or at least “Not very”. I look forward to him taking his officials with him, and I hope that he will be in post long enough and not be reshuffled before we can see real reform to the penal system.

I am not sure what I can add to this debate, but I suppose I have spent longer in the cells than almost anybody else in this House—barring two or three people. I have on occasion had to sit in the cells, in cases that I do not count among the forensic triumphs which I talk about all too easily at dinner parties, and explain to my clients why they have been sent to prison for short sentences. As an illustration, I have always found it very difficult to explain to a man or woman who has been sent to prison for causing death by driving without due care and attention what the utility of the prison system is in their case, particularly as they tend to be middle-aged or older people who have never been in trouble with the law before. We ought to learn from some of the, in my view, ludicrous guidelines that are set upon us. I have sat as a recorder in the Crown Court on numerous occasions and have felt I had to send somebody to prison because the sentencing guidelines were just too prescriptive and did not allow for the subjectivity that the case needed.

Perhaps the headline of this debate for me, so far, is this: if a probation officer was given a case load for one year of one person and acted as a sort of personal trainer for that person for one year, we would save money for the state. The noble Lord, Lord Fowler, compared it to Eton fees, but it may be even more powerful to say that, if we committed probation officers to looking after people who are not sentenced to custody, training them in their everyday lives, letting them understand how to manage their money, giving them real quality time, we would achieve a much better system than sending such people to prison.

I turn to the imperatives of the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, which, as I have said, I share. First, of course, punishment by imprisonment should be more than the deprivation of liberty; it should also be an opportunity. As does Michael Gove, I take the view that prison education needs enormous improvement. I absolutely applaud the decision to allow books to go to prison. What an absurd decision it was to say that prisoners should not receive books. Recently, I represented a man who was convicted of manslaughter—a rather intelligent man. He said as he was going to prison, after the case was over, “I’m going to do an MBA”. I asked him why, and he referred to what the current Lord Chancellor had said about the advantages of being educated in prison and about released early if you do that—and that is very good.

Secondly, it is not just overcrowding that is the problem; the sites of prisons are unsuitable. In places with young men, there is only one playing field and one gym, at which they have to queue to have their opportunity, as well as insufficient educational provision.

The noble Lord, Lord Fowler, referred, thirdly, to the dumping ground. We had an eloquent contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, about mental health. If somebody goes to a hospital and they are going to be in a hospital for a long time, they are given a designated nurse to look after their case and to ensure that it follows the right track. Why, when someone is sent to prison for a long time, are they not given a designated officer to try to ensure, as if they were a sort of tutor, that every opportunity is made available?

I agree that we should use community sentences more, particularly problem-solving courses.

Finally, I totally agree with the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, that we should give more opportunity to governors. I was once taken by a governor to a falconry course in a young offender institution. One of the young offenders told me that he was leaving the following week, that he had a job on an estate in Scotland and how he was looking forward to it. I came back to this place and thought, “I’m not going to tell anyone about the falconry course because the Daily Mail will get hold of it and call for it to be abolished”. But how useful that was.

My coda is to say: let us now start to apply imagination to sentencing policy so that those who come out of prison come out better and those who might go to prison do not do so, wherever possible.

12:53

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, I very rarely disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, and I shall certainly not begin to do so today, because he made a powerful and convincing speech and I agree with every word. I also endorse most strongly all the comments that have been made about the admirable opening speech of my noble friend Lord Fowler and, again, endorse what he says. As I am in the business of endorsements at the moment, let me say how much I agreed with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood. How privileged I was to be with him, as well as the noble and learned Lords, Lord Phillips and Lord Judge, when we went to see my noble friend the Minister last week to talk about indeterminate sentences. He made a powerful plea, which I hope will be heeded and will lead to a speeding up of dealing with these appalling stains on our justice system, because that is what they are.

In his opening speech, my noble friend talked about the Prison Service and how, if the squalor of the prison system was replicated in any way in any other aspect of the public service, there would be a massive public protest. One of the problems is—and I am afraid that I am rather old-fashioned on this matter—that the Prison Service is not entirely a public service. One decision that I have deplored over the years is the privatisation of prisons. It should be the duty of the state. Again, I refer to Winston Churchill, who in effect said that one of the hallmarks of a civilised society is how it treats its prisoners. There is a public responsibility, exercised by the Government of the day, and I believe that it has been detrimental to farm it out on economic grounds to private providers. That is not to say that there have not been some admirable people involved and that some of the prisons are not well run, but I do not like the principle.

I had considerable experience of prisons, with two in my constituency—Featherstone, and Brinsford young offender institution. The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, is only too familiar with both of them. He made reports on them, and his report on Brinsford is one of the best that I have ever read on any penal institution. Going to those two institutions, I discovered two things. First, many of the young offenders had such an appalling private background of deprivation that they needed rehabilitation in a way that was not always provided. I agree so much with the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, in his remarks about the falconry course, and so on. In Featherstone itself I ran for a considerable period a surgery for lifers, which brought me face to face with men who had committed the ultimate crime, many of whom could not be categorised as criminal people. They had done something—sometimes provoked and sometimes not—of an appalling nature. Of course they deserved a prison sentence, and they all recognised that, but they were human beings and there is very much good in the worst of us, just as there is very much bad in the best of us. I became very conscious of that in those visits.

As chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in another place, I conducted an inquiry into prisons. One thing that convinced me more than anything else of the need for change was the experience that we had of the restorative justice system. It has been referred to during this debate, but I would like to underline its importance. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, and others have talked about keeping young people out of prison. A well-run restorative justice system on which proper money is expended would save a lot of money—it would not cost £36,000 per person per year—and do a great deal to help to implement the five Fowler proposals. I endorse all of them.

In Lincoln, where I have the privilege to live, we have just completely restored Lincoln Castle, which contained within it two prisons—a Georgian debtors’ prison and a Victorian prison. The latter was based on Pentonville, and they operated there the separate system whereby every prisoner was kept separate from another, even in the chapel, where each prisoner occupied a cubicle. This is a pretty scary thing when you go to see it, but of course the motivation was entirely decent, because they wanted to try to ensure that people would not reoffend. It was a crude, simplistic and unsuccessful system that deserved to be castigated as it has been, but the motives were right. The motives here in this debate are all right, but we need to convince the admirable new Justice Secretary and Lord Chancellor that he has our support in his reforming zeal. May he keep it up—and I am sure that he will have the good wishes of every Member of this House if he does so.

12:59

[Baroness Benjamin (LD)]

My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, on securing this important debate and on his excellent opening speech. I welcome the Justice Secretary’s desire to introduce much-needed prison reforms because, as has been said repeatedly during this debate, far too many young men and women are ending up in prison for a variety of reasons, such as mixing with the wrong company, living most of their early life in care, suffering from mental problems, some sort of child-abusive background or maybe simply because society has failed them.

When I visit prisons, I find that young black men are disproportionally in this position, with no hope or encouragement to better themselves, and this often leads to a revolving door situation as they leave prison with no prospects or further education. Being in prison should offer them an opportunity to turn their lives around in a positive way, and this can be done through education, especially for those serving long-term sentences.

I visited Swaleside prison on the Isle of Sheppey last year to open officially a unique and original project in its A wing called the Open Academy. It gives long-term inmates the opportunity to change their future by studying for a university degree using distance learning. The feeling of enthusiasm and hope among the inmates was electrifying and inspirational. Men who never thought they could achieve anything in life were suddenly empowered to discover their potential and the world of education. As my beloved mother used to say, “Education is your passport to life”. This is a perfect example of the kind of initiative we should be promoting as part of prison reform.

The Open Academy at Swaleside, which was praised in Dame Sally Coates’s review of education in prisons, has been open for nearly four months now. During that time, Malcolm Whitelaw, the head of learning, skills and employment in the reducing reoffending department, along with two co-ordinators and prison staff, has worked tirelessly to ensure the continued progress and promotion of the project to all inmates. Prisoners are given the opportunity to move to A wing to live to enable them to be part of the community of learners. The project now has 30 students signed up to the self-study programme. Their academic levels and abilities are wide-ranging, but they work together.

However, this initiative has not been easily achieved. It happened purely through the vision and dogged determination of the then governor and her staff. They were fortunate enough to have the majority of the resources donated to them by libraries that had closed down and to have generous donations which enabled them to buy essential equipment. However, more resources will be needed to continue to engage all the inmates who want to learn and develop.

The staff on A wing have also benefited. They have responded positively to the change in the dynamics of the wing and, importantly, they have supported the work required in the Open Academy, as much of it has been somewhat different from their usual everyday job. They now share ideas and make contributions. The Open Academy has given them an identity and a positive purpose. Some staff have even shown an interest in engaging in distance learning themselves and will be using the facilities of the Open Academy to study and to develop their career path and abilities. What a success story this is.

Malcolm has said: “I have been very proud of the work that has been achieved and the commitment, dedication and passion shown by everyone. To see prisoners engaging in positive activity which no doubt aids in their rehabilitation and employment opportunities upon release, encourages my staff. Together we are achieving and impacting upon prisoners’ lives”. He also said: “I strongly believe that should other prisons use this unique model and roll this out in their prisons then they too will see the change and progression which we have started to see at Swaleside. With the correct support and drive I believe it is possible across the prison estate”.

I agree with Malcolm. This could be a fundamental part of prison reform for the development of prisoners, especially those with medium and long-term sentences, as there is little progression available through the normal channels. To continue this important programme, prisons need relatively low investment and, more importantly, they need to involve and train their committed staff, who will be essential to the running of not just the Open Academy at Swaleside, but all future academies of this type. Will the Government consider funding Open Academies like the one at Swaleside? May I suggest that the Minister visits Swaleside prison, if he has not done so already, to see for himself the good work that is being done there?

13:05

[Lord Farmer (Con)]

My Lords, I, too, join noble Lords in congratulating my noble friend Lord Fowler on securing this timely debate and on his excellent opening speech. Momentous developments are taking place right now in the area of prison reform, which have the potential to make major inroads into social problems that have dogged our nation for decades. As part of the Secretary of State’s commitment to tackle reoffending by working with the whole person to find the “treasure in the heart of the man”, as he puts it, recent announcements have been made that the Ministry of Justice intends to put family at the heart of prison reforms.

Award-winning journalist Nell Bernstein observed:

“The dissolution of families, the harm to children—and the resultant perpetuation of the cycle of crime and incarceration from one generation to the next—may be the most profound and damaging effect of our current penal structure”.

Families can feel as if they, too, have been the victims of crime. For partners and children who have not themselves offended, it can seem as if they are also serving the sentence. An article last month in the Times told Sandra’s story—how her son’s life sentence for manslaughter at the age of 16 made her want to die too. She hated going into prison to see him—it was so heartbreaking. That is why all new prisons should have family-friendly visitor centres. They should be cheerful facilities where it is made clear to family members that they are welcome and valued. Staff should be trained to do all they can to prevent visitors feeling humiliated. One study found that reoffending rates are 39% lower if prisoners receive family visits, but they can be major undertakings that require travelling a long way with children. When I recently visited someone in Parkhurst prison on the Isle of Wight, it took a whole day to get there and back, and I was coming only from Chichester.

One of the longest-running longitudinal studies in the history of social science found that getting married can be a key turning point away from crime, even for the most prolific offenders. Research has also found that partnering relationships which bring structure, informal monitoring and emotional support decrease the likelihood of reoffending. It can make an enormous difference to a prisoner if they know their wife or husband is willing to stick with them. The perceived strength, stability and quality of ex-prisoners’ relationships are particularly important in rehabilitation, so the opportunities presented by their being inside must be taken to help prisoners develop better relationship skills, and prisoners should, wherever appropriate, be helped by staff to maintain family ties. Yet this happens for only one-third of offenders. Will the Minister include the need to improve the stability and quality of family relationships in the outcomes governors are required to deliver as they are given more autonomy? Programmes with a solid evidence base, such as Family Man, can pay for themselves in the money they save by preventing reoffending. This course uses drama, group discussions and written work to improve family relationships as a way of developing skills essential to education, training and employment.

These synergies are important. If prisoners’ family-based needs go unmet, it can greatly undermine wider efforts to improve their employability and educational attainment. However, the National Offender Management Service’s review of parenting and relationship support found that currently there is significant variation in the quality and scale of family provision. There is also too little structured assessment of family need in sentence planning, yet, as my earlier quote suggested, it makes no sense to ignore the needs of the next generation. Two-thirds of young males separated from imprisoned fathers in childhood go on to commit crime themselves.

Will the Minister discuss with colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government how family support could also be joined up with work that goes on outside in the community, such as the troubled families programme? Similarly, schools should be able to use pupil premium money for children of prisoners on programmes such as Family Literacy in Prisons if this is the most effective means of improving their educational outcomes. Involving the imprisoned parents in their children’s education gives them a reason to go straight, and gives the children a better chance of avoiding criminality themselves. Given the Prime Minister’s inspiring mission to improve life chances for everyone in this country, can we assume that improving prisoners’ family stability will be at the heart of this Government’s rehabilitation strategy?

13:11

[Lord Judd (Lab)]

My Lords, I have long been an admirer of the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, and his contribution today has done nothing but strengthen that admiration. However, there have been many other important contributions to this debate. The contribution of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, was crucial. What he described is a disgrace and a blemish on all our claims to a commitment to justice in our society. I draw particular attention to the words of my noble friend Lord Harris. In my view, his report is compulsory reading, and all of us who take these issues seriously should read it if we have not already done so.

I say to the Secretary of State: be careful. We live in an age of unprecedented cynicism about the political system, partly because large sections of the public see politics as a game of rhetoric without real commitment to, and fulfilment of, the needs of society as a whole. The excellent priorities that he has set out on rehabilitation could too easily become part of that accelerating cynicism if they prove to be nothing more than rhetoric. We all have to realise that when commitments of this kind are made, it is necessary to face the discipline of the resources that are required. These things cannot be done cheaply. They cannot be motivated by a desire to have social provision, wherever it is, on the cheap; they must be motivated by the determination to make the resources available.

We talk about rather abstract statistics and figures when we discuss penal reform, when we should all be thinking of the huge number of terrible human experiences that individuals have within the system, with so many broken lives and nightmare experiences. It is not a great credit to us that all we can do in response is lock people up.

The first thing to do is to decide what we are trying to do and then say what is necessary to do it. Large warehouse prisons are certainly not the way to do it; what we need are far more well-designed individual establishments appropriate to individual needs. Almost nothing in this is more important than the mental health dimension.

Women are a particular challenge. I remember being told by a prison officer in Holloway, in absolute exasperation, “What are we supposed to be doing, particularly with women on short sentences? Their life is one of unremitting chaos, and with short sentences we are only adding to that chaos. Sometimes, I think the best that can be said for what we contribute is that we give them relief for a few days from the pressures that are ruining their lives outside”. What a commentary.

That brings me to my last point. When I was president of the YMCA in England, I tried to give as much time as possible to the work with offenders. I was glad that in the leading councils of the YMCA we had a very experienced senior police superintendent from the north of England, who was a very effective policeman and very down to earth. He said, “I often feel that it is at the moment when the person is being sentenced and sent down that there should be someone at their elbow saying, quietly but firmly, ‘What a terrible mess this is in your life. How are we going to sort it out?’. Such a person should take the sentenced person through the experience of imprisonment and back into a rehabilitated life outside. Without such an approach, we are just playing mechanical games that are destined to fail”.

13:17

[Lord Beith (LD)]

My Lords, I share the feeling, expressed around the House, of enthusiasm that this debate is happening, that it was so powerfully introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, and that it takes place at a time when the relatively new Lord Chancellor appears genuinely open to new thinking and radical reappraisal of some of the kinds of ideas that I pursued when I chaired the Justice Committee in the other House.

I want to try to analyse why the problem is as it is. We have to do something; we have far and away the largest proportion of our citizens in prison of any country in western Europe, at a time when there is enormous pressure on prison staff. Prison officers, instructional staff and others cannot really be expected to deliver very good results under that degree of pressure.

We all know that there are people who have to be in prison for public safety. However, we also know that the prison system is relatively weak in its record on rehabilitation. We know that it is of extremely limited deterrent value in relation to quite a few crimes and very many criminals, most of whom believe that they will not be caught and, if they are, that they will not receive a prison sentence anyway.

In the Justice Committee, I have had witnesses in front of me who said that they committed further offences in order to get back into prison; far from being deterred, they wanted to get back inside, in some cases because they could get access to drug treatment in prison that they could not get outside, and in others, frankly, because they did not really have anywhere else to go. At Christmas time or in the depths of winter, people were actually committing offences to get into prison. Another part of the problem is that the prison system pre-empts resources that cannot then be used to deal with the alcohol problems, drug addiction problems and failures in the care system and in the education system that put so many people into prison in the first place.

So why is the UK—this is true in Scotland as well as in England and Wales—set on a default course to the wrong place? Why is it that our system seems always to push up the prison population unless a real effort is made, as it is from time to time, to try to counteract it? These are the reasons I want to suggest to your Lordships.

First, it is institutionally dominant in the Ministry of Justice and the National Offender Management Service. Everything starts from the fact that we have this great big prison system and the effects of that within any management structure are quite powerful.

Secondly, prison is treated as a free good in the criminal justice system. It is commissioned nationally, whereas all the alternatives to prison are commissioned locally. When a court has an offender in front of it and is coming to a decision about what to do, at the back of the mind there will always be the simple fact that, if some kind of community sentence is required with several elements in it, it has to be established whether that is available—whether it is available locally and whether there is a place for someone to take it on. If the sentence is custody, a van will roll up outside and it will be somebody else’s job to find a particular prison to put the person in, but prison will be found, with the resulting overcrowding if necessary. The commissioning system does not work well, because things are commissioned in completely different places, which creates an imbalance in the system.

The third factor is that the prison system has been exempted from the value-for-money questions which have been applied to every public service, including defence, which of course shares with prisons this crucial importance to the security and safety of our citizens. I was very pleased to learn that the Lord Chancellor has been to Texas. The Justice Committee certainly went to Texas; that surprises most people you mention this to until you explain to them that what happened in Texas, particularly with regard to drug-related offences, is that right-wing Republicans and liberal-minded Democrats found that they agreed that they could not go on as they had been, putting more and more people into prison. The Republicans said, “This is the taxpayers’ dollar—it’s our duty as state senators to make sure that money isn’t wasted in this way”. Therefore, they reached an agreement that they should put more money into family-based programmes, nurse-family partnerships, problem-solving courts and keeping people out of prison, particularly when drug-related offences other than large-scale dealing had put them there. In our system, we now need to apply to the prison system some of the value-for-money tests which are applied to every other aspect of our system.

The final factor is that prison and the length of a prison sentence is the only yardstick by which society, and particularly the press, measures and asserts how seriously a crime is viewed. If you read a newspaper article it will ask, “Did he get more than somebody else got for a slightly less violent attack?”. We use it as a measure and a yardstick. That will not do, because it does not lead to the most effective disposition for that offender—the choice of sentence for that offender which might make them much less likely to reoffend. We have to find ways to insist and demonstrate that crimes are taken seriously when the courts impose a demanding community sentence or a community element as part of a sentence which involves custody. That has to change.

13:23

[Lord Trefgarne (Con)]

My Lords, I start by confessing that my experience of prisons is pretty limited. I was briefly responsible—for a couple of years—for the Army detention centre at Colchester, but most of my relevant experience was under the direction of my noble friend Lord Fowler, to whom, naturally, I add my thanks for this debate. While I served as a junior Minister in the DHSS under his guidance, special hospitals were part of my responsibility and I remember visiting them on a number of occasions, including, if I may say so to my noble friend Lord Forsyth, one in Scotland at a place called Carstairs, which was also a special hospital at that time.

I will focus on a particular issue, namely the way in which we treat older prisoners. By that I mean those of, say, 80 years of age or more, although there is room for more than one view as to what the precise age should be. For example, I understand that in Italy nobody goes to prison over the age of 70 years, and I dare say there are similar age limits in other European countries.

My interest in this matter was roused by a case before one of the county courts, as I recall, about a year ago now, when a man in his late 80s was ostensibly convicted of leaving his shotgun in public view on the back seat of his car and was sentenced to a term in prison. I say “ostensibly convicted” because it turned out that the judge had got both the sentence and the law wrong, and the prisoner was, correctly, released very quickly. We are sometimes told that we ought not to criticise the judiciary. I do not do so on this occasion, because there may have been considerations of which I am unaware, which did not seem obvious from the reports that I read.

In June last year, the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman, Mr Nigel Newcomen, delivered an important address on this matter. He of course draws on extensive knowledge and experience. Apparently, those aged over 60 are now the fastest growing segment of the prison population. The recent flurry of prosecutions for historic sex offences is no doubt one of the causes, but longer sentences also contribute. Thus it is, presumably, that increasing numbers of prisoners die from natural causes while in prison. Mr Newcomen refers to a number of cases in his lecture. He refers, for example, to one prisoner in his 94th year, who was removed from a care home to serve his first prison sentence for a historic sex offence and died a few weeks later after falling out of bed in his cell. In his lecture Mr Newcomen makes four recommendations for improving the arrangements for so-called geriatric prisoners. The Minister will no doubt be familiar with them; I should be glad to know which of them are now being implemented.

I am also concerned about the excessive use of restraints on older prisoners who in reality present little or no risk of escape. I have seen reference to one particularly shameful case where an elderly man in the last hours of life was eventually allowed to go to hospital and his restraint was finally removed only after he had died. That case was also referred to by Mr Newcomen. Can the Minister also say what arrangements are available for prisoners with serious medical problems; for example, double incontinence? Again, there are some quite shocking cases of the prison authorities simply ignoring these problems, which is quite unacceptable.

I also draw the Minister’s attention to a recent letter in a publication called Inside Time, which I understand circulates among the prison population, which relates to the treatment of an 83 year-old prisoner who had serious medical problems. Another prisoner was appointed to look after him, which raised serious question about access to his medication and other related matters. If the account set out in that particular published letter is accurate, we will need better and fuller particulars and an explanation.

Our present policy in respect of older prisoners is wholly unsatisfactory. Prisons, almost by definition, are designed to hold younger, comparatively fit people, and if there are no proper arrangements for holding much older prisoners, they should be released on licence or some other solution found. No doubt there are one or two who, given the gravity and may be comparative recency of their offence, need to be kept inside, but that does not apply to the majority.

Before I sit down, I will refer to a slightly different matter, namely the arrangements for the imprisonment of younger women who may have small children. There are now some improved sentencing guidelines on this matter, which I hope the Minister will be able to refer to and confirm. We are a civilised and compassionate nation, and our present policies should reflect those qualities.

13:28

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

My Lords, I echo the thanks of many noble Lords to the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, both for securing this debate and for the powerful and striking speech with which he opened it. The debate has demonstrated that the first priority in prison reform is reducing the numbers of people in prison and that to achieve that our aims must be rehabilitation to cut reoffending, and fewer offenders sentenced to prison when they do not need to be there. The whole House has welcomed the fact that the new Justice Secretary recognises the crisis in our prisons and is committed to change. However, there is much to be done.

The House also recognises that prison overcrowding is the main obstacle to rehabilitation—the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, made that point. The Howard League for Penal Reform, to which I am grateful for its briefing, points out that in 25 years the prison population has almost doubled, from less than 45,000 in 1990 to more than 85,000 now, in spite of the last few years of falling crime, and that the prison population is projected to increase to 90,000, plus or minus 8,000, by 2020. The institutional factors mentioned by my noble friend Lord Beith clearly have something to do with this.

My noble friend also pointed out the dependence on tariff sentencing, which is so prevalent and so powerful with the press. There is overwhelming evidence that short sentences do not work, yet far too many prisoners are serving them. We have had the depressing figures for reconviction rates. Through-the-gate supervision, introduced by the Offender Rehabilitation Act, may reduce the disparity but it has not done so yet. The fact remains that short prison sentences work far less effectively than community sentences in reducing reoffending. Short sentences may indeed increase the risk of future crime by removing offenders from their family and social supports, as my noble friend Lord Dholakia pointed out.

The unnecessary imprisonment of drug offenders has also contributed to prison overcrowding and to increased drug use and drug-related corruption in prisons. The extent of the problem was highlighted by a 2013 survey which showed that 64% of prisoners reported having used drugs in the four weeks before going into custody. On these Benches, in the face of overwhelming evidence that imprisonment or even punishment does not reduce drug use or cure addiction, we have long argued for drug possession to be treated as a health rather than a criminal justice issue. It is therefore welcome that the Justice Secretary has established a working group to consider establishing courts that would have as their aim solving drug and similar health and social problems through rehabilitation rather than imprisonment—the Texas solution mentioned by my noble friend Lord Beith.

Far too many women are in prison, as the noble Baroness, Lady Healy, pointed out. Eighty-two per cent of women in prison have been convicted of non-violent offences and probably do not need to be there. The evidence shows that among women there is a far greater prevalence than among men of serious social and health problems. Women suffer disproportionately from prison in their family and personal lives, and of course their children and families suffer disproportionately, unnecessarily and unfairly from the separation that imprisonment of their mothers involves. The noble Baroness, Lady Healy, also made the point that there is an unduly extensive use of prison on remand for women who face a trial.

For young people, young offender institutions have for far too long been academies for crime to which we have sent our most deprived youngsters with the most intractable personal, social and health problems—mental and physical—and often with backgrounds of abuse, as my noble friend Lady Benjamin pointed out, only for matters to get worse for them. I applaud the contribution that my noble friend Lord McNally has made not only to this debate but to improving youth justice in the United Kingdom, which he continues to do. However, we also need to improve educational opportunity and vocational training, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, pointed out, we need to ensure that personal responsibility is taken by the service for individual prisoners. The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, pointed out the difficulties of imprisoning too many older offenders.

The continued unjust incarceration of prisoners whose tariffs have expired but who are serving IPPs also contributes to the prison population. We have heard again from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, taking up the cudgels of Lord Lloyd of Berwick. Both have repeatedly exposed the continuing injustice caused by these sentences, which were abolished as long ago as 2012, yet the Government will not use their power under Section 128 of the LASPO Act to change the test for their release, although for IPP prisoners the rate of reconviction within a year of release is only 14%.

Certainly one answer to overcrowding is to ensure that there are prison places to house the prison population in humane conditions, with an end to cramming and insanitary, squalid and filthy cells, lacking in privacy and destructive of self-esteem. The plan to replace old and inadequate city prisons with modern prisons that are fit for purpose is therefore welcome, provided that they are then used for the numbers for which they are designed and that we do not replace overcrowding in Wormwood Scrubs with overcrowding in its modern out-of-town-centre equivalent.

It is also clearly right that if costs to the Ministry can be saved by using modern videoconferencing technology to avoid unnecessary attendance at pre-trial court hearings, this is a sensible innovation. I would, however, add a word of caution about out-of-town prisons. It is important that, where possible, prisoners are placed close to their communities, particularly to enable their families to visit them. The Prison Reform Trust points to the evidence that prison visits help to reduce the risk of reoffending, which is 39% higher among prisoners who receive no visits than among those who do. We should not move prisoners miles across the country to far-away locations in large prisons where their links with their past, and therefore often with their futures, are cut, perhaps fatally. The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, made that point.

The effects of overcrowding are exacerbated by chronic and serious understaffing. Staffing levels fell by 29% between March 2010 and December 2014—from about 45,000 to about 32,000. That has meant more violence, more drugs, more drug-related corruption, more in-cell time, less education and less activity. The vicious circle inherent in all that is obvious. The understaffing increases reoffending, which increases the prison population and further strains staffing levels.

The Chief Inspector of Prisons has painted a chilling picture of violence in custody, as the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, pointed out. The review of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, was a terrible indictment of our prison system. As he pointed out, the Government have a fundamental obligation towards prisoners to keep them safe. His recommendations for safer cells, for understanding the vulnerability and differences of maturity of young adults and for keeping them out of prison where possible must be implemented.

The figures on drug use in prisons are alarming. A rise of 60% in incidents where drugs were found in prisons in 2014 can only partly be explained by better detection. Understaffing and a demoralised staff contribute to that problem as well.

The House considered the position and role of prison education in Tuesday’s debate introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, and I will not repeat what was said then. However, the role of education has been mentioned by many and, although, as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and my noble friend Lady Benjamin pointed out, good things are happening, understaffing, limited availability of courses, large disparities and poor continuity have all meant that we are not taking the opportunity to turn people round. We should applaud the idea of resettlement of prisoners close to their families and communities, but the effectiveness of that will be sharply reduced if prisoners cannot complete the courses they are undertaking because they are not available in the new prison.

The ways forward are not obscure. The plan of the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, has been clear and others have mentioned it. In short, we now need to turn a vicious cycle of prison letting down offenders and society and turn it into a virtuous cycle of improving prisons and of ensuring that we increase rehabilitation and save funds accordingly.

13:39

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, I join all those who congratulated the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, on securing this wide-ranging debate. My admiration for him was undimmed by the occasion when he spoke in a debate on a Motion of mine and described me as having risen from “the serried ranks” of the Labour Opposition, who consisted in their entirety of me and a single Whip.

In a similar vein, it would be churlish not to welcome Mr Gove’s appointment as Lord Chancellor, although almost anyone would have been an improvement on his predecessor. Mr Gove’s announcement about secure colleges, the reversal of the decision on books in prison, a review of prison education and the replacement of old and unfit buildings are most welcome. His speech, “Rescuing Broken Lives”, acknowledged in broad terms the failings of the present system and emphasised the importance of rehabilitation as a vital element in penal policy and of our justice system. But perhaps understandably, his brief address did not really begin to make clear the scale of the crisis in our prisons. That emerges with stark and deeply troubling clarity from Nick Hardwick’s last report as Chief Inspector of Prisons. The House will wish to pay tribute to him for his service and for my part—and I suspect many others—I regret his departure, which followed Mr Grayling’s decision not to reappoint him but to invite him only to reapply for the job that he had done so well.

The Minister will no doubt be aware of the five-page letter that Mr Hardwick sent to the Permanent Secretary in December protesting about the latter’s interference in the way that he was carrying out his responsibilities and reminding him that the chief inspector is and must be independent and is a Crown appointment. Will the Minister confirm that position and assure the House, the chief inspector and his successor that there will be no repetition of the matters about which Mr Hardwick complained?

As we have heard today, the fundamental problem in penal policy is that we have far too many people in prison—we have heard the figures: 85,000, which is twice as many as a couple of decades ago—and occupying in March 2015 97.7% of usable capacity. Even Texas, the jailhouse capital of the western world referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Beith, is striving to reduce its prison population. Furthermore, too many of our prisons are, as we have heard, overcrowded and understaffed, with the consequences that the chief inspector’s report spelt out. As he noted, assessed outcomes in prisons fell sharply last year to be the worst in 10 years. Prisoners were more likely to die in prison, be murdered, commit suicide, be assaulted or self-harm than five years ago. Serious assaults in that time rose by 55%. Such assaults on staff rose by 58% and some of this has no doubt been fuelled by increased access to drugs in prison, where the incidence of drugs found in 2014 reached an all-time high since 2000 at 5,973—a 40% increase on the previous year alone. Meanwhile, as the noble Lord, Lord Marks, pointed out, staff numbers fell by 29%. BME and especially Muslim prisoners, and those with learning disabilities, are recorded as having experienced a worse time than others. As the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, pointed out, the number of older prisoners, some of them very frail, is rising sharply.

We debated education in prison earlier this week and, without going over that ground again in detail, it is apparent from the chief inspector’s report that, as the headline to the relevant section of his report makes clear, “purposeful activity” presents a dismal picture, with only 25% of adult male prisons performing well or reasonably well—the worst position in a decade. In a former life, Mr Gove would no doubt have intervened in schools that failed. What action will now be taken in relation to failing providers of this service within prisons? I hope that he will take notice of the suggestions of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, in that respect. However, to judge by the reaction to the latest of many scandals affecting G4S, one must not be too hopeful that action will be taken where the provider is a branch of the oligopolies that increasingly dominate the provision of our public services.

It is a reflection of the depths to which the service has sunk that the welcome initiative to prescribe a core day of activities,

“was fatally undermined by staff shortages and this affected outcomes in all areas”,

so that:

“It is not currently possible to say how well it will work if staffing levels increase to agreed levels”.

But will they increase given the gap in salaries revealed by the University and College Union between prison education staff and staff in other sectors?

It is also deeply disturbing that 50% of prisoners were locked in their cells during the working day and 20% spent less than two hours a day out of their cells, with exercise in fresh air only 30 minutes a day in most closed prisons. Teaching standards were found wanting in two-thirds of the prisons inspected, and leadership and management of learning and skills in 74% of prisons were found inadequate or requiring improvement. That surely raises the question of whether it is not high time for more joint working in peer review across the sector to identify and promote good practice in this and other aspects of the service.

The report also echoed the concern of HM Inspectorate of Probation and Ofsted, mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Farmer and Lord Marks, that family contact—a critical issue—was often seen as a privilege rather than part of the resettlement process. Therefore, welcome though the replacement of some of the existing prisons will be, we trust that the Government can give assurances in relation to the siting of new facilities, notably but not exclusively those that serve London, so that access will be facilitated rather than made more difficult.

Another area of concern relates to boys in custody where the use of restraint, including what are euphemistically described as “pain compliance techniques”, had increased in three establishments. Again, there were problems with access for families, which is particularly necessary in the case of young offenders, with a mere 35% saying that it was easy for family and friends to visit. While generally education and training were good, there was, again, much too little opportunity to exercise.

Two other areas outside the immediate Prison Service were also the subject of comment, namely; police custody and court custody. In relation to the former, there were found to be far too many vulnerable detainees for whom risk assessments were too variable, with some staff being too casual in their work and more monitoring required. The accommodation in police custody was often substandard and the quality of healthcare remained variable. I assume that that is a matter that should be taken up by the Home Office. Perhaps the Minister can convey that concern if that department has already not begun to grapple with it.

Shockingly, however, the report states:

“Court custody contained some of the worst conditions we saw on inspection. Leadership was fragmented and ineffective and there was unwillingness to … address the filthy and unsanitary conditions we often found”,

on court premises. The needs of vulnerable detainees were little understood, and I was amazed to see that a previous report had commented on the failings of the escort service, including the lack of seatbelt provision while transporting prisoners in vehicles.

The Ministry of Justice has a clear responsibility to address these issues and could perhaps learn from the good practice in military detention facilities, which were warmly commended in the report, in relation to a wide range of concerns that appear so far not to have been properly addressed within the rest of the custodial sector.

In addition to the low levels of educational attainment, especially literacy, which Mr Gove rightly stated characterised many offenders and with which he was of course familiar in his previous role, more recognition needs to be given to some other factors. Among those are the high levels of prisoners with one or more mental health problems, referred to by my noble friend Lord Bradley, and the disproportionate number and length of custodial sentences on BME defendants with comparable records to those of other offenders and in relation to comparable offences. Here, the sentencing clearly needs reviewing. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, and the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, referred to that important issue.

Mr Gove has made a very promising start in his approach to the crisis in our prisons, although I hope that he returns to the important report produced by my noble friend Lord Harris, and I join others in urging him to look again at the vexed question of IPP prisoners, referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, and other noble Lords today and on previous occasions. We must hope that he secures the support of his colleagues in a major effort to build on the aspirations of Transforming Rehabilitation by indeed transforming a dysfunctional and all too frequently failing Prison Service and, in so doing, make no longer contestable the claim of one former Home Secretary that “prison works”.

13:49

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Fowler for introducing this important debate and all noble Lords for contributing to it. There is a great deal of expertise in your Lordships’ House on this subject. As the noble Lord, Lord McNally, pointed out, a number of noble Lords contribute not just to debates but to reports, and by chairing committees. There is no lack of interest and, it is remarkable to report, a considerable consensus apparent in the House across all parties and among those of no party. I can report that the Secretary of State, who has received several plaudits for his endeavours so far, reads carefully the debates in your Lordships’ House, so everything that has been said will be noted by him. I will not respond in detail to all the many suggestions that have been made, but suffice it to say that the five points emphasised by my noble friend Lord Fowler received widespread support, and I find no difficulty in supporting any of them myself.

There are some positives about prisons as well as the litany of negatives that have been pointed out by so many of your Lordships. It is important to bear in mind the invaluable work undertaken in prisons. We have many dedicated prison officers and governors working in difficult and often dangerous conditions. They strive to help offenders lead better and safer lives, and they take their duties to prisoners and to the public very seriously. I am shortly to visit their training establishment to gain a better understanding of the challenges they face and the training they receive. It is about not just prison officers but a whole host of professions, from psychologists to teachers and career advisers. There are also many from the voluntary sector. We should not neglect the charitable and voluntary sector for all it does for prisoners, a matter referred to by my noble friend Lord Farmer. But there are undoubtedly many challenges that face us.

It is helpful that the current political situation does not lead one to believe that there is any sort of arms race between the parties as to who can be tougher on crime. I think we have left those days behind. What we can all agree on is that reoffending has simply been too high for too long. Although the overall reoffending rate has come down slightly over the past decade, 45% of all adult prisoners reoffend within one year of release, with the figure rising to 59% for those serving sentences of under 12 months. The figures are significantly higher than for those who serve non-custodial sentences.

Perhaps I may pause briefly to say that although the current Secretary of State has received some qualified approval, his predecessor did not on the whole receive such approval in your Lordships’ House. However, I pay tribute to him for all he did on the Transforming Rehabilitation strategy. A number of noble Lords made the point that those who serve sentences of less than 12 months are particularly likely to reoffend. They used to be allowed to leave prison with £46 in their pocket and it was no surprise that they immediately reverted to their old habits. Under the stewardship of the Secretary of State, the previous coalition Government brought in a system whereby all those offenders received support in the community from the probation service and before they left prison to enable them to rebuild their lives as best they could. That was a brave initiative and it is one that we should pay tribute to the previous Secretary of State for introducing.

To help prisoners leave custody, we need our prison officers to be able to work in an environment which is suited to supporting offenders. However, our current prison estate is ageing, inefficient and ineffective at doing that. There are numerous “dark corners” which facilitate bullying, drug-taking and violence, and, within prisons, violence towards prisoners and prison staff is increasing. In the last year, serious assaults have risen by a third and, tragically, 95 prisoners have taken their own lives while in custody. While referring to deaths in custody, I pay tribute to the impressive and thorough report produced by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, and we have accepted a considerable number of the recommendations made in it. He mentioned particularly the identification of a custody and rehabilitation officer who would be responsible for each offender. I understand entirely what drives the suggestion, but, notwithstanding the wisdom that lies behind it, the Ministry of Justice believes that it could undermine the concept that reducing the risk of suicide is a key part of the role of all prison staff. Our philosophy is that every contact matters and every individual matters. Of course, the noble Lord will know, as will the House, that the death of a prisoner is not only a tragedy for that prisoner and their family, but also very destructive to the morale of those who work in prisons. All prison officers should be concerned for the welfare of each individual.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for responding. The point of the custody and rehabilitation officer is not to get away from the concept that everyone should be responsible for the security and safety of an individual. It is to create someone who would take personal responsibility for ensuring that the journey of a prisoner through the prison system, particularly in relation to rehabilitation, so that it is owned by an individual who makes sure that that journey happens and that the right solutions are found for each person. That is what I think is being lost and is what will undermine the Secretary of State’s desire to bring about a rehabilitation revolution.

[Lord Faulks]

I do not disagree with the objectives outlined in the suggestion; rather it is simply about how they can best be achieved. But the identification of the desire for continuity is of course important.

I was saying that one of the problems we must confront is the use of psychoactive substances, known as legal highs. Their use has been plainly linked with specific acts of violence and erratic behaviour, as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Marks. This and the previous Government have already introduced measures to tackle the use of these substances, including the use of specialist dogs to search cells, and we are currently exploring the use of body scanners to reduce the threat posed by drugs being smuggled into prisons. This is a problem being confronted not only in prisons in this country but elsewhere throughout the world. It is proving particularly intractable, but it is vital that we do so. Despite the tireless efforts of all those working in our prisons, these issues, which were identified by many noble Lords, cannot be ignored. The Secretary of State has made it clear that our prison system is in need of reform. It fails to rehabilitate and it fails to ensure that criminals are prevented from offending again. Without reform, this cycle will continue.

What changes are we making? A key aspect of these reforms is the proposed changes to the prison estate itself. We will close down ageing and ineffective prisons, replacing them with buildings fit for today’s estate. We will invest in a high-quality modern prison estate, with appropriate facilities for training and rehabilitation. This is receiving enthusiasm across government. Some £1.3 billion will be invested to reform and modernise the prison estate to make it more efficient, safer and focused on supporting prisoner rehabilitation. The Chancellor announced that the Government will build nine new modern prisons, five of which will open during this Parliament, with better education facilities—as referred to earlier this week in a debate answered by my noble friend Lady Evans, which I shall not go into now—and other rehabilitative services, while selling ageing and inefficient prisons to free up land for new homes.

This includes the closing of Holloway prison. The female prisoners held there will be transferred to better prison environments, including HMP Downview, which we will reopen as a women’s prison. Downview provides better facilities for family visits as well as being a better rehabilitative environment for women. I do not in any way disparage what was achieved in Holloway, which I visited, because it was a remarkable prison. However, we feel that we can do better.

A number of noble Lords, among them the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and the noble Baroness, Lady Healy of Primrose Hill, mentioned the problem of women in prison. In 10 years of sitting as a recorder, I always found reasons not to send women to prison and I can hardly remember ever doing so. I am glad to say that the female prison population is now consistently under 4,000 for the first time in a decade. We are modernising the prison estate to provide the best rehabilitative regimes and hold women in environments better suited to them. We want to ensure that they serve their sentences in appropriate surroundings and to maintain their strong family ties. My noble friend Lord Farmer made the point that family ties are vital to assisting rehabilitation not only for women but for all the prison population.

Of course, it is not just the structure of the estate that we need to reform, but how we manage offenders. I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Fowler that prison is a place where people are sent as punishment, not for further punishment. If we ensure that prisons are calm, orderly and purposeful places—I entirely accept that there is a need for more purposeful activity—the skills and habits that they acquire there will prepare them for outside life. We can all benefit from that.

The Secretary of State clearly set out his commitment to “liberating offenders through learning”. Prisoners must use their time in prison advantageously. We must offer them a chance to obtain qualifications and skills—I note what the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, said about that. I welcome the opportunity to visit prisons where that is going on: it is a vital part of the Government’s reform agenda.

We know that one in five prisons has an “inadequate” standard of education provision and two in five require improvement, according to Ofsted. That is why we have commissioned Dame Sally Coates to chair a review into the quality of education in prisons, which will report in the spring. Talking of reporting, of course I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, said: Mr Hardwick is there to provide an independent report to the Government on the state of prisons. That is important for him and his successor, and we should be able to take criticism robustly and respond appropriately. Their independence is crucial.

While the review by Sally Coates is going on, work is under way to improve the quality of learning and skills provision in prison. These measures include improving support for prisoners with learning disabilities—unfortunately, many have them— developing more creative teaching methods and collecting better management information. Giving poorly educated adults a basic level of literacy and numeracy is vital, following tried and tested methods, and the current failure to educate prisoners well is hard to defend. I do not think the House will need much convincing about the Secretary of State’s attachment to the importance of education.

Meaningful employment is crucial. It is a vital part of the Government’s approach to support those who have committed a crime to get out of the cycle of offending. We are keen to increase the number of employers who engage with prisoners and offenders to offer them employment opportunities. We hold an Employers’ Forum for Reducing Re-offending, chaired by the CEO of Timpson, James Timpson, which brings together employers who support the employment of offenders to share their experiences and promote the benefits of employing offenders to other businesses. We have built a relationship with several employers, including Halfords, which provides work for prisoners in its academy, which is run in a prison and employs the prisoners on release if they positively engage on their 16-week course. I have had several conversations with the Prisons Minister, Andrew Selous, who is particularly keen on and pleased with the progress that has been made in this regard.

We are also anxious that there should be greater autonomy at a local level for prisoners—a point made by my noble friend Lord Fowler and the noble Lord, Lord Beith, with his considerable experience of justice issues. That is a form of localism in the Prison Service. The noble Lord made the interesting point that Texas has brought about a strange consensus between the political parties on the way forward in that regard.

I could respond on the issue of IPP prisoners at considerable length; unfortunately, I do not have time to do that. Suffice it to say that we are progressing well in the number of courses available to IPP prisoners. We are also in the process of reducing the backlog for hearings before the Parole Board. As I told a number of noble Lords at a recent meeting, there remains the question of the Secretary of State’s powers to change the test for release. That is a matter which he continues to consider carefully. I will make sure that I faithfully transmit all messages from this House and noble Lords about the need to do something about that.

The points of the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, were well made. We are aware of the importance of reviewing the working of ROTL and liaison and diversion services. The Secretary of State has well in mind a possible wider review of sentencing. Similarly, several noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Cormack, emphasised the importance of restorative justice.

Finally, my noble friend Lord Trefgarne rightly drew our attention to the plight of older prisoners, who are becoming a particular, somewhat unusual, feature of the prison population. That is partly to do with so many offenders having been committed for ancient offences of sexual abuse and the like. All prisoners, regardless of age, need to be treated in a humane manner that reflects their needs. That is a matter we should attend to particularly carefully.

I am grateful to all those who have taken part in this excellent debate and to my noble friend Lord Fowler for initiating it. The Secretary of the State and the Ministry of Justice will have learnt a great deal from it.

14:06

[Lord Fowler]

My Lords, I thank the Minister very much for his reply, which was very constructive and will be well received. There were two significant features of this debate. First, there was vast agreement on the changes that are required. Prison is not remotely the right place to tackle mental health problems or, for that matter, drug abuse, points made by the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, and my noble friend Lord Suri. The central issue remains the overuse of prison and the overcrowding that goes with it. That point was made by my noble friend Lord Cope and the noble Lords, Lord Dholakia, Lord Beith and Lord Ramsbotham, to whom we owe so much. More needs to be done to consider the position of women prisoners, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Healy, and the noble Lord, Lord Judd. There is a range of other issues, not least the roots of crime going way back to life before prison, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and my noble friend Lord Cormack.

The second significant feature of the debate was that it just showed how much good will there is for the new Justice Secretary. I hope that is recognised. It was shown in the powerful speech of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. It was shared by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, who agreed—reluctantly, I think, but he agreed nevertheless—with old Tories like me and my noble friend Lord Forsyth. The noble Lord, Lord Beith, also mentioned the rather strange Texan coalition. The message of this debate is that we wish the new Justice Secretary well and now look forward to the action that is so necessary to reform a Prison Service which cries out for change. Above all, we wish him well in this vastly important job.

Motion agreed.

North Korea: Nuclear Test

Thursday 21st January 2016 Lords Chamber

Question for Short Debate

14:08

Asked by

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the security and human rights challenges on the Korean Peninsula following North Korea’s recent nuclear test.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, 2015 marked the 70th anniversary of the division of the Korean peninsula. That division was the prelude to the 1950-53 war, which led to the deaths of about 3 million people, including 1,000 British servicemen.

Throughout the intervening seven decades, the danger of a repetition of that carnage has hung like a pall over the region. For more than 10 years, during which I have chaired the All-Party Parliamentary Group on North Korea, that group has tried to shine a light on security threats and the day-to-day egregious violations of human rights. These are themes of the Question before your Lordships today. I am particularly indebted to all noble Lords who will participate.

North Korea’s failure to make constructive moves on these questions was thrown into sharp relief by the unverifiable claim in North Korean state media on 6 January that it had conducted its first hydrogen bomb—thermonuclear weapon—test. Ban Ki-moon described these actions—this fourth nuclear test—as “a grave contravention”.

When the Minister replies, I hope that she will give us her own assessment of the test which has taken place, and perhaps say how long she thinks it will be before we know whether this was fusion rather than fission and whether hydrogen isotopes were used in the nuclear chain reaction. Also, how far away do we think North Korea is from miniaturising a nuclear weapon and from utilising its submarines to launch nuclear attacks? These have obvious security implications for the United States of America and Europe, as well, of course, as for North Korea’s regional neighbours.

What we do know is that Chinese citizens living in the neighbouring Jilin province, which I visited, felt the buildings shake and residents feared an earthquake. The Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban-Treaty Organization reported seismic signatures with a magnitude of 4.85, consistent with previous North Korean nuclear tests. Whether a hydrogen bomb or not, this action is yet another road block in securing a lasting peace and it represents a serious international security threat and destabilises the region. In addition, it is in flagrant violation of the United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1718, 1874, 2087 and 2094. I should be interested to know from the noble Baroness what more the Security Council will be saying about this.

I hope that she will tell us what response the Foreign and Commonwealth Office received from the North Korean ambassador when he was summoned to the Foreign Office on 7 January, and what the Foreign Secretary had in mind when he told the House of Commons that North Korea will,

“face increasing isolation and further action by the international community”.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/1/16; col. 22WS.]

I wonder whether the Foreign Office sees this test as an act of defiance by Kim Jong-un and an attempt to bolster his authority. What does it make of the continuing systematic executions, including members of his family? In 2013 his uncle, Jang Song-thaek, who was seen as reform-minded and close to China, was executed. Jang had questioned an ideology which has paralysed economic development and incarcerated hundreds of thousands of citizens, and which has conferred pariah status on the country. He was close to China and admiring of its reform programme. His death was followed by the execution of around 70 officials in the last year. North Korea’s Defence Minister, Hyon Yong-chol, was shot with an anti-aircraft gun from close range in April. It was then reported that North Korea’s vice-premier Choe Yong-gon was executed by firing squad this year, after showing discontent with Kim Jong-un’s policies.

Kim Jong-un knew these men well, but this did not save their lives. In this reign of terror, killing those who are not part of your circle is even less of an issue. The purges, the reign of terror, the falsifying of history, the show trials, the network of gulags—where an estimated 200,000 people are incarcerated—the 400,000 said to have died in the prison camps in the last 30 years, and the attempts to obliterate religious belief and all political dissent bear all the hallmarks of a regime that has carefully studied, admires and imitates the visceral brutality of Joseph Stalin. The authoritarian dynastic regime in North Korea ruthlessly crushes dissent, and through its policy of guilt by association, collective punishment and the execution of men like Jang is trying to ensure that there is no Kim Dae-jung, Lech Walesa or Dow Aung San Suu Kyi able to become a focal point for opposition.

We can see these killings either as a display of strength or the actions of a weak regime, paranoically trying to cling to power at all costs. Of course, the creation of mass fear is a time-honoured technique of dictators from Nero and Caligula to Ceausescu and Stalin. But China’s role in all this is surely crucial. I wonder how the Minister evaluates the extent of China’s influence on the regime. It previously described North Korea’s actions as “brazen”, but notwithstanding the presence of a senior Chinese emissary at last year’s Workers’ Party anniversary celebrations, what do we make of China’s relationship with North Korea today? Will China’s irritation be reflected in energy assistance to North Korea, or will it be dissuaded through fear of regime collapse and the flow of refugees across its 800-mile border with North Korea?

If North Korea is in total contempt of its obligations under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, and by its refusal to permit full access by the International Atomic Energy Agency, its contempt for human rights puts it in a league of its own. The publication of the United Nation’s Commission of Inquiry report into human rights violations in North Korea, described by the commission as “without parallel”, was a defining moment. In that 400-page report, it said that North Korea’s crimes against humanity are sui generis. It stated:

“The gravity, scale and nature of these violations reveal a State that does not have any parallel in the contemporary world”.

It is in breach of pretty well all of the 30 articles in the 1948 Universal Declaration on Human Rights.

Hea Woo, a Christian who escaped from one of the camps, gave graphic and powerful evidence at one of our Westminster hearings. She described routine torture and beatings and how prisoners were so hungry that they were reduced to eating rats and snakes or even searching for grains in cow dung.

I ask the noble Baroness: how have we taken forward the Commission of Inquiry report and its call for the prosecution of those responsible? Why, of the 2016-17 FCO fund for human rights and democracy, which has been doubled to £10.6 million, has just £4,261 been spent in Pyongyang in nearly two and a half years? Can she also say what we have done to raise the plight of the more than 50,000 North Korean workers sent overseas to around 20 nations, where they are treated as virtual slave labour but earn the regime $300 million annually? What action are we taking on companies, third-party banks and countries which are breaking sanctions and providing revenues to this regime? Crucial to transforming North Korea will be the breaking of the information blockade. I applaud the decision of the BBC to commence broadcasts to the peninsula and hope that we will be given an update on this important development.

Does the Minister accept that hand-outs can bolster this regime? Although food should never be used as a weapon of war, it is worth saying that North Korea’s food gap could be closed for something in the order of $8 million to $19 million. That is less than 0.2% of its national income, most of which is currently being used on military programmes.

Last year, following an influx of food aid, the regime sent groups of students around to destroy private agricultural plots. The regime’s opposition to reform has led to starvation and death. People suffer while the regime spent more than $1 billion on the launching of two rockets in 2012 and 2013, $200 million on Kim family celebrations, and $300 million on luxury facilities, including ski resorts and riding grounds.

North Korea is surrounded by three of the world’s largest economies, yet close to 70% of the population suffer from malnourishment. It persists with its vast and brutal network of concentration camps, and millions of women are subjected to unimaginable levels of sexual and other violence while children are indoctrinated and forced to endure manual labour.

Since 2000 we have had diplomatic relations with the DPRK and in that time the regime has conducted four nuclear tests, launched unprovoked military attacks on South Korean targets, has bolstered its standing army—one of the largest in the world—and has been condemned for the worst human rights record in the world. It is not unreasonable to ask how and in what ways we think we are making some kind of difference. I look forward to the debate that will follow and to the Minister’s reply.

14:18

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, thankfully North Korea is the only closed country and I think this should give us hope, as many who grew up in or in the era of Eastern Europe and the USSR thought that freedom would never come, but it did. Kim Jong-un’s leadership will end, and through the work of people like the noble Lord, Lord Alton, awareness of the plight of North Koreans has risen dramatically over the last decade.

These unparalleled systematic human rights abuses in North Korea are indeed well documented by the commission of inquiry of Michael Kirby, and in relation to religious freedom violations by the inquiry of the all-party parliamentary group, which was chaired by the noble Lord and published its report last year. The only detail that I can add to that report that moved me recently was to hear that teachers in schools in North Korea are asking pupils to tell them whether their mum and dad have a hidden little black book at home. Unwittingly these children come forward, and of course, what is hidden is a Bible and their parents are arrested and disappear. These reports have shown the need to break the information blockade. There is also a need to prepare the leadership of the future. There may be more that can be done to prepare, and I wish to focus this afternoon on practical solutions and things within our power here in the United Kingdom.

The decision, referenced by the noble Lord, of the BBC to begin a daily short-wave news service is a step forward in breaking this information blockade. It would be helpful to know the detail from my noble friend the Minister. When does the Foreign Secretary expect to be asked to agree to this service and what is the current Foreign and Commonwealth Office position on whether it can extend beyond news to other broadcasts?

There are many interesting studies on the growing cultural, linguistic and religious differences between North Korea and South Korea. In the 70 years since the division of the peninsula, North Koreans have been taught to worship their political leader like a god, but South Korean society is pluralistic and has recently seen a huge growth in the Christian faith in particular. In 1945, only 2% of South Koreans were Christian; now 30% are. Those growing differences mean that the 26,000 or so North Korean refugees in South Korea often find it hard to integrate, and feel like second-class citizens. According to a BBC report late last year, 14% of defectors from North Korea in South Korea who have died committed suicide. I would be grateful if my noble friend the Minister could confirm whether Her Majesty’s Government had spoken to South Korea outlining our concerns around the integration of those refugees into its society. Until the South Koreans address this problem, the push factor forcing North Koreans to flee South Korea will mean that some will continue to arrive here in the United Kingdom, applying for asylum. Australia and Canada, among others, face a similar issue.

Even highly qualified doctors from the north struggle to make the transition to the south. Surely the international community can help with specific plans to skill up professionals for the future of North Korea, and not see those valuable skills go to waste. I can fully understand the comments in the Security Council last November that the international community had struggled to agree a plan of action in relation to the Kirby report. However, a plan to ensure that North Koreans can remain in the region and that those abroad are trained up, ready for reunification, is in the doable category, which is often sparsely populated with solutions to many of the tragic situations that we discuss in your Lordships’ House.

I turn briefly to the leadership of the future. Even if the South Koreans solved the integration problem tomorrow, there would still be approximately 1,000 North Koreans who have been granted refugee status here in the United Kingdom. If North Korea became free tomorrow many might travel there, hoping to be part of the future of the country. Then the Westminster Foundation for Democracy would ask MPs and Peers, via our political parties, to go out there to train up the future politicians. As North Korea is a unique case—we have no access to train people in North Korea—could the Foreign and Commonwealth Office or the human rights and democracy fund merely ask the WFD specifically to see if half a dozen folk among our 1,000 refugees had the potential skills and competence to be future leaders and invest in them here? I am sure that many in your Lordships’ House would respond to the persuasive power of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and be happy to help. That would really cost very little—definitely cheaper than flying us out there, and so much better value for money for the UK taxpayer in the long term. If your Lordships were involved, we could make requests of the royal colleges, Bupa or AXA to train up one North Korean doctor; we would not be requesting them to do something that we had not started doing here ourselves. More things could be done to prepare for reunification than we at first think, and many of our allies—particularly Germany—may have other relevant experience to offer.

I hope that there is a plan for the future under the leadership of South Korea, as well as a plan to bring to justice those who have committed human rights abuses. When nations change, there is often a symbolic moment. In Iraq in 2003, that was the toppling of the statue of Saddam Hussein. In North Korea when that moment comes, many statues of Kim Jong-il and Kim Jong-un will be toppled. I believe that that will happen in my lifetime, and I hope that we are ready for that moment.

14:24

[Lord Rowe-Beddoe (CB)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Alton for securing this short debate. The DPRK—the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea—is in itself a name that would not qualify under any trade descriptions Act. It is not democratic; it does not represent the people; neither is “Korea” correct, for that implies the whole peninsula. However, that is but a comprehensive illustration of the nightmare that this world has to confront and face.

Unlike my noble friends Lady Cox and Lord Alton, I have never had the opportunity to visit, although I have certainly viewed the 38th parallel closely on my many business trips to the south over the past 20 or so years. I speak therefore from second-hand knowledge, by study, by observation, by discussions with people from the south and—all-importantly—from encounters with refugees living in or visiting the United Kingdom.

I wish to use these few minutes to highlight one thing: the importance of breaking the blockade of information, as was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Alton. Why have we not seen a popular uprising against the regime, or perhaps acts of mass civil disobedience? It is due partly to the physical brutality of the regime but, significantly, also to the indoctrination of the North Korean people, whose Government wish to ensure complete psychological control over the entire population. It is therefore forbidden to access foreign media. All North Koreans are exposed to state-controlled media in their homes, work and public spaces. As well, all television and radio—state information—is broadcast through fixed-line speakers in every household. Those speakers are inspected frequently to ensure that they function and cannot be turned off. One refugee stated to a United Nations commission of inquiry:

“You are brainwashed from the time you know how to talk … North Korea is … a fenced world … They want the people to be blind, deaf to the outside world”.

The United Kingdom Government had been unconvinced that radio broadcasts would reach sufficient numbers of North Koreans due to a lack of radios. However, after persistent lobbying discussions—if I may use that word—by members of the all-party group, at last, in 2015, our noble friend Lord Hall, director-general of the BBC, declared that the World Service would reach out to North Koreans through a daily news programme on short wave. The BBC is of course aware of the consequences for those caught consuming foreign media, but should it not broadcast into North Korea for fear that citizens, if caught, are tried and perhaps executed for listening? I believe the answer to be emphatically no. Although the risks are high, there are even greater consequences of inaction. Pyongyang will of course attempt to answer, censor and jam the broadcasts. No doubt it will lodge formal protests to our embassy and open, yet again, the bag of threats. However, in an age of global interconnectivity, it is my belief that such actions will be diminished in their harm.

For a BBC service to become a reality today, the corporation has to put together a team to decide and deliver the content. I hope that this will include UK-based North Korean refugees. Once that is done and costed, I understand that the plan will be submitted to the Foreign Secretary, who will then be required to approve the service. Perhaps the Minister will comment on a timetable. It is my sincere hope that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office sees such broadcasts as complementary to its own efforts to improve human rights within that country.

14:29

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for giving us this opportunity to debate this important issue. I will concentrate my remarks on the security aspects following the nuclear test. In doing so, I declare my interest as co-president of Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament.

It is both heartening and disheartening that, in these last few weeks, we have had the great example of success of talks in Iran and then the very disheartening example of the nuclear test in Korea. It shows what the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and associated treaties are up against. It goes to the heart of our obligations under the NPT—by “our”, I mean in particular the nuclear weapons possessing states, the P5 plus.

Noble Lords will remember that the nuclear non-proliferation treaty began life in 1970. In fact, North Korea acceded to it in the mid-1980s, but it never came into compliance and it withdrew from the treaty in 2003. The treaty has an unprecedented number of countries belonging to it—191, in fact—which could make it the most successful arms-limitation and disarmament treaty that there is. Only four UN member states have never joined the NPT: India, Israel, Pakistan and South Sudan. Today’s debate is not the time to discuss the implications of that, but it is something that we need to keep in mind.

The point I make is that the situation in North Korea has been decades in developing. In nuclear terms, we knew, once it withdrew from the treaty in 2003, that we had a real problem on our hands. The question for the Minister is: who does she believe is in the best position to start that dialogue with North Korea about nuclear issues now? I noticed the comments of Mr Blinken, Deputy Secretary of State for the US, that China should take the lead. He said that the United States believes that,

“China has a special role to play”.

If China is to be the one to take the lead, there has to be a real push from all of us other countries for China to do so.

The point I would really strongly like to make is that every country concerned with nuclear material has a special role and responsibility. Being part of the so-called nuclear club may, some believe, give you added status as a world power and the added security of owning a deterrent. Personally, I do not believe that either of those is inevitably correct. However, it is indisputable that, as a member of that nuclear power club, one has a special duty to ensure the safety of non-nuclear states and the rest of the world. In this context, China has a duty to do everything it can do to denuclearise North Korea. Because it is probably closer to North Korea than anyone else, China is in the best position to do so. I have no doubt that there are incredibly complex political considerations and insecurities that will influence this, but the overwhelming danger of proliferation of nuclear weapons means that that issue has to take priority.

For our part, we—the UK, USA and France—should see nuclear material as a potential continuum from energy to material for bombs. The purpose of the various treaties—the Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty, the CTBT and the NPT—is to contain it and make it as safe as possible. Of course, the USA undermined the NPT with its civil nuclear deal with India, which, as I mentioned, is not a member of the NPT, even though it had not joined the club. Israel is allowed to remain in the position where it does not declare its nuclear weapons. In that continuum, the UK also made a decision—there may have been behind-the-scenes talks about this, I do not know—to allow the Chinese to buy into Hinkley Point. That is tacitly saying that all is satisfactory with the Chinese attitude to nuclear material in general and the treaties governing it, but clearly that is not in the case as far as North Korea is concerned.

The logic by which the P5 plus decide who shall and shall not be a nuclear state has not been historically arrived at by the logic of those that are the most responsible countries. But it is by virtue of being in the P5 that we have to exercise our responsibilities in every possible sphere, including trade, and make it quite clear to those whom we trade with and those who can influence other people—in this case, China and North Korea—that there is a continuum in nuclear material and that we have to stay within the terms of the treaty.

14:35

[Baroness Cox (CB)]

My Lords, I warmly congratulate my noble friend on his tireless work on North Korea, and on opening this debate with characteristic comprehensiveness. I have had the privilege of travelling to DPRK with my noble friend three times, and of meeting many refugees and escapees, whose heartbreaking accounts of horrific violations of human rights remain ingrained in my heart and conscience.

In addition to echoing the serious concerns highlighted by my noble friend and other noble Lords, I wish to highlight specific concerns regarding infringements of freedom of religion and belief, including the recent arrests of two foreign nationals. First, Hyeon Soo Lim, a South Korean-born Canadian Christian, is a 60 year-old pastor. He is a Canadian citizen, but he was sentenced last December to life imprisonment with hard labour, accused of using religion to overthrow the state and harming the dignity of the supreme leadership. He had previously made many visits to DPRK and engaged in humanitarian work supporting an orphanage, a nursery and a nursing home. A CNN report emphasised:

“It is this tremendous love for the people of the DPRK that motivated Mr. Lim to travel (there)”.

Unusually, he was recently able to give an interview to CNN, in which he described being forced to work for eight hours a day digging holes. He is believed to be in poor health, but all he asks for is a Bible and letters from his family. I understand that Canadian government officials have so far been denied access to him. Secondly, a Korean-American pastor, Kim Dong Chul, has been arrested on spying charges.

The arrest and detention of these two foreigners is deeply disturbing as they illustrate the Pyongyang regime’s attitude to human rights and religious freedom. I ask the Minister: what response is the United Kingdom making to these arrests, and, particularly given our diplomatic presence in Pyongyang, what support has the UK given to the efforts of Canada and the United States regarding these two cases? More generally, what more can the United Kingdom do to address the violations of freedom of religion or belief in the DPRK?

On the same topic, I highlight serious concerns about a recent statement by the World Council of Churches. On 28 October last year, the WCC’s Forum for Peace, Reunification and Development Cooperation on the Korean Peninsula issued a Pyongyang appeal following a visit to DPRK. I entirely support efforts to pursue constructive and critical engagement with the DPRK. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Alton and I have participated in such direct engagement during our visits, so I endorse some of the WCC’s recommendations, particularly for exchanges between North and South Korean citizens, cultural and academic exchange, and engagement.

However, I and many others are deeply concerned that the WCC’s statement and an accompanying report issued by the Asia secretary of the Church of Scotland’s World Mission Council ignore the horrific human rights violations and the severe persecution of Christians, documented by the UN commission of inquiry report. Instead, the WCC’s statement calls on,

“all churches, church-related organizations and people of good will around the world”,

to resist,

“the confrontational misuse of human rights”,

avoid,

“the promotion of enemy images”,

and lift economic sanctions. The WCC describes North Korea as,

“a society that is visibly advancing, demonstrating great resilience and self-reliance despite the longstanding and recently strengthened international sanctions”.

In an article published on the Church of Scotland’s website, Sandy Sneddon describes visiting tourist and cultural sites in Pyongyang, including a Protestant church. My noble friend and I visited this Protestant church and three other churches in Pyongyang—another Protestant church, a Catholic church and a Russian Orthodox church. While we welcome their existence there, they are tightly controlled by the regime, and are widely believed to exist largely for the benefit of foreign visitors. In the rest of the country severe violations of freedom of religion or belief are well documented. The UN commission of inquiry concludes that,

“there is an almost complete denial of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, as well as the rights of freedom of opinion, expression, information and association”.

The regime, according to the UN inquiry,

“considers the spread of Christianity a particularly severe threat”,

and, as a result,

“Christians are prohibited from practising their religion and are persecuted”.

Severe punishments are inflicted on “people caught practising Christianity”.

The WCC report makes no reference to the UN inquiry. As my noble friend highlighted, it concluded that,

“the gravity, scale and nature”,

of the violations of human rights in North Korea,

“reveal a State that does not have any parallel in the contemporary world”.

It claims the systematic and widespread violations, described as “unspeakable atrocities”, are continuing,

“because the policies, institutions and patterns of impunity that lie at their heart remain in place”.

They amount, according to the inquiry, to,

“crimes against humanity in international law”,

and these crimes,

“clearly merit a criminal investigation”.

In conclusion, I ask the Minister for reassurance that the brutal violations of the rights and freedoms of people of DPRK, including freedom of religion and belief, will be at the centre of any engagement with Pyongyang by Her Majesty’s Government, alongside the priority concerns about the security situation.

14:41

[Lord Williams of Baglan (CB)]

My Lords, like others, I commend the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for obtaining this debate on a country rarely discussed in this Chamber, but one which uniquely suffers from perhaps the most oppressive regime in the world. It is no accident, perhaps, that its godfathers were Josef Stalin and Mao Tse-Tung, who did so much to bring this state into existence in the 1950s.

More than 30 years ago, I worked as the head of the Asia department of Amnesty International and one of the most remarkable documents that we published then was the testimony of a Venezuelan communist, Ali Lameda, who had worked in Pyongyang as a translator and editor and found himself caught up in its Kafkaesque workings, and was arrested and tortured for many years.

Thankfully, in today’s world there are few countries where one can say the human rights position is little better now than it was decades ago. But if one reads the reports of Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the US State Department and the Foreign Office itself, it is clear that this is still the case in North Korea. In no significant manner is the human rights situation any better today than it was 30 years ago. That this is the case is abundantly clear from the report of the Commission of Inquiry on Human Rights in the DPRK, referred to by several other noble Lords, and written by the Australian judge Michael Kirby and the distinguished Indonesian lawyer Marzuki Darusman, and published in February 2014. It reports:

“The gravity, scale and nature of these violations reveal a State that does not have any parallel in the contemporary world”.

For decades, it argues, North Korea has committed,

“crimes that shock the conscience of humanity”,

which,

“raises questions about the inadequacy of the response of the international community”.

The international community must accept responsibility to protect the people of North Korea. This responsibility is a heavy one for the UK as we are one of only five countries that are permanent members of the Security Council. In that regard, can the Minister assure us that in our dialogue with China, enhanced by the state visit of President Xi Jinping last year, there are regular discussions about North Korea with Beijing? It must, and should, be part of our dialogue with China, the single most important country in terms of influence on North Korea. We also sit on the 47-member UN Human Rights Council, together with China. Can the Minister assure us that we will continue to use that forum to follow up the excellent work undertaken by Judge Kirby and Marzuki Darusman? As Michael Kirby himself stated:

“If the Human Rights Council is not the place to speak up about the atrocities … then where is the venue?”.

He went on to argue that the crimes against humanity were of such gravity that a case should in his judgment be taken to the International Criminal Court. Can the Minister tell us whether this has been considered with like-minded partners in the international community?

As the register of interests makes clear, I am a trustee of the BBC with a special interest in the World Service, where, indeed, I worked for seven years. In September 2015, the director-general, Tony Hall, declared that the BBC wished to reach out to ordinary Koreans through a new daily news programme via shortwave radio. The director-general wrote about this to the Chancellor on January 5 this year, outlining plans for a Korean service, among other World Service projects. There will also be an online presence. I am delighted that in a letter on 8 January, the Chancellor, George Osborne, agreed to provide £85 million of new funding for the World Service through a grant from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. In due course, a proposal to establish a Korean service will be placed before the Foreign Secretary, whose approval is needed for the launch of any new language services. Such funding from the Government is imperative for the establishment and continuation of the new service. Some will inevitably question its impact on North Korea, although I am sure that it will gain attention in South Korea as well as the diaspora. However, there is growing evidence that North Koreans, especially those who have worked and lived in China—and hundreds of thousands have—have access to devices that would enable access.

The regime itself has recently allowed the French news agency Agence France-Presse, as well as Associated Press, to open news bureaux in North Korea. In due course I look forward to a BBC Korean service making its contribution to the improvement of human rights and security on the Korean peninsula that we all wish to see.

14:47

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for initiating today’s debate and enabling us to focus on a country with probably the worst human rights situation in the world, with summary executions, arbitrary detentions, abductions and disappearances—a country where the tools of the state include forced labour, prison camps, torture and rape. Such flagrant human rights violations cannot go unchallenged.

Shortly after it detonated its fourth nuclear test, North Korean state media issued a lengthy statement justifying the explosion. Their primary grievance justifying it was the 2014 UN commission of inquiry report that accused the regime of grave, systematic human rights abuses against its own people. In the opinion of the North Korean leadership, the United Nations report was nothing more than a,

“conspiratorial human rights racket against the DPRK”—

the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. The official North Korean rebuttal ran to 50,000 words and claimed that the,

“popular masses enjoy genuine human rights”,

and accused the West of pursuing a “false and reactionary” agenda designed to interfere with national sovereignty.

The DPRK has always been extremely sensitive about its human rights record. The fact that it focused on this issue, after such a significant military provocation, shows how central the issues have become to its battle against the world. It may be that, by bringing the diplomatic spotlight back on to itself, North Korea is hoping to prompt the international community, particularly the US, to negotiate. I have no doubt that it would like to see an end to the state of war and international sanctions, which, whether or not it admits it publicly, have led to huge deprivation and extreme poverty in the country.

The Foreign Secretary, Philip Hammond, quickly issued a Statement strongly condemning the nuclear test as,

“a grave breach of UN Security Council resolutions”.

Of course, as we have heard, the UN Security Council’s swift condemnation following its emergency meeting on 6 January indicated that there should be a robust response, including immediate work on “further significant measures” in a new Security Council resolution. I ask the Minister: what does she believe those “significant measures” should be, and when does she expect the new resolution to be considered?

The Foreign Secretary has also called for concrete action by the DPRK to improve human rights. Last November, Fiona Bruce asked in a Written Question in the other place whether he would request information from the DPRK on the measures it has taken to meet the recommendations of the UN report. The Written Answer referred to a meeting last October in the United Nations and stated:

“We were informed the accepted recommendations were being discussed by the relevant domestic DPRK institutions”.

Has there been any further contact on the need for implementation plans to be shared with the world community?

Peter Wilson, the UK’s Deputy Permanent Representative to the UN, said in the Security Council in December:

“The United Kingdom fully supports the call for the Council to consider how it can best ensure accountability”,

of this regime, which of course is so important,

“including through considering a referral to the International Criminal Court”.

In answering a Written Question from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, on this issue, the Minister said that the United Kingdom,

“worked with the EU and Japan to co-author a UN resolution on the human rights situation in the DPRK which calls for accountability”.

What further progress has been made on achieving strong support for this resolution?

With South Korea assuming the chair of the United Nations Human Rights Council on 1 January, there is a chance that this could seriously raise tensions on the peninsula. If South Korea leads a global coalition in referring North Korea to the International Criminal Court, I have no doubt that that would be interpreted by the regime as an act of provocation. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, reminded us, the two countries have been technically in a state of war since 1950 to 1953. The point of raising this is that whatever the tensions and provocations, they must not stop us raising the horrendous violations of human rights in North Korea.

14:53

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Anelay of St Johns) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, for calling this important debate and raising these serious issues relating to the DPRK. I, along with fellow Ministers in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and DfID, appreciate the invaluable work of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on North Korea, of which he is a co-chair. There is a long-standing interest in North Korea, across a broad range of serious and challenging issues, which has informed today’s debate.

As noble Lords have pointed out, it is only a fortnight ago that we saw the regime’s flagrant disregard of multiple UN Security Council resolutions by conducting a fourth nuclear test. It would be inappropriate to go into the technical detail of our assessment of the capabilities of the DPRK’s military position with regard to its current and potential future development but clearly it is something we watch very carefully. Although the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and others referred to the thermonuclear test, we ought to take into account the fact that North Korea also continues to develop its ballistic missile programme—also in contravention of UN sanctions. We know that it has launched missiles from submarines as recently as last year. That is something that we have to consider always.

With regard to the thermonuclear test, the UK responded swiftly and decisively to condemn this serious violation. The Foreign Secretary spoke to his counterparts in Washington, Seoul, Tokyo and Beijing and called for a robust and united international response. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, who raised these matters—absolutely rightly—that we are working within the United Nations Security Council and the EU to deliver this response, which will include a resolution on further significant measures. He asked me for a timetable. I am afraid I am not able to say when that will be achieved but technical work is under way to look at what further sanctions may be imposed that will be significant and effective. We will consider the full range of options open to us during negotiations on those new sanctions measures.

The United Kingdom has also expressed our concern directly with the North Korean regime. I was asked about this by the noble Lord, Lord Alton. My right honourable friend the Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Hugo Swire, summoned the North Korean ambassador to the Foreign Office on 7 January. My right honourable friend further condemned the test and made it clear that North Korea had a choice: to reform its approach or risk facing further international isolation and sanctions. He added that amid reports of widespread hardship and human rights abuses, the priority must be the health and welfare of the North Korean people rather than the nuclear programme.

Of course, China remains vital to resolving issues related to North Korea and the Korean Peninsula. I was pleased to hear noble Lords concentrating on the importance of China’s role. The Foreign Secretary made it clear on his recent visit to China, as did the Prime Minister when he met President Xi on his recent state visit to the UK, that we share the same goals of security on the Korean Peninsula and respect for United Nations resolutions, and that we fully understand the role of China and the importance of its influence. China, like the UK, does not want a nuclear-armed North Korea. As a P5 member, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, pointed out, China has a vital role to play in the implementation of UN sanctions, and we continue to work closely with it on this. We consistently engage with China on DPRK issues, including nuclear and human rights, across the board. That involves specifically the enforcement of sanctions.

As set out in the strategic defence and security review last year, the UK’s independent nuclear deterrent remains essential to our security today and for as long as the global security situation demands. History shows us that threats can emerge without notice but the tools for defending ourselves cannot be built overnight, so the Government will not gamble with the security of future generations of British people. We judge that a minimum, credible, independent nuclear deterrent, based on continuous at-sea deterrence and assigned to the defence of NATO, remains vital to our national security to ensure that the UK is protected from extreme threats that cannot be countered in any other way.

Turning to the critical issue of human rights, we remain concerned by the continuing reports of widespread and systematic state-sanctioned human rights violations in North Korea. The regime’s actions, its lack of international engagement on human rights and its rejection of the United Nations commission of inquiry report remain of deep concern. As the Foreign Office Minister for human rights, I am indeed engaged in seeing what negotiations can take place with our like-minded partners. I was asked about this by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Baglan. It is important that we use the range of expertise and influence at the Human Rights Council as well as at the United Nations to be able to exert influence on international views of the DPRK.

Comments by the UN special rapporteur on forced expatriate labour, if accurate, appear to provide further evidence of North Korea’s lack of respect for international norms. It is important that any country around the world that is hosting North Korean workers should respect the rights of those workers. We continue to press the regime to make tangible progress on its absolutely appalling human rights record, including in the meeting that Hugo Swire had in December with senior visiting North Korean diplomats.

It is only a few weeks ago that the UN Security Council met to discuss the human rights situation in North Korea. So while we consider security as part of this debate today, crucially, we must never ever lose sight of the fact that the regime’s appalling approach to human rights denies ordinary North Koreans the rights that we, and many others across the globe, demand for ourselves. The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, outlined a critical issue: it is vital that people should have the right to freedom of religion or belief. Indeed, the constitution of North Korea makes provision for it. It is about time that it took note of its own constitution.

What action are the British Government taking? We work hard in international fora to press for action that addresses North Korea’s serious human rights violations. We play a vital role through our policy of critical engagement. The British embassy in Pyongyang works to ensure that the regime is not oblivious to the condemnation of its approach to security and human rights. Our ambassador and embassy staff consistently raise human rights with the North Korean authorities, including freedom of religion or belief, and encourage their Government to implement all the recommendations of the UN’s universal periodic review. This work is valued by many of our allies, who may of course not have based an embassy within Pyongyang or North Korea and, as I told the current British ambassador before he assumed his duties recently, it is important that this engagement continues. The embassy also runs a series of projects where we engage with ordinary North Koreans. For many, this is their first encounter with a non-Korean and it is an opportunity to showcase our own values.

I was particularly asked about spending. On Monday, I launched the new Magna Carta Fund for Human Rights and Democracy, in which we have doubled the FCO’s democracy fund money for this year to more than £10 million. That funding is available for bids from NGOs and others who work within North Korea but there is a much broader range of spending from government than just that fund. We have a programme spend which has covered humanitarian projects aimed at improving the lives of some of the most vulnerable people in North Korea, including helping to improve food and nutrition for people in rural areas, the funding of equipment for disabled people and support for children affected by the recent floods in Rajin. Many of our projects are about encouraging change.

My noble friend Lady Berridge asked about the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. In fact, I happened to meet its board yesterday as part of our regular engagement. I will make sure that it takes note of our debate today but it is not for me to tell it what to do. That is not the role of government, but I will invite it to take note of what Parliament wishes it to do. Although DfID does not have a bilateral aid programme with North Korea, its programmes are based on the fact that we can give contributions to multilateral agencies that are working in-country.

The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, asked about two consular cases. We are indeed aware of the media reports regarding US and Canadian nationals. The British embassy in Pyongyang has been in close contact with the Swedish embassy and we remain in that contact because Sweden has consular responsibility. That does not mean to say that we do not take an interest—we do.

With regard to engaging North Korean refugees, which was another question from my noble friend Lady Berridge, the British embassy in Seoul also works towards improving the future prospects of the North Korean refugee community in the Republic of Korea through its English for the Future programme. We also engage with the North Korean refugee community in the UK to share information and listen to their views on our policy towards North Korea, so that we may better address the very issues that my noble friend outlined about the needs of refugees.

I was asked particularly about the BBC World Service, which remains the world’s largest international broadcaster. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has discussed proposals for a range of new World Service programming, including for the DPRK, and he will make a decision on whether to support additional services on the basis of any formal request from the BBC Trust. I am not in a position to give a date about when that may happen but when a formal request comes forward, he will make that decision.

The noble Lord, Lord Collins, raised the most important issue—there should be no impunity for crimes such as serious human rights violations. It is not only Governments who have responsibility for this. NGOs take on that responsibility, too, and I pay tribute to the human rights defenders around the world, including those in North Korea, who carry out their work in very dangerous conditions. It is a long battle ahead for us all to achieve conditions of humanity in North Korea. We will not give up, and I know that the British public and this Parliament will not give up.

Litvinenko Inquiry

Thursday 21st January 2016 Lords Chamber

Statement

15:06

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Bates) (Con)]

My Lords, with the permission of the House, I will repeat a Statement made in the House of Commons earlier today by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary.

“Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement about the death of Alexander Litvinenko on 23 November 2006, and the statutory inquiry into that death, which published its findings this morning. Mr Litvinenko’s death was a deeply shocking event. Despite the ongoing police investigation, and the efforts of the Crown Prosecution Service, those responsible have still not been brought to justice.

In July 2014, I established a statutory inquiry in order to investigate the circumstances surrounding Mr Litvinenko’s death, to determine responsibility for his death and to make recommendations. It was chaired by Sir Robert Owen, a retired senior High Court judge. It had the Government’s full support and access to all relevant material, regardless of its sensitivity.

I welcome the inquiry’s report today, and I would like to put on record my thanks to Sir Robert Owen for his detailed, thorough and impartial investigation into this complex and serious matter. Although the inquiry cannot assign civil or criminal liability, I hope that these findings will provide some clarity for his family, friends and all those affected by his death. I would particularly like to pay tribute to Mrs Marina Litvinenko and her tireless efforts to get to the truth.

The independent inquiry has found that Mr Litvinenko died on 23 November 2006, having suffered a cardiac arrest as a result of acute radiation syndrome caused by his ingestion of polonium-210 on 1 November 2006. He ingested the fatal dose of polonium-210 while drinking tea at the Pine Bar of the Millennium Hotel on the afternoon of 1 November 2006. The inquiry—which in the course of its investigations has considered “an abundance of evidence”—has found that Mr Litvinenko was deliberately poisoned by Andrey Lugovoy and Dmitry Kovtun, who had met him at the Millennium Hotel on the afternoon of that day.

The inquiry has also found that Lugovoy and Kovtun were acting on behalf of others when they poisoned Mr Litvinenko. There is a strong probability that they were acting under the direction of the Russian domestic security service—the Federal Security Service, or FSB. The inquiry has found that the FSB operation to kill Mr Litvinenko was probably approved directly by Mr Patrushev, the then head of the FSB, and by President Putin.

The Government take these findings extremely seriously—as I am sure does every Member of this House. We are carefully considering the report’s findings in detail and their implications. In particular, the conclusion that the Russian state was probably involved in the murder of Mr Litvinenko is deeply disturbing. It goes without saying that this was a blatant and unacceptable breach of the most fundamental tenets of international law and of civilised behaviour. But we have to accept that this does not come as a surprise. The inquiry also confirms the assessment of successive Governments that this was a state-sponsored act. This assessment has informed the Government’s approach to date.

Since 2007 that approach has comprised a series of steps to respond to Russia and its provocation. Some of these measures were immediate, such as the expulsion of a number of Russian embassy officials from the UK. Others are ongoing, such as the tightening of visa restrictions on Russian officials in the UK. The Metropolitan Police Service’s investigation into Mr Litvinenko’s murder remains open. I can tell the House today that Interpol notices and European arrest warrants are in place so that the main suspects, Andrey Lugovoy and Dmitry Kovtun, can be arrested if they ever travel abroad. In light of the report’s findings the Government will go further, and Treasury Ministers have today agreed to put in place asset freezes against the two individuals.

At the time, the independent Crown Prosecution Service formally requested the extradition of Mr Lugovoy from Russia. Russia refused to comply with this request—and has consistently refused to do so ever since. It is now almost 10 years since Mr Litvinenko was killed. Sir Robert Owen is unequivocal in his finding that Andrey Lugovoy and Dmitry Kovtun killed him. In light of this most serious finding, Russia’s continued failure to ensure that the perpetrators of this terrible crime can be brought to justice is unacceptable. I have written to the Director of Public Prosecutions this morning, asking her to consider whether any further action should be taken, both in terms of extradition and freezing criminal assets. These decisions are, of course, a matter for the independent Crown Prosecution Service, but the Government remain committed to pursuing justice in this case.

We have always made our position clear to the Russian Government, and in the strongest possible terms. We are doing so again today. We are making senior representations to the Russian Government in Moscow and at the same time will be summoning the Russian ambassador in London to the Foreign Office, where we will express our profound displeasure at Russia’s failure to co-operate and provide satisfactory answers. Specifically, we have demanded, and will continue to demand, that the Russian Government account for the role of the FSB in this case.

The threat posed by hostile states is one of the most sensitive issues that I deal with as Home Secretary. Although not often discussed in public, our security and intelligence agencies have always—dating back to their roots in the First and Second World Wars—had the protection of the UK from state threats at the heart of their mission. This means countering those threats in all their guises—whether from assassinations, cyberattacks or more traditional espionage. By its nature, this work is both less visible and necessarily more secret than the work of the police and the agencies against the terrorist threat, but it is every bit as important to the long-term security and prosperity of the United Kingdom.

The House will appreciate that I cannot go into detail about how we seek to protect ourselves from hostile state acts, but we make full use of the measures at our disposal from investigatory powers right through to the visa system. The case of Mr Litvinenko demonstrates once again why it is so vital that the intelligence agencies maintain their ability to detect and disrupt such threats.

The environment in which espionage and hostile state intelligence activities take place is changing. Evolving foreign-state interests and rapid technological advances mean it is imperative that we respond. Last November, the Chancellor announced that we will make new funding available to the security and intelligence agencies to provide for an additional 1,900 officers. In the same month, I published the draft investigatory powers Bill so that we can ensure that the intelligence agencies’ capabilities keep pace with the threat and the technology, while at the same time improving the oversight of and safeguards for the use of investigatory powers.

In the Government’s recently published national security strategy and the strategic defence and security review, we set out the range of threats to the UK and our allies, including from Russia, and our comprehensive approach to countering these threats. Since the publication of the previous SDSR in 2010, Russia has become more authoritarian, aggressive and nationalist. Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea and its disturbing actions in Ukraine have directly challenged security in the region. These actions have also served as a sobering demonstration of Russia’s intent to try to undermine European security and the rules-based international order. In response, the UK, in conjunction with international partners, has imposed a package of robust measures against Russia. This includes sanctions against key Russian individuals, including Mr Patrushev, who is currently the secretary of the Russian Security Council.

This Government are clear that we must protect the UK and her interests from Russia-based threats, working closely with our allies in the EU and NATO. This morning I have written to my counterparts in EU, NATO and Five Eyes countries, drawing their attention to both the report and the need to take steps to prevent such a murder being committed on their streets.

We will continue to call on President Putin, and Russia, as one of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, to engage responsibly and make a positive contribution to global security and stability. They can, for example, play an important role in defeating Daesh, and, together with the wider international community, help Syria work towards a stable future. We face some of the same challenges, from serious crime to aviation security, and we will continue to engage, guardedly, with Russia where it is strictly necessary to do so to support the UK’s national interest.

Sir Robert Owen’s report contains one recommendation within the closed section of his report. Honourable and right honourable Members will appreciate that I cannot reveal details of that recommendation in this House, but I can assure them that the Government will respond to the inquiry chair on that recommendation in due course.

Finally, I reiterate the Government’s determination to continue to seek justice for the murder of Mr Litvinenko. I repeat my thanks to Sir Robert Owen and, in particular, to Marina Litvinenko. As Sir Robert Owen says in his report, she has shown ‘dignity and composure’ and,

‘has demonstrated a quiet determination to establish the true facts of her husband’s death that is greatly to be commended’.

Mr Litvinenko’s murder was a truly terrible event. I sincerely hope that, for the sake of Marina and Anatoly Litvinenko, for the sake of Mr Litvinenko’s wider family and friends, and for the sake of justice, those responsible can be brought to trial. I commend this Statement to the House”.

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

15:16

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made earlier today in the other place by the Home Secretary. The inquiry report confirms that the Russian state at its highest level sanctioned the killing of a citizen on the streets of our capital city in an unparalleled act of state-sponsored terrorism. We accept that time must be taken to digest the findings of the report and consider our response.

Before I proceed further, I express our appreciation to Sir Robert Owen and his inquiry team, without whose painstaking work the truth would never have been uncovered and known. I extend our thanks to the Metropolitan Police Service for what the report calls “an exemplary investigation”, and to the Litvinenko family’s legal team, who, as I understand it, supported them on a pro bono basis.

We express our sympathy to Marina and Anatoly Litvinenko, who have fought so courageously to make this day a reality. While the findings of this report raise international and diplomatic issues, this was first and foremost a family tragedy. Has the Home Secretary met, or does she intend to meet, Marina and Anatoly to discuss this report, its findings and the British Government’s response?

We welcome what the Home Secretary has said today in the Statement about Interpol notices and European arrest warrants, along with her announcement about asset freezes. Will she also directly approach all EU, NATO and Commonwealth allies, asking for immediate co-operation on extradition in respect of those named in the report as having poisoned Mr Litvinenko? Since there may be other individuals facing similar dangers, has a review been undertaken of the level of security provided to Mr Litvinenko by the relevant British services to see whether any lessons can be learned for the future?

No individuals commit crimes of this type alone, and today’s report confirms that there is a network of people who have known about and facilitated this crime. I understand that Mrs Litvinenko has prepared a list of names to be submitted to the Government, of those who have aided and abetted the perpetrators against whom, she believes, sanctions should be taken. That could include the freezing of UK assets, property and travel restrictions. Will the Minister give an in-principle commitment today to look seriously at that list and those requests?

The Statement indicates that there will be new diplomatic pressure, which we welcome, but given what we know about the way the Russian state operates, do the Government believe there is a case for a wide-ranging review of the nature and extent of our diplomatic, political, economic and cultural relations with Russia?

On diplomacy, do the Government consider that there is a case for recalling the ambassador for consultation and for making any changes to the Russian embassy in London? Given the proven Federal Security Service involvement, are the Government considering expelling FSB officers from Britain? Has the Prime Minister ever raised this case directly with Vladimir Putin, and will he be seeking an urgent conversation with him about the findings of this report?

On cultural collaboration, given what this report reveals about the Russian Government and their links to organised crime, on top of what we already know about corruption within FIFA, do the Government feel that there is a growing case to reconsider our approach to the forthcoming 2018 World Cup and to engage other countries in that discussion?

On the economy, are the Government satisfied that current EU sanctions against Russia are adequate, and is there a case to strengthen them?

We ask these questions not because we have come to a conclusion but because we believe they are the kind of questions this country needs to debate in the light of today’s findings. While the Home Secretary ordered this review, I believe I am right in saying that she originally declined to do so, citing international issues. Will it be considerations of diplomacy or justice that influence the Government’s response?

Finally, will the Government commit to coming back to update Parliament on whatever final package of measures and steps they intend to take in the light of this report and its disturbing findings? The family deserve nothing less than that after their courageous fight. Alexander Litvinenko’s last words to his son Anatoly, who was then 12 years old, were, “Defend Britain to your last drop because it saved your family”. He believed in Britain and its traditions of justice and fairness and of standing up to the mighty and for what is right, and we must now make sure that we find the courage to show his son and the world that his father’s faith in us was not misplaced.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the Minster for repeating the Statement made by the Home Secretary. The death of Mr Litvinenko, although it happened almost 10 years ago, is shocking and tragic, and we hope Marina Litvinenko and her son can find some solace in the findings of this report.

There are fundamental issues at stake here. Sir Robert Owen cites as the motivation for the murder of Mr Litvinenko his criticism of the Russian domestic security service and of the Russian President, Mr Putin, and his association with other Russian dissidents. He concluded that Mr Litvinenko may have been consigned to a slow death from radiation to “send a message”. Freedom of expression and freedom of association are fundamental human rights, and we cannot allow foreign Governments to murder people in this country, let alone a British citizen, for expressing such views or for associating with critics of a particular regime. Such an act cannot be left without serious consequences for Russia.

We acknowledge with gratitude the role of the security and intelligence services and the police in keeping us safe, and we accept the Home Secretary’s assertion that some of the work the security and intelligence services carry out in combating the threat from hostile states must remain secret. We also acknowledge the constant struggle the police and the security services face in trying to keep abreast of developments in technology. Any increase in investigatory powers must none the less be necessary and proportionate and must not unnecessarily undermine the right to free speech and the right to private and family life.

Will the Minster explain how the conclusions of this report have come as such a surprise to the Government that it is only this morning that the Home Secretary has written to the Director of Public Prosecutions asking her to consider whether further action should be taken? It is the Government who should already have taken action in freezing the assets and banning the travel of all those linked to this murder. I accept that a head of state cannot be subjected to a travel ban, but there is no reason why the Government cannot signal their intention to impose one as soon as Mr Putin leaves office.

Why are the Government limiting themselves to expressing their “profound displeasure” at Russia’s failure to co-operate and provide satisfactory answers? Why are they not expressing their outrage that state-sponsored murder by Russia to silence its critics has been carried out on British soil? The Government’s response is late, lame and lamentable.

[Lord Bates]

I am grateful for the points made on this report by the official spokesmen for the opposition parties. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, is absolutely right to say that it is a substantial report, and it is right, given that it has been a thorough exercise to undertake this study, that we give it due consideration before we come forward with all our recommendations. He is also right to point to the sections of the report that talk about the exemplary Metropolitan Police Service investigation into this crime, and I know that that will be welcomed as well by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. Often in such circumstances the police are criticised, but the chair of the inquiry goes out of his way to point out how exemplary they have been.

The noble Lord is right also to pay tribute to the legal team involved in this, and to ask about the security of individuals. The security of individuals is of course first and foremost the responsibility of the police with, where necessary, advice from the security services. We are confident that the police will be looking at the situation very carefully, particularly for individuals who may be at risk.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked if the Home Secretary will meet Marina Litvinenko, and the answer to that is absolutely. The Home Secretary wrote to Marina Litvinenko last night, and she was provided with advance sight of the report so that she could prepare her responses to it. That meeting will take place very shortly. When it does, that will be the appropriate time to consider Marina Litvinenko’s list of names on which she feels further action should be taken. Following that meeting, I will be happy to update the noble Lord and the House on what actions have been taken.

The noble Lord talked about what actions would be taken and whether we would be recalling our ambassador. At present—of course, we are only dealing with the report that has been received now—we certainly feel that the diplomatic channels have immense value in communicating to the Russian authorities our shock and outrage at this incident, which did not just involve the murder of a British citizen in the capital of the UK but involved the use of radioactive material that could have had a lethal effect upon many more people. In fact, some of the most disturbing parts of this entire report are those that show how lazy the two people who carried out this crime were and how unaware they were of the danger of the material that they were handling. There are examples of spills that were mopped up with towels. It was horrific behaviour and incredibly irresponsible, and it is amazing that only one person died as a result of it.

On the points made about this by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, I understand the frustration that will be felt but I draw his attention to appendix 1 of the report, which sets out in some detail the action that was taken. The Home Secretary has taken the action of writing to the Director of Public Prosecutions; following the conclusion of the report, we believe that that is the right course of action. The arrest warrants were issued under the previous Labour Government in 2006 and 2007—very prompt action was taken. Further action has also been taken in the light of the events in Crimea and Ukraine through the European Union, which has gone to the heart of some of the issues which were touched upon as regards cultural and commercial links. The European Union has frozen the assets of five banks, looked at commercial restrictions—and arms embargoes, as one would expect—as well as restrictions on movement. On whether there is more to be done, that is one of the reasons why the Home Secretary has written to her EU counterparts and will continue those discussions in the Justice and Home Affairs Council to see what more can be done, as well as through NATO, to see what more can be done there.

Ultimately, our objective is to ensure that the two people clearly identified as having carried out the murder are brought to the United Kingdom so that they can stand trial and so that the Litvinenko family can get justice for the crime which has been committed. We will not rest or resile from that commitment.

15:31

[Lord Blair of Boughton (CB)]

My Lords, I am not entirely sure that I should declare this as an interest, but this appalling crime took place during my term as Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. I endorse the Home Secretary’s Statement and I am very conscious that the implications of Sir Robert Owen’s report are far wider than having anything to do with the police. However, I would like the Minister further to acknowledge something which appears to have been omitted from the Home Secretary’s Statement. I would like the Minister to take note of the fact that this investigation was into a homicide by a method never seen before in the history of the world. It presented a unique and immensely dangerous challenge to the investigators themselves. In these days, when the Metropolitan Police faces sustained criticism over a number of unrelated matters, this investigation was in the finest tradition of that organisation. It was not only exemplary but innovative, intelligent, unstinting and astonishingly brave.

[Lord Bates]

I certainly echo the noble Lord’s remarks and pay tribute again to the work of the Metropolitan Police Service. I also pay tribute to the work of the Cyclamen network, which tracks nuclear materials as regards potential terrorist threats, as well as the Atomic Weapons Establishment, which provided important scientific input into the inquiry by identifying what had happened. I am therefore happy to endorse those remarks and confirm my agreement with them.

[Lord Judd (Lab)]

My Lords, I think many of us in this House on all sides will want to congratulate the Government on their firm Statement and in particular to thank Sir Robert for the clear and detailed work he has done and for his honest, forthright report. Particularly in view of what the Minister has just said about the wider implications as regards the lethal radioactivity spread around the capital, London, its transport system and the rest, how will the Government raise this matter in the Security Council of the United Nations, with fellow Governments in the European Union, and, most particularly, in the Committee of Ministers in the Council of Europe? The Council of Europe is of course committed to human rights, and we have a very good opportunity there with other Ministers to put the Russians under close scrutiny as regards this report. I was rapporteur for some years to the Council of Europe on the conflict in Chechnya, and what has happened here is all too characteristic of the gruesome repeated action I came up against in Chechnya and in the north Caucasus in general.

[Lord Bates]

References to that engagement in Mr Litvinenko’s background in Chechnya are contained in a report, which makes very interesting reading. The noble Lord asked about the UN Security Council. There are issues that could be addressed through that forum, but the fact that Russia is a permanent member of it makes some of the discussions that need to be had a little more difficult. However, we have said that the European Union plays a crucial part in our security here, and we have made it clear that NATO also plays a very important part, as do the Council of Europe and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. We need to get the message out that this is unacceptable and to communicate that as widely as possible.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend has rightly paid tribute to the courage and dignity of the widow and the bereaved son. Can he give the House an assurance that he is utterly confident of their security in this country and of their financial security for the future?

[Lord Bates]

That is a very good point, and it is characteristic of my noble friend to focus on the humanitarian aspects of this matter. I do not have a sufficient understanding of the situation but I give an undertaking to ensure that it is on the agenda when the Home Secretary meets Marina and Anatoly Litvinenko to make sure that any personal needs they have are met.

[Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister mentioned Syria. I do not understand why we regard it as necessary to be weak on the rule of law at home in order to persuade Russia to do what is in its national interests in Syria. I am sorry to strike a dissenting note to the general tenor so far, but in my view this Statement pretends to roar like a lion but in fact ends up squeaking like a mouse. There is only one new action, and that is to freeze the assets of the two perpetrators, who have no assets in Britain anyway, and shortly to be rude to the Russian ambassador. That is it. Moscow has been found by a British court to have murdered a British citizen using a nuclear weapon in daylight and in public in our capital city, and that is it. Perhaps I may suggest to the Government that they should go away and consider what further action should be taken. When they do so, perhaps they will bear in mind what Mr Putin would do if the tables were reversed and perhaps frame their actions around that.

[Lord Bates]

We might not go quite that far with Mr Putin as a role model for action. In a sense, I understand the point that the noble Lord is making, but let us remember that this report has come out into the open. It contains some damning verdicts on the Russian Administration, on the FSB and on the Russian President himself, and it poses a number of questions in the international community which we have said need to be answered. I think that the report itself is a step along the path of ensuring that we get justice in relation to this crime and of making sure that it does not happen again.

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister has outlined the carelessness with which this material was treated here in the United Kingdom. With regard to how this material came to enter the country in the current security context, can he say whether there are proposals to review the systems that we have in place? We are used to being checked thoroughly as we go out of the country but it seems that we do not have any systems for checking that people do not enter the country with this kind of material. Do we need any such systems?

[Lord Bates]

The Cyclamen co-ordination group, which works with the Border Force and the security services in tracking down this material, does a lot of work in this area. Sections of the inquiry findings point to the fact that, because polonium-210 consists of large molecules, it is extremely difficult to detect through the normal detection methods. We will have to look at that to ensure that we are better at detecting this type of material when it crosses borders or is used within the UK—or anywhere else, for that matter—in the future.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

In his comments, my noble friend emphasised that he wanted to ensure that the two perpetrators were brought to justice in this country. I heard the Russian ambassador earlier today trying to rubbish the report on the basis that it was written without having been tested in a court. Will my noble friend take this opportunity to send a further message to the Russian ambassador that we are quite willing for these two individuals to be tried in a British court of justice and, if necessary, will he give consideration to the process that was undertaken for Lockerbie to protect those individuals until that process is complete?

[Lord Bates]

I am very happy to do that. Of course, that is what we are aiming for. That is the direction and thrust of our policy. We want those two individuals to come to the UK so that they can be put on trial and all the evidence can be put to them, they can seek to defend themselves and a judgment can be made.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister think it possible or even likely that the polonium could have entered Britain in a diplomatic bag?

[Lord Bates]

The report does not go into that level of detail—or certainly not the parts that I have read. That is something that will be examined very carefully because, again, that would ratchet up this issue to a further level of deep concern.

[Lord Rea (Lab)]

I am sure that Marina Litvinenko is extremely pleased that this inquiry was held and that the findings are so definite, but she would be even more pleased if the findings could be tested in law with regard to the two main suspects being accused. Although it seems impossible to get them to come to this country, would there not be a precedent for having a trial in absentia?

[Lord Bates]

I am afraid that I am not qualified to know whether that is an option. I think that it would be immensely difficult. In effect, there has been an inquiry without their contribution. The evidence was considered and it has produced a pretty damning judgment. As to what the legal options are, I hope that the Director of Public Prosecutions might be able to come forward with something in response to the Home Secretary’s letter.

Women: Businesses

Thursday 21st January 2016 Lords Chamber

Motion to Take Note

15:43

Moved by

[Baroness Wheatcroft]

That this House takes note of the contribution women are making to businesses, the economy and the future economic growth of the United Kingdom.

[Baroness Wheatcroft (Con)]

My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to introduce this timely debate, for it is a chance to celebrate—to celebrate the huge success both of the country and of individuals.

Women have come a long way in a short time. Let us not forget that it was only in 1928 that women gained equal voting rights with men, but it is less than 100 years ago that the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act enabled the first women to become barristers and solicitors and only in 1997 that a woman became chief executive of a FTSE 100 company. Such was the amazed reaction to Marjorie Scardino getting the top job at Pearson that many appear to regard the event as akin to Dr Johnson’s response to a woman being a preacher:

“a woman’s preaching is like a dog’s walking on his hind legs. It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all”.

Well, to find women succeeding in business is no longer any surprise. There are many examples of that success in this Chamber, and I am delighted that we will be hearing from so many of them today, and that the Minister who is to respond had herself a highly successful career in business before turning her hand to politics.

In particular, I am delighted that we will be listening to two maiden speeches, both from women who are making a serious contribution to the business world. My noble friend Lady Rock is a director of a FTSE 250 company, and my noble friend Lady McGregor-Smith, runs the mighty Mitie company and chairs the Women’s Business Council, which aims massively to increase the contribution of women to the economy. I have no doubt that they will both have some very interesting things to say.

For too long, women were a wasted resource in the economy. There is now a clear understanding that we cannot afford to squander the talent of half the population. If we could equalise women’s productivity and employment with that of men, it could add £600 billion to the economy. I applaud the moves that the Government are making to encourage this change: the right to request flexible working, shared parental leave, and now 30 hours of free childcare for the parents of three and four year-olds.

But it takes time to change attitudes. When I was a working mother, I was somewhat taken aback at a school parents evening to be shown the work of the eldest son, who was then aged five. “My daddy is tall and thin. He is a publisher”, he had written. That was largely accurate, if perhaps slightly flattering on the size front, but never the less he was indeed a publisher. He went on, “My mummy is short and fat. She is a typist”. It was true because I was pregnant and I typed, but I did so as a journalist on the business pages of a national newspaper. Prejudices are formed early and they can be absorbed from seemingly innocent sources such as children’s books.

The remarkable Dame Stephanie Shirley built a fantastic business in the tech field. At the time she started it, in the 1960s, a married woman needed her husband’s permission to open a bank account. So she decided to work as Steve rather than Stephanie, because she was sure that someone with a man’s name would have a better chance of persuading customers to join the business than a woman would. She built the business up to be worth hundreds of millions of pounds, making 70 of her staff, largely women, millionaires in the process. She has since become one of our leading philanthropists. Her experience, however, led her to remark that, “You can always tell ambitious women by the shape of our heads. They’re flat on top from being patted patronisingly”.

Things have improved since then. Led by the dynamic and determined noble Lord, Lord Davies of Abersoch, the drive to get more women on to corporate boards has been very successful. In 2011, just 12.5% of FTSE 100 directors were women. Last year that proportion overtook the 25% mark. Now the drive is to increase the number of women directors among the FTSE 350 companies. Astonishingly, in 2011 there were 152 all-male boards in the 350 index. In four years, that number has been cut by 90% and the Government target now is to bolster the proportion of women on those boards to a third.

I was so relieved that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and the Government set targets and not quotas. I do not believe that quotas would have been for the long-term benefit of the country or of women. It would inevitably have led to women being put on boards because of their gender and not their ability. Promoting token women is not to anyone’s benefit. What boards need is a diversity of experience, skills, talent and outlook.

I believe that women are as diverse as men. I hope that I will not be seen as being disloyal to the sisterhood if I say that, just as women can be thoughtful, caring, kind and ambitious, so can men, but not all women are paragons. Some can be as scheming, ruthless and mean as any man. Both men and women can fall victim to the groupthink that is so damaging to a business. Various studies purport to show that having women on the board has a positive effect on performance. That may be, but might the positive factor be having a board that is not so blinkered, old-fashioned and prejudiced as to close its doors to anyone who does not fit the stereotypical male, pale director image? Diversity is what is required.

I should probably take this opportunity to say that I currently sit on two company boards, one of which is a FTSE 100 company and is, I am delighted to say, chaired by a woman. My experience of being on boards is that generalisations are dangerous. Getting the right mix of people is what is important, irrespective of gender, so it makes sense to choose from the biggest possible talent pool. That means looking at men and women and, equally important, looking at people from diverse backgrounds and, in this global business world, diverse countries.

Although we are making progress at board level, it is among non-executive directors rather than executives that the biggest changes have come. When it comes to executives, we now have six female chief executives of FTSE 100 companies, but the ratio of male to female senior execs is pitiful. I think it is more likely that a man called John will be a senior or chief exec than a woman of any name.

Is this because of a glass ceiling, or is it because many able women choose not to take on those roles? Here, we should not—cannot—ignore the realities of family life. The issue of childcare and, increasingly, the need to look after older parents, undoubtedly impacts on careers. It is true that families are moving towards more shared care between parents, but it still tends to be the mother who carries the bulk of domestic responsibilities.

There is more that companies could do to make it easier for people to balance work and life. For all the talk of flexible working—some companies pay much more than lip-service to it—we still have a long-hours culture in this country and presenteeism is rife. It is interesting to note that this does not in any way equate to world-beating productivity—on the contrary.

One thing I find remarkable is that for many executives, a huge amount of travelling seems to be required. Why should this be the case in an age when videoconferencing is highly sophisticated and Skype is readily available? It may be that people still believe that it is imperative to do business face-to-face and, on some occasions, it certainly is, but if companies could make better use of technology instead of business class seats and comfortable hotels, more mothers might be encouraged to take on senior executive roles.

I have to say that, in my career, I have never felt discriminated against for being a woman. Indeed, I often found it something of an advantage. As a journalist, when I was younger, older captains of industry seemed quite responsive to being interviewed by a younger woman. Later on, I suspect that younger captains of industry felt comfortable talking to someone who reminded them of their mother.

However, it saddens me to admit that women are still discriminated against when it comes to the matter of pay. There are explanations for why there should be the apparent gender pay gap, but it is so glaring, so consistent, that it is hard to avoid concluding that there is an element of discrimination at work. It would be charitable to think that it was always unintentional. Fifty years ago, it was still largely taken for granted that women would be paid less than men. But the Equal Pay Act came into force in 1970, so it is remarkable that the gap between average earnings of men and women remains so wide—a staggering 19.2% in this country, which is nearly 3% higher than the average for Europe.

Work by the Fawcett Society shows an even bigger gap at the top: the highest-earning 2% of men earn an average of £117,352 while the average for the highest-earning 2% of women is just £75,745—an extraordinary gap of 55%. Now, of course, there are factors to explain the gap, not least the fact that women are slow to climb into those top jobs that pay more. The good news is that among younger people—those under 40—the gap has been narrowed almost into non-existence. But the evidence points firmly towards the fact that older women are not being paid what they deserve.

The Government have pledged to close the gap within a generation and last year announced plans to force companies to publish the figures showing their pay by gender, including bonuses. It is important to keep the bonuses in there because of the belief that men get bigger bonuses than women, either because they demand them or because those handing out the bonuses just think they are more deserving. The figures point to there being some truth in that.

The hope is that, by forcing companies to publish their numbers, it will encourage them to examine their pay structures more carefully. It might, but I suspect that, unless they are forced into disclosing pay by tiers rather than just overall, they will cling to the belief that they are being asked to compare apples and pears. I hope that the Minister today may be able to give us some thoughts on how real change is to be brought about on this front.

Getting more women into top jobs is clearly part of the solution, but it may not be enough. The actress Sienna Miller is clearly at the top of her profession. When she learnt that a film offer made to her would pay her significantly less than her male co-star, she walked away. That option is not available to many women.

However, I do not want to finish on a down-beat note. As I have said, the increased proportion of women in the economy is a cause for celebration. We have girls being enthused about business at school, more women setting up their own businesses than ever before and women running some of our biggest companies. We have a woman chairing the Institute of Directors and a woman directing the CBI. We are not a monstrous regiment, but we are a formidable force. I beg to move.

15:58

[Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con)]

I am most grateful to my noble friend Lady Wheatcroft for initiating this debate and I, too, very much look forward to the maiden speeches of my noble friends Lady Rock and Lady McGregor-Smith, both of whom come to this House with considerable business experience and expertise.

Noble Lords may be aware that I spend a lot of time banging on about women’s equality in Parliament. As a result of the work I have done in this space, I have been lucky enough to meet and talk to many successful businesswomen and female entrepreneurs who support this. Due to efforts by women themselves, the introduction of voluntary targets, as the noble Baroness said, and government support, progress continues to be made in all areas to increase women’s representation in the workplace. The news that 69% of women aged between 16 and 64 are now in employment, the highest number since records began in 1971, is to be welcomed. Here in Parliament, women now make up a record 29% of the House of Commons—not good enough, obviously—and 26% of the Lords.

In the business world, however, the UK still languishes in the bottom 10 of the league table of senior management roles around the world, with women in the UK holding only 19% of these positions. Interestingly, the number one spot is occupied by China, with 51% of senior management positions held by women. I have not studied the correlation but I would be surprised if the success of women in business there is not a significant factor in powering China’s economic success.

A study by the McKinsey Global Institute has analysed gender equality in 95 countries around the world, and estimated that closing the gender gap in the workplace would increase annual GDP by between $12 trillion and $28 trillion in 2025, depending on how quickly change could be implemented. That is a very big number, equivalent to the economies of China and the US combined. We could create economic value equivalent to two world superpowers in less than 10 years if women’s participation in the workplace were equal to men’s across 95 countries. The opportunities are mind-boggling.

Some noble Lords will be aware that I speak regularly in debates about international development, encouraging the Government to do even more to empower women in developing countries and making the economic case for doing so. I am delighted that Justine Greening has just been appointed to the UN’s High-Level Panel on Women’s Economic Empowerment, designed to put the issue on the global agenda, and I am sure we all wish her and the panel every success. However, I am struck that we seldom focus to the same extent here at home, where we are still far from reaching our full potential.

It is great news that proportionally more women than men are now involved in business start-ups. In 2014, the proportion of working-age people involved in early-stage entrepreneurial activity was 11%. By gender, the entrepreneurial activity in the UK was 14% among women and 8% among men. From listening to many women who have been involved in starting their own businesses, I know that flexibility in working hours is often a key to balancing work and family life. I personally identify with that, as in 2007 I set up my own business with a partner. That business continues to thrive today and employs 19 people, although I do not think I would be in this Chamber today if I had stuck with the business rather than focusing on other areas of women’s empowerment.

I recently asked a number of successful women entrepreneur friends what they thought should be done to support more women to maximise their potential in the workplace. In their view, women tend to nurture their business growth, are financially prudent, and seldom look for a quick exit but focus more on developing a sustainable business. People management and team development skills are paramount, as start-ups are highly dependent on a few scarce people. They told me that it is lonely if they start on their own. An inclusive style, working as a team together with natural mentoring and coaching skills, are strengths often found in women. Of course, that is not to say that successful male entrepreneurs do not display some or all of the same characteristics, but entrepreneurship should be encouraged as an area of growth for women in the economy. The recent paper from the Centre for Entrepreneurs, Shattering Stereotypes: Women in Entrepreneurship, is well worth a read for further insight.

More entrepreneurial education, support and encouragement are needed for the next generation of female entrepreneurs—interestingly, they do not like to be called entrepreneurs but want to be called business founders; the word somehow turns them off—with the establishment of high-quality mentoring schemes and networks. I welcome the Government’s work in that space, including the new mentoring campaign to be led by Christine Hodgson, chair of Capgemini UK and the Careers & Enterprise Company, but is the Minister confident that all those various initiatives are promoted widely enough? Preparing for the debate made me aware of how much support was available, but I am not convinced that it is easy to find. Might all that activity benefit from being joined up under a single strategy, leading to an entrepreneurial revolution in our schools, further education colleges, universities and beyond? That kind of bold initiative could lead to a considerable economic prize to ensure that the UK continues to be one of the fastest-growing global economies for the next decade and beyond.

16:03

[Baroness Rebuck (Lab)]

My Lords, I am indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, for introducing this debate on women’s contribution to business and economic growth, not least because it gives a context for two much-anticipated maiden speeches, from my noble friend Lady Rock—I am pleased to say that she began her career in book publishing—and the noble Baroness, Lady McGregor-Smith, who has done such amazing work as chair of the Women’s Business Council, is an important role model for young women, and is a long-serving CEO.

I have been a woman in business since I entered the workforce in the mid-1970s, launching a publishing start-up in 1982 and becoming CEO of one of the largest publishing groups in the UK in 1991—a position I held for 22 years until I became chair.

I join the noble Baronesses, Lady Wheatcroft and Lady Jenkin, in applauding women’s achievements, with 69% of women in work—the highest number since I joined the workforce, but still behind 79% of men. I have seen women’s attitudes and aspirations towards fulfilling work transform with each generation and I enjoy my millennial daughters’ utter intolerance of many of the compromises that I have made in my life. For them, the notion of equalising women’s productivity and employment to men’s is a real possibility—potentially adding, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, told us, some £600 billion to our economy. But it would depend on a different culture in organisations and, at home, a truly shared responsibility for child-rearing.

But as well as our successes, we also have to acknowledge that there is much more to achieve. There are currently 2.4 million women who want to work but cannot and 1.5 million who are failing to increase their working hours. In the 21st century is it not shocking, as we have heard and will clearly agree on, that in the UK we have a gender pay gap of 19.2%, which is well above the European average? Why is it that 42% of women who work part-time—often involuntarily, many on zero-hours contracts—are three times more likely than men to earn far less than a living wage? These depressing statistics do not fit with the fact that around half of our young women hold a university degree, with significant numbers achieving first-class honours. Why is it that so many are in low-or middle-skilled jobs, well below their qualifications? Depressingly, for these women, little has changed since the 1970s.

Going right back to school, girls outperform boys, but very few are on a pathway towards high-growth STEM subjects, where many high-profile jobs would await them. The CBI reports that girls suffer from pigeonholing in their careers and that 93% of all young people are not getting the careers advice that they deserve. So I suggest that we need to improve career preparation for women, whether in the humanities or STEM subjects, even as early as primary school, because by the time women are exposed to inspiring role models—if they ever are at all—they tend to have already decided on their exam choices and their ambitions are potentially curtailed.

When I speak to girls’ schools I encounter such enthusiasm and curiosity, but I often feel like I am a visitor from Mars. There is little continuity or training and few consistent role models for the majority of the 3.7 million young women who are not being prepared to aspire to a career and fulfil their potential in the workforce. I hope that Christine Hodgson’s new independent careers advice company will address these gender issues specifically.

At the same time, millennials—women between the ages of 18 and 34—are more likely to want self-determination and to start their own businesses rather than follow a regimented career. A third of start-ups in Britain are by women aged under 35; 37% of them self-fund and operate their business from home, covering service sectors, probably with limited upsides. They do not tend to move into the tech and science environments that men monopolise—a fact championed by my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox. I look forward to hearing her views on this. Women are also less likely to seek VC funding than the majority of start-ups by men. Could it be because generally, and not always through choice, they take on the family responsibilities and therefore fear debt and failure more acutely?

Similar dynamics operate in the traditional workforce, where 75% of CEOs and 69% of full-time managers are men. This has pretty much been the case all my working life, as I witness women’s career trajectories change once they become mothers, with one-third of managers going on a downward trajectory. It is also at this point—as we have heard, when they are roughly in their 40s—that women’s pay begins to deviate from men’s in what has been called the “motherhood penalty”.

The argument has been made time and time again that if you add 10% of gender diversity at the top of companies, you add a potential 3.5% EBIT increase, yet the number of senior women leaders remains stubbornly low. There are only 8.6% women executive directors on our top companies’ boards. There are 26% women non-executive directors on our top boards—a great achievement of my noble friend Lord Davies and others—but we now need radical action on women’s executive careers. Is it a question of unconscious bias in companies and benevolent stereotyping? Or, as Sheryl Sandberg argues, are women failing to “lean in”? Perhaps the Government themselves, a big national employer, could set targets for their executive women’s pipeline? I certainly find increased anxiety in the brilliant young career women I mentor, especially when they start a family, as if they have subscribed to some ideal notion of perfect motherhood, blended with perfect work performance—both impossible goals.

Millennial women, for the most part, take a different attitude from my generation. They reject the compromise of working motherhood where all the responsibility rests with women and demand a more equal approach with a partner and much more time flexibility from the companies they work for. Work/life balance is firmly on their agenda. I was lucky enough to be able to afford childcare when I had children, but today the cost of nursery provision is up 33% since 2010, well ahead of any salary inflation. And, unfortunately for anyone working in today’s 24/7 environment, how adjusted is childcare provision generally to the majority of working families or, indeed, lone parents, 93% of whom are women working outside the nine to six, nine to five—or whatever—norm?

If women are going to make their full contribution to the workforce, we need a different culture of shared parental responsibility and universal, affordable and flexible childcare. We need to stop demonising working mothers or colluding in setting up impossible ideals. We need trust and flexibility within companies to allow women—and men—to juggle their lives, and we need finite measures to increase aspiration in schools and universities, followed by focused training and sponsorship in executive pipelines for women. Mentorship and active sponsorship of women in all companies are essential.

These issues are many and complex and, yes, I think it is right that we applaud the contribution of women to business and their current and future potential impact on the growth of our economy, but let us also be aware of the warning signs of lack of progress and stagnation and of unequal access to opportunity, and honestly debate any barriers—practical, psychological and cultural—to women’s full contribution to our future.

16:13

[Baroness Brady (Con)]

I congratulate my noble friend Lady Wheatcroft on securing this debate, and particularly the way it has been framed. We are finally talking about the contribution that women can and do make to growth and economic prosperity, instead of being trapped in a debate on equality for equality’s sake. There are reasons why we need to empower women in the workplace and they are for the benefit not just of women but of the whole country. Our businesses can do better, innovate more and grow faster if we leverage the talent of the whole country.

Today I want to focus my remarks on opportunity—opportunities for women in business and opportunities for our economic growth as a country, now and in the future. The opportunities for women are simple. They are the same as the opportunities for anyone building a career in business—an access-all-areas pass to any skill set, any profession and any industry, and, in those areas, the chance to go as high as anyone wants to go, from middle management to senior leadership to FTSE 100 CEO. On that note, I pay tribute to and welcome my noble friend Lady McGregor-Smith to this House. Her success in business, as well as her work at the Women’s Business Council, is an inspiration to us all.

How do we unlock these opportunities? Our generation is more fortunate than previous ones in that we at least can point to equality before the law. We therefore need to make sure that, first, we empower women with the skills they need to get on in whatever career they choose and, secondly, change culture and attitudes where we need to so that women with the right skills get to the top and do not get sidelined by gender issues.

Take my own industry, football. In 1993, when records began, just 10,000 women and girls played in affiliated league and cup competitions. That number is now 147,000, which is of course progress, but we still have a long way to go. It will not surprise many in this House that there are no female managers in the professional ranks of men’s football. But it may surprise noble Lords that just eight of the 24 teams at the recent Women’s World Cup were managed by women, and in global professional women’s football women manage just 7% of teams. If we can encourage more girls into the sport, this may yet filter through into management and leadership roles as well, and I commend the FA’s targeted outreach programme to recruit more female players and coaches.

Some of the remaining barriers are cultural. Noble Lords may have seen the “This Girl Can” campaign—a celebration of women in sport, designed to challenge the idea that certain activities are not for girls. There is a football example of a woman doing keepy-uppy, with the caption, “I also know the offside rule”. I commend such initiatives for helping to show that no part of our society or economy should be closed to half the population. There are lessons here for the wider business community.

Culturally, perhaps the most important thing we need to do is address flexible working and raising a family, as many speakers have said, and end the stereotypes that may still exist in this area. I am pleased, therefore, that the Government have introduced the right to request flexible working as well as shared parental leave. It is important that this is seen as an opportunity for men as much as for women. I think Sheryl Sandberg said it best when she said:

“I look forward to the day when half our homes are run by men and half our companies and institutions are run by women. When that happens, it won’t just mean happier women and families; it will mean more successful businesses and better lives for us all”.

Of course, for men and women, raising a family does not mean being less committed to building a career.

Then we have to consider the gender pay gap and continue to get more women into senior leadership positions—and pay them. The gender pay gap is the lowest it has ever been but it still exists. We now have no all-male FTSE 100 boards but we still need more female representation. This is the opportunity for women. Of profound importance is the opportunity for our economy, competiveness and growth prospects if we can empower more women in business and unlock the talents of British people. The Women’s Business Council has calculated that if we equalise women’s employment to that of men by 2030, we can add at least 10% to GDP. Closing the pay gap does not benefit just women, it benefits the whole economy. Until women earn the same as men, the economy will continue to lose money, currently around £40 billion a year. As the president of the World Bank, Jim Yong Kim, has said,

“gender equality doesn’t require trade-offs; it only has benefits. And the benefits accrue to everyone”.

We have heard today of the outstanding contributions that women are making to the UK economy, and their potential to do more. Women deserve these opportunities but, more importantly, Britain deserves them. In a fiercely competitive global economy, we need to lever every advantage we can to stay ahead. We still have a lot to do but Britain is ahead of many other countries in maximising women’s economic footprint. Let us lock in that first-mover advantage and reap the benefits it can bring for our girls, our women and our country as a whole.

16:19

[Baroness Lane-Fox of Soho (CB)]

My Lords, I, too, add my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, for securing this debate. She may not remember that we first met in 1999, when she wrote about me—I quote directly—“She is overhyped”. She wrote with characteristic vim and absolute accuracy, I hasten to add. I was personally overhyped by the excitement of the dotcom boom, which I thought would lead to an incredible redistribution and democratising of the world. In many ways it has, and in many ways unexpected things have happened, for good and for slightly less good.

I would like to talk this afternoon about the potential to unlock even more for women using the power of the internet. There is much to be positive about. To give your Lordships two examples, there is a company that you may not be aware of called Samasource, which was started by a brilliant female entrepreneur in the US. It employs women in developing countries to do outsourcing and data collection and to work for companies all over the world. I was amused to read on its website that one of its key employees—she is also called Martha—said of working for Samasource:

“It’s been a dream, me having my own place, paying my own rent, buying my own food. Being independent”.

I feel much the same about the internet, I should add.

On the one hand, we have brilliant companies such as Samasource being built and giving opportunities to women all over the world in new ways. At the other extreme, I met a woman this morning at the launch of the Lloyds consumer digital index, which is benchmarking how we are progressing towards being a digital nation. She is called Lisa and used to be a bus driver. Now she makes her own financial products online and has been quite astonishing in building her own business. It is smaller scale but I am sure it will be as big as Samasource soon enough.

I would be telling a terrible untruth, however, if I described any situation other than an internet that is controlled, run, funded, made and used predominantly by men. It is an extremely serious situation. If we look through any cut of the numbers, it is profoundly upsetting. About 4% of the world’s software developers, the people controlling and building the internet, are women. About 9% of businesses founded on the internet are run by women. About 10% of venture capitalists in the internet space are women. In the total technology sector here in the UK, 13% are women and there are 17% of women in management positions. On every metric, it is fewer than the number of women in your Lordships’ House. This is in an industry that did not exist 30 years ago, and that has grown in parallel with the general acceptance that men and women should be treated equally. We have effectively replaced the establishments and hierarchies of the Industrial Revolution of the last century with hierarchies that look exactly the same. It takes my breath away.

However, I am an optimist and I believe that there is much that can be done. I was so delighted when the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, referred to Dame Stephanie Shirley, who was in this House this morning having a cup of tea with me but unfortunately could not stay for the debate. There are three big areas we should grab as a country because if we do not, we will not be able to compete economically and for the better.

The first is to address the enormous skills crisis that we have in our tech sector, using creative and new ways. There are 600,000 empty jobs right now in the UK and there are forecast to be 1 million by 2020. Dame Stephanie gives us an example of how we could fill them differently. What the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, did not mention in her anecdote about her was that at one point she hired 2,000 women, who were all working from home and all doing coding and software design on hard-core government contracts, such as the black box for Concorde or the Polaris submarine. That was hardly a walk in the park or about flaky projects.

We have lost that capacity to engage women in the incredible design and use of software. Why can we not take some of the 800,000 women who are currently unemployed in this country and train them to fill our skills gap? How much more imaginative could we be by matching some of the challenges that we have? I recently worked on projects that took women who had no understanding of computer science, just basic maths, and in six months they became Java-ready and able to go into work. We should be much bolder in addressing these challenges. We will not have a shot at competing globally if we do not fill these jobs. Let us use the widest possible talent pool that we have.

Secondly, we will design much better products and services if we engage women in their original conception and creation. I am sorry if noble Lords have heard me talk about this before, but there is a well-known example from Apple, which released a health kit that it was touting globally 18 months ago. Apple said, “This will track every single thing you can possibly need to know about your health”. That was true—as long as you did not have a baby, had never had a period and were not planning on going through the menopause. There was not one single woman on that development team.

How much better products are when co-created with women at their heart. The former CEO of Twitter, Dick Costolo, said as much when he talked about how Twitter had mucked up completely when it had not considered the issues of trolling, bullying and online abuse. Again, you can bet your life that if there had been one woman on that development team, Twitter might have foreseen that.

This is not just about economic empowerment for the individual but about economic empowerment for the country. I feel so strongly that there is so much more that we can do to address these challenges. No country in the world has put gender balance in the technology sector at the heart of how it builds that sector, and I believe there will be huge economic gains if we do so. The internet is growing—it is not going away, despite many of your Lordships perhaps wishing that it would—and becoming a more, not less, important part of our global economy and the way we work with each other. It is already bigger than our manufacturing industries and is growing to be as big as our services industry. It is very important that we take action right now to make sure that the widest pool of talent is involved in the world that I love and have been so lucky to be part of.

16:26

[Baroness McGregor-Smith (Con) (Maiden Speech)]

My Lords, I am incredibly honoured to stand here today as a Member of this House and make my maiden speech. From the moment of my arrival, I have been humbled by and thankful for the generous, kind and welcoming support I have received from the staff, officers and Members of the House.

In fact, the kindness of noble Lords almost got me into trouble from the first occasion I arrived in this building. I was waiting for my first meeting with my charming noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach when the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, came across me and suggested afternoon tea. I, however, was unaware that meeting him was not a part of my schedule. I later learned that my assigned minder sent out a search party hunting for me across the Parliamentary Estate, and 40 minutes later, I was found in the Peers’ Guest Room having tea. I was very late for the Chief Whip, but left with a strong impression of how kind and welcoming noble Lords are on all sides of the House.

I am hugely grateful to my two supporters, my noble friends Lady Verma and Lord Livingston of Parkhead, for doing me the great honour of introducing me to the House. I also thank my mentor, my noble friend Lady Noakes. This is the first time I have had a female mentor, and her wisdom, guidance and support have been invaluable. She also encouraged me to make my maiden speech today, knowing how passionate I am about this topic.

I am delighted to speak in this debate on the contribution of women to business, the economy and the future of economic growth in the UK, and I congratulate my noble friend, Lady Wheatcroft on securing this important debate. I am also pleased that my noble friend Lady Rock, who I know has a wealth of experience in this area, will be making her maiden speech later in the debate.

On the day of my introduction, surrounded by noble Lords and my family, my only regret was that my father did not live to see the occasion. My unlikely journey to this House took its greatest turn at the age of two. My parents were part of a minority, Muslim community in northern India, and felt our opportunities were limited. My father was also determined to ensure that education and financial independence would be a part of my future as a female. Believing they could build a better life, they made a brave choice to begin again in the United Kingdom. They arrived with nothing but their education and some very big aspirations. My father trained as an accountant, and he and my mother built a successful life here.

However, it was not all easy, particularly financially. I also found the differences between the two cultures very challenging and difficult. Experiencing first-hand the conflicts around race and religion shaped my passion to help make it easier for the next generations. It also cemented my belief that business must play its own role in supporting aspirational Britain by being far more diverse.

In 2007, I was appointed as chief executive of Mitie, and became the first Asian female to run a FTSE 350 business. I never thought I could be a role model, and suddenly I realised I was. We have seen great progress in recent decades but, as a business leader, I still find myself surprised at the lack of other women and mothers I meet at a senior level in business. We also know that women are still more likely than men to be in low-paying jobs.

Achieving gender equality is critical to the growth and productivity of British business and our economy. That is why, in 2012, it was my honour to be invited to serve as the chair of the Women’s Business Council, established by the Government to advise on how women’s contribution to economic growth could be improved. Our research found that, if men and women’s economic participation was equal, this could add 10% to GDP by 2030. If women were setting up and running new businesses at the same rate as men, we would have 1 million extra female entrepreneurs.

As a council, we made recommendations to address the barriers encountered at every stage of a woman’s life. We have seen really good progress and really welcome the strong actions that government have taken. These include shared parental leave, the right to flexible working and more support with childcare. But there is still so much more to be done. Childcare in particular is still too expensive in the UK, and continues to prevent women from going back to work. I congratulate the Government on the Childcare Bill, which goes some way to addressing this.

Your Lordships will also be aware of the great strides that have been made in getting more women on boards. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Abersoch, has made such a huge contribution to this issue. But true workplace equality comes only from having strong representation of women at every level in business. I have set aspirational, self-imposed diversity targets below board level in my own business, and I believe that all organisations, both public and private, should take this approach.

For businesses to be truly diverse, we need to look beyond what we see in people every day and really begin to tackle our unconscious bias. This is about looking for talent and taking more risks on people who do not tick every conventional box—believe in them, back them and help them to achieve their dreams. We must also celebrate more the success stories that we do have in business, and share best practice.

Britain offered unparalleled opportunity to my family and, later, to me. I was really fortunate to have parents and then mentors who believed in me and supported me to realise my dreams of having a career and a family. I genuinely believe that, if I can do it, anyone can do it. We just need to understand what the barriers are for everybody, and how they need to be overcome.

For me, it has never just been about equality, fairness or doing the right thing; it really is about securing our economic future. We should be, and really need to be, a country where every person can aspire to do any job or build any business. We are not there yet, but I know one day we can be.

16:32

[Baroness Mobarik (Con)]

My Lords, I am honoured to follow my noble friend Lady McGregor-Smith. I am sure that Peers from all sides of the House will agree that that was an excellent speech, and that my noble friend will add substantially to the breadth and depth of knowledge in this House.

As noble Lords have heard, my noble friend Lady McGregor-Smith has spent a decade at the helm of a FTSE 250 company, and I am sure there are a number of FTSE 100 companies vying to have her as their next chief executive. She raises some important points in her speech, such as having strong business representation at executive level, not just at non-executive level. The mention of her family and the inspiration that came from her parents has clearly been a factor in her journey to the House of Lords, a journey which I have no doubt will in turn inspire others.

Women have long contributed to economic growth. They have done so in every sector of the economy, as employees, self-employed, and employers. But they have often faced a subtle discrimination, which has ultimately been to the cost of economic growth both nationally and internationally. As already mentioned, they face many more obstacles in setting up and growing their business and are less confident in their capacities as entrepreneurs. According to the UN, women in the developing world tend to have less access to formal financial institutions and saving mechanisms, and in developed economies women are less likely to have access to the kinds of investments and networks required to grow their business.

The UN reports that statistical evidence shows that:

“When more women work, economies grow”,

and that:

“Increasing women and girls’ education contributes to higher economic growth”.

In terms of diversity, studies show that more diverse companies perform up to 15% better on average. As Forbes Magazine puts it, diversity,

“reduces the risk of ‘group think’ creating an unhealthy level of unchallenged consensus”.

Yet despite the evidence, a gender gap still exists. McKinsey has identified: that to help women better develop as leaders we must design the conditions in which this can take place; that sponsoring, not just mentoring, is important; that neutralising the effects of maternity leave and ongoing parenting responsibilities are key; and that we must place value on a diverse range of leadership styles. Studies have shown that diversity in opinions in board rooms and other decision-making groups leads to better decisions.

In recent years there has been a concerted effort on the part of the UK Government to address issues of gender in the business environment. The report by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, has been mentioned by other noble Lords, so I shall not do so, except to say that despite its success in bringing about significant change there are still areas where it is yet to have an impact. For example, a recent study by Forbes stated that the UK’s financial technology sector is booming but that financial technology companies are still very much a male domain. Very few women are in managerial roles, and only 9% are at board level positions in the top 35 British financial technology companies.

However, cultural change happens gradually and is difficult to impose. In fact, it is long-standing cultural norms which have influenced what we are discussing today. Of course there has been an argument for enforcing legally binding quotas to bring about change. In fact, this issue is being discussed as the Scotland Bill passes through this House, with the suggestion that it becomes a devolved issue, allowing quotas for public sector organisations in Scotland. Some would say that there is a case for positive discrimination, but I must admit that I have a problem with the word discrimination, whether positive or negative. By positively discriminating in favour of one group of people we automatically negatively discriminate against another. It simply creates resentment and ultimately does not solve anything. Equally, I do not think that people from the ethnic minorities or women would want to be token people within an organisation; they want to be there on merit and because they have something to offer. As a former chair of CBI Scotland, I would not like to think that I was there as a token woman, but I certainly dispelled all the stereotypes of male, pale and corporate. Perhaps more crucially, the focus should be on better recruitment techniques. For example, how representative of society are the interview panels? Perhaps that is where we need to start to redress the balance so that the changes automatically filter through.

It is true that women are generally underrepresented in many forums. If we take the World Economic Forum currently under way at Davos, just 17.8% of the participants are women at a forum where heads of state, chief executives and investors are discussing issues which impact on the whole global socioeconomic and geopolitical landscape.

However, this debate is not just about things which need to change but about the great achievements that women have made despite everything, the great strides forward in the corporate world, with their significant presence on boards, and the small and medium-sized enterprises owned and led by women that are providing employment and contributing to the economy.

The key in this is education. Looking at the needs of boards, there is a real requirement for financial acumen in this area. Women should be encouraged to take the initiative and go for courses which will equip them better in this regard. As well as encouraging girls to take STEM subjects at school, we should convey that business and enterprise is a very valid career choice. This upward trajectory has to continue. The talent pipeline has to remain populated and carefully nurtured. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, on securing this debate today.

16:40

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (LD)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, for securing this debate. Her speech was very much at one with her distinguished career as a journalist and in business, and was elegantly and forcefully presented to this House.

I am going to use my time today to speak about a subject that is not discussed very much but is critical to the long-term health of our economy: the contribution, or the lack of it, from ethnic minority women in the workforce. Those of us who have come from those backgrounds—there have been three of us as yet, with one to follow—know that there is a problem, but actually finding data on it, as I discovered when preparing this speech, is incredibly difficult.

A lot of work has, rightly, been done to highlight gender in business, on boards and in different professions, and to highlight the gender pay gap, the gender penalty and so on. But if you want to disaggregate the data into racial or religious subsets, there is very little material to work with. We are told that, on current trends, by 2050 one in five people in the UK will be from an ethnic minority background. No economy can afford a situation where one-fifth of its population is underemployed, underutilised and under-recognised.

In exploring the topic, I therefore decided to look at employment statistics overall. We know that the UK has been a success story in terms of having weathered the financial crisis and the ensuing recession without a dramatic fall in employment. This week’s figures show that the rate for 16 to 64 year-olds in employment is now 74%, but the rate for those from BAME backgrounds is 62%, reflecting a very clear ethnic penalty.

Different minority groups have different outcomes, however. In terms of professional advancement, Muslims seem to do proportionally worse. Research by the think tank Demos—I should declare that I am on its advisory board—shows that only 16% of Muslims occupy top professions, as opposed to 30% across the general population. Of those 16% in top professions, only 40% are women—or, to put it another way, roughly 6.4% of Muslim women are represented in top jobs. You would not have thought so, looking around this Chamber—but I do not think that we are representative of the population as a whole.

In another extensive study by the University of Manchester, which looked at social mobility based on the father’s profession, researchers found that while 46% of white women moved up to a higher socioeconomic class than their father, just 28% of first-generation Pakistani and Bangladeshi women moved up from their father’s socioeconomic class. Moreover, even in second-generation south Asian groups, men benefited from greater upward mobility than women. I should add that across the board in education, employment and professional advancement, black, Caribbean, Indian and Chinese people did better than Pakistanis and Bangladeshis—although Bangladeshis are catching up now, most notably in education. Looking more closely at this group, another study found that three-quarters of Pakistani and Bangladeshi women were economically inactive. Although those in the second generation were more likely to be in employment than those in the first generation, the rates are still far behind those of other minority groups.

This brings me to something more controversial: the reasons why certain religious groups seem to do less well than others. One reason is cultural norms, often driven by a misrepresentation of religious mores. It is not an accident that Muslim women are less economically active than Muslim men. A survey called Understanding Society showed that 44% of economically inactive Muslim women are inactive because they are looking after the home, as opposed to 6% of males. The national figure for those who gave this reason for not working was 16%. When asked why, 52% of the Muslim respondents said, “The family suffers if the mother works”. This was compared with just 34% of Christians and 23% of non-religious people.

Therefore, a male-dominated culture reflecting the perceived mores of the home country enforces the role of the woman as housebound, often in a multigenerational household where her place can be consigned to being the unpaid home help. I say “perceived mores”, as often the young women, in what might be an arranged marriage, have come here from a country which itself has changed, but the community which they joined here in the UK does not seem to have kept up with those changes.

Disengagement from gainful employment means a lower family income, too. In the Manchester research, 57% of Pakistanis and 46% of Bangladeshis lived in poverty. Anecdotally, speaking to women from these groups, I have seen their desire to improve their lot in life, but the barriers of language, education, culture and the lack of integration are too great for some to surmount.

What can be done? Talking about the first group—those in top jobs—at senior managerial and professional level, surely it is now time to amend the UK Corporate Governance Code. I look forward to the Minister being able to touch on that in her response. This currently says that boards need to pay heed to “diversity, including gender”, but I argue that it is now time to add the word “race” to those characteristics. UK plc can only benefit from becoming more inclusive. It may also be helpful for annual reports to break down the composition of managerial and senior staff into both gender and race categorisations. Where companies provide data, it is all too easy for them to hide behind apparent diversity while women and minorities occupy back-office and admin jobs.

At the more complex level of gender and integration, this will be a long haul, and a more vigorous approach to quantify the economic aspects of the problem is needed. This involves public expenditure on language classes, catch-up and ongoing training—but, above all, it requires shifts in mindset. It is mainly government which can drive change, and it is time it did so.

16:47

[Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, as this provides some context to a number of points I wish to make later.

The economic emancipation of women is a critical benchmark on which our social progress must be judged, and it is a fact that in every society women face barriers in achieving their potential as regards education and employment opportunities. I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, for allowing us to celebrate women’s contribution to the economy; I do agree about flattened hair, so much so that I had to grab on to my hijab to avoid any further hardening. Like the noble Baroness, I, too, salute my good friend and mentor Dame Stephanie Shirley. I have always believed that she is much missed by this House, and I salute her contribution to autism research, which is second to none in this country.

It is a fact that now, in the 21st century, women are entering the workplace in larger numbers than ever before. However, it is also a fact that for the vast majority of women their work experience is one of low and often unequal pay and discrimination. Women often make up the larger proportion of the lowest paid and are grossly underrepresented in senior roles in the workplace.

Women’s economic equality, independence and security are often and tragically hugely reliant on a welfare system that fails to reflect the contribution that women make to our economy and society, where women still make up the vast majority of unpaid carers in our homes, for example. Women’s unpaid labour is estimated to be worth tens of billions of pounds to the economy every year, which is unrecognised. Unpaid carers contribute billions to both economic and social health every year. For these and other reasons, benefits tend to make up a fifth of the average women’s income as opposed to a 10th of men’s, and women are more likely to work in the public sector and use a number of its front-line services. Recent austerity cuts to benefits have ensured that women bear the brunt of the reductions in welfare support.

The Treasury’s own figures show that since 2012, 60% of new jobs for women have come from low-wage industries, compared with 39% of new jobs for men. One in four of all female workers is on low pay. The tragedy here is that the fragile nature of low-wage employment means that women are more likely to end up out of work and subsequently in need of welfare support—a vicious and desperate cycle of disempowerment.

We are into the eighth or ninth year of the worst kind of global financial crisis, impacting all economies and, in particular, low-paid women workers. Added to this, and despite five decades of equality legislation, the gender pay gap remains, and is completely unacceptable. We are failing in our obligations to half the population, and our country is unable to utilise the economic influences of women. According to the Women’s Business Council—I was delighted to listen to the noble Baroness, Lady McGregor-Smith, and I welcome her to the House; I very much enjoyed her contribution and look forward to hearing more from her—2.3 million women are not working but want to work, and 1.3 million who are already in employment want to do more hours.

We need to invest in the future of girls and young women to maximise their economic potential in the global market. I commend the Young Foundation, which is based in my local area and whose initiatives support young entrepreneurs. The Women’s Business Council further recommends comprehensive careers advice in schools—something with which I definitely agree.

Recent decades have seen the celebration of BME women entrepreneurs through the formation of network organisations committed to supporting and developing the skills of women. In this context I draw the attention of the House to the work of a small organisation called British Bangladesh Chamber of Women Entrepreneurs. It is a dynamic not-for-profit organisation, supporting businesses of all sizes run by women. I am proud to declare my interest as its patron.

Black Women Mean Business is another organisation set up to unite black women entrepreneurs, providing support through networking. It was set up in 1992 and is still running successfully today. Numerous private sector programmes encourage minority women to go into business, notable among them being NatWest, which supports numerous projects.

I hope that the House will examine the report British Muslims in Numbers, which was undertaken by the Muslim Council of Britain and focuses on the employment of Muslim women. It states that only 29% of women between the ages of 16 and 74 are in employment compared with half of the overall population, and 43% of the 330,000 Muslims in full-time education in a number of local authorities. It also states that Muslim women exceed men in full-time education, but in reality their educational and employment aspiration often is not matched by the opportunities and support that are available to them. Few young Muslims take up apprenticeships.

Forty-seven per cent of British Muslim women were born in this country and do not have language problems. Despite what has been reported, only 6% of Muslims are struggling with English according to the report conducted by the MCB. However, disparities still remain, and a study conducted by Bristol University found that Muslim women were more likely to be unemployed compared with their white female counterparts, despite equality between the groups in terms of being educated to degree level.

Globally, women also tend to be locked out of leadership positions, where gender seems to matter more than ability. Women make up only 5% of the Fortune 500 CEOs and account for only 24% of senior management positions around the world—a point that has already been made. These numbers are fairly consistent across Asia, Europe, Latin America, North America and the Gulf countries. Clearly, the global economy is not using its productive resources effectively. It is tossing away economic growth at a time when it cannot afford such wanton waste. This needs to change. Excluding women simply makes no sense in terms of a country’s economy. All that is required is to change economic policy, change laws and institutions, and of course change attitudes and culture. I accept that government cannot change everything and that we need to work together. I also accept that there are limits. However, the solution lies in our grasp for an inclusive society. I hope that we can collectively root out the barriers in the UK that prevent women being recognised as our social capital and open wide the door of opportunity, adding potentially billions to the Treasury.

16:55

[Baroness Rock (Con) (Maiden Speech)]

My Lords, it is a great honour to stand in this place to speak for the first time on a topic close to my heart and reflective of my own personal journey. It is humbling indeed. I do so in the warm and generous welcome that I have received from the doorkeepers, clerks and staff, along with noble Lords on all sides of the House. I would like to thank them for their kind support, advice, guidance and help. I would also like to thank my noble friends Lord Feldman of Elstree and Lord Fellowes of West Stafford, who so graciously supported me at my introduction.

I am emboldened to speak in this debate by the legacy of entrepreneurship and female enterprise in my own family. My great-great-great-great grandfather was John Scott, First Earl of Eldon, who served as Lord Chancellor for over 20 years. While he made his name devising the parliamentary procedures to address the temporary incapacitation of King George III, he was also well known because his wife-to-be, Bessie Surtees, defied the wishes of her father and climbed out of a first-floor window to elope with him to Scotland—surely an early example of female enterprise.

In 1837, Charles and Sarah Eldridge founded our family business, at the Green Dragon Brewery in Dorchester, Dorset. After Charles’s premature death, it continued to grow under Sarah’s entrepreneurial stewardship, eventually joining forces with the Pope family to form Eldridge, Pope. By 1881, Eldridge, Pope was the biggest employer in Dorchester, and eventually floated on the stock exchange. I am immensely proud of my Dorset roots and the strong history that my family has in the county, so I was delighted to be able to use Dorset in the choice of my territorial title.

I wish to focus on the contribution of women to our economy in three areas. The first concerns placing a greater onus on building a pool of talent—a pipeline for the future. We need to improve the amount and quality of financial education to allow young girls to better consider risk and reward. We also need to increase the number of women who take up careers in STEM subjects. I commend the Government’s record on this, with 16,000 more STEM A-level entries for women since 2010, as well as providing a dedicated fund to help women progress as engineers. I declare my interest as a non-executive director of Imagination Technologies, a FTSE 250 tech company and a UK business that is proud to be working with schools and universities to promote technology, engineering and coding. Broadening access to specialist education and training can only help to increase the number of women working in these fields.

Secondly, we need to provide more readily accessible mentoring. We need to make sure that we do not lose out on female talent because of women thinking that business and entrepreneurship are somehow not for them. I am delighted that the Government have launched a new national campaign to recruit high-quality mentors for young teenagers. Inspirational role models will help young people to make big plans for their future. I would particularly like to thank my mentor in this place, my noble friend Lady Wheatcroft, who secured today’s debate. It is apt that on a day when we are speaking about the importance of mentors, I have such an inspiring exemplar.

Thirdly, flexible working is perhaps the holy grail of equality in the workplace. Until we reach the stage when flexible working is not seen as being synonymous with “lack of ambition”, we will not get enough women in leadership positions, nor will we reap the full economic benefits of greater female participation in the workforce. As has already been mentioned, this potential contribution is estimated to be worth £600 billion by the Women’s Business Council, which is chaired by my noble friend Lady McGregor-Smith, who spoke so passionately earlier in this debate. She is a great role model for the contribution that women can make to the 21st century economy.

My own experience is a mixed one. When I began my career in publishing, my first boss, a woman, provided me with excellent mentorship, demonstrating what it takes to run a business and take risks. It is an industry full of hugely talented women, the noble Baroness, Lady Rebuck, being a noted leader and champion. I have been fortunate to continue my love of publishing and I declare an interest as a non-executive director of a weekly newspaper for children. However, my next experience, working in financial communications, was far less encouraging. There, taking time out to have a family had the potential to be viewed as falling off the ladder entirely. A lot has changed in 20 years, but there is still work to be done.

Ultimately, what is our motivation as an economy and as a country for pursuing these goals? I am of the view that this is not about quotas and equality for equality’s sake. This is about businesses being successful. The UK cannot succeed in a fiercely competitive global economy if it is missing out on a large proportion of the talent pool. It is incumbent on us to lay the foundations and provide the right environment. Whether it is about sustainability, innovation or profitability, women can and must play a part to realise our potential as a country. I am proud of my heritage in this field, and speaking now in this place, I hope to be proud of the role that this Government will continue to play in helping women to make a greater contribution to our businesses and to our economy.

17:02

[Lord Borwick (Con)]

My Lords, it is a great honour to follow the maiden speech of my noble friend Lady Rock, a speech which refreshingly followed the conventional format. Yet, as she declared in her interests, she is clearly a lady of imagination too. My noble friend also told us that her great-great-great-great grandparents eloped to Gretna Green, a story which seems to prove her enthusiasm for alliteration. The maiden speech of my noble friend Lady McGregor-Smith was similarly excellent, and we look forward to their future contributions.

The late Charlie Hebdo editor, Charb, finished his last work “Open Letter” just two days before he was assassinated in Paris last year. In it, as Amanda Foreman recently reported in the Spectator, Charb writes: “No form of discrimination is better or worse than any other”. Discrimination, where it means choice based on prejudice, is wrong, not only morally but economically, too. While we all know the moral objections, it is the economic objections to discrimination that are not discussed enough.

In Great Britain, we institutionalised discrimination against women. Within the last 100 years, women could not vote or be elected. Indeed, it was only last year that this House saw females join the Bishops’ Bench. Although thousands of entrepreneurial women ran all manner of small businesses in this age of discrimination, they did not really run large businesses. Systems like this gratuitously waste half the brains in the land and ignore half the entrepreneurs, which is the biggest waste of resources that any country can engage in. Wasting resources on this scale means less help for those who cannot work. I am glad that we have changed.

When I ran Manganese Bronze, the company which manufactured London black taxis, I used to have many conversations with drivers about all sorts of issues. As technology developed, these conversations increasingly moved online. Once, I engaged in perhaps six or seven emails with an Australian taxi driver about the unusual regulation of taxis in London and the great advantages for disabled people. It was only at the end of the conversation that I realised that the driver was in fact a woman. Of course, it was wrong of me to presume that a cab driver was a man. It was a timely lesson, which I have not forgotten. Not only did I not know that she was a woman, I did not know whether she was deaf or in a wheelchair.

That made me realise that the internet is the greatest technological force for good and will allow women to drive future economic growth. Indeed, it will allow anybody with a good idea to drive future economic growth. Doing business over the internet can abolish the cause of discrimination. It takes away the excuse that has been used by so many people in the past.

The problem with discrimination is that it is often in the eye of the beholder. There are differences throughout our human race, which is what makes life such fun, but these differences should not be important and should not hold back individuals. Men are statistically more likely to take risks than women. Men are also more likely to commit crime, from murder to drug-taking and fraud. They are also more likely to drink themselves silly on champagne, rendering themselves useless to run a business and leaving the Veuve Cliquot to step in and run things. Thank goodness those entrepreneurial widows saved champagne.

Many countries still practise institutionalised discrimination. That is their idiotic privilege, I suppose, and we must respect the rights of sovereign countries to make complete buffoons of themselves. What worries me is when immigrants from those countries come to Britain with the intention of bringing those discriminatory systems into our society. It is said that the Pilgrim Fathers travelling to America on the “Mayflower” did so not to escape religious oppression but rather to find a vacant land where they could introduce it.

My worry is that some of the recent arrivals to Britain, very welcome as they are, seem to carry on with discriminatory practices in their new communities. They need help to appreciate that this is not the way we do things in Britain. An example is female genital mutilation, which colleagues both here and in the other place have done much to outlaw and, crucially, start to bring prosecutions against those who perpetrate that hideous act.

There should not be a separate society of hidden women in immigrant communities in any town in Great Britain. Everyone should have the chance to make the most of their brains, regardless of their gender or sexual orientation. An example of this is sexually segregated audiences for political speeches. That should be offensive to the speakers of whatever parties are addressing them. The great universities which host them, such as the LSE, should be appalled.

I am told that this is not discrimination because the audiences are separate but equal—just the same arguments that were advanced for apartheid. In December 1955 in Montgomery, Alabama, Mrs Rosa Parks got arrested for sitting in a so-called whites-only seat in a bus. This led to the rise of racial equality as a political movement that changed America, but three other black people moved from their seats that day while Rosa Parks sat firm. All it would take is for the politician speaking to a segregated audience to denounce sexual segregation to that audience rather than mutely accepting it. After all, what is the difference between black citizens sitting in one part of a bus and female citizens in one part of a hall? I am not so sure that there is one.

Business has shown the way in eradicating discrimination, and I very much welcome the chance to celebrate this with colleagues on both sides of this House. Lessons from business should be heeded in other areas of society. I repeat the words of Charb: “No form of discrimination is better or worse than any other”.

17:08

[Lord Taylor of Warwick (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, for securing this debate. She and other speakers have demonstrated much wisdom and expertise, and we have heard two excellent maiden speeches.

I am delighted to be a supporter of a new initiative called Women’s Work Global, which aims to help professional women who need to take time off work to have children or care for other relatives. All too often, these responsibilities can unfairly disrupt and impede the career of women.

When I was still a junior barrister, one of the few female members in our chambers told the senior managing clerk that she would need some time off to go on maternity leave. He rolled his eyes and moaned, “Oh, all right then, if you must. I had hoped you were taking your career seriously. I tell you what, if you can arrange a morning birth, then I can have you booked into court again for a 2pm start”. Now I know he was only joking, but 30 years afterwards the difficulties that women face in juggling careers with domestic life is still an issue.

There are also unfair perceptions that women have to deal with and overcome. Ridiculous phrases such as “the weaker sex” come to mind. When I was in my teens, I was excited to be selected for the Warwickshire County Cricket colts. It was our first day training. The coach walked over and announced, “Right lads, you are going to have the honour and privilege of bowling at the captain of the England cricket team”. There was a gasp among the squad and our chests filled with pride. Then the England captain came out of the dressing room. There was a shocked silence. One of the squad groaned, “But, sir, it’s a woman, sir”. The coach bellowed, “Well done, lad, you are very observant. Now if you want to stay as a member of this county squad, you will do as you are told”. So, for the next 20 minutes, we aspiring professional male cricketers bowled, without success, as she outplayed us each time. The England captain, we later learned, was Rachael Heyhoe Flint—now the noble Baroness, Lady Heyhoe Flint, of Wolverhampton—and a very successful businesswoman.

Women from black and ethnic minority backgrounds have historically faced the double obstacle of racism and issues relating to gender, but there are role models who have triumphed over these. I was privileged to conduct a project recently looking at positive aspects of diversity. This has included me interviewing some successful women from BME communities. For example, Pinky Lilani OBE came to Britain from India more than 40 years ago. She said that when she came to Britain she could not even cook, but in order to get to know her neighbours she started inviting them in to taste this exotic food called curry. She now owns a global food business. She writes cook books and advises restaurants. She is also the founder and chair of a number of awards events, including the Asian Women of Achievement Awards and the Women of the Future Awards.

I also had the pleasure of interviewing Christine Ohuruogu MBE, the Olympic and world 400-metres champion and captain of the England athletics team. She is a businesswoman, too, in that her running success has brought her into the world of sports brand marketing. She explained how she has learned never to give up. In the world 400-metres final in 2013, she was fourth coming round the final bend but went on to win. Christine won by 0.004 of a second, by dipping her head at the winning tape. “It’s never over until it’s over”, she said, smiling. I am not suggesting that every woman, or indeed man, can become an Olympic or world champion, but the principle is that it is never over until it is over. That can apply to all of us—black, white, male or female.

These women have shown, by inspiration and, indeed, perspiration, that success can be achieved. Although 20% of small and medium-sized companies are run by women, there is still so much untapped business talent among women, especially in the BME communities. There are ongoing issues, as we have heard from other speakers, such as the pay gap between women’s and men’s earnings, the cost of childcare, the need for more women in science, technology, engineering and as university vice-chancellors. We have heard that more women now are getting on to company boards, but we still need to make more progress there.

If she does not mind me saying so, I hope that the success of the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, at West Ham United, will inspire the appointment of more female chief executives in the sporting business world, for example, at football clubs, which are still very male dominated. Perhaps I can put out a plea to the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, that she might like to take over my club, Aston Villa. It is a very strong club because, like Samson, it manages to lift up the other 19 clubs in the league. In other words, it is at rock bottom of the league table. Baroness Brady, we need you.

Women-led businesses contribute around £82 billion gross value to the UK economy. I acknowledge that the Government support them in a number of ways, such as helping more women to get online with their broadband challenge fund and their Get Mentoring project, but the budgets are modest and I would like to see such projects better resourced and expanded.

Women making a contribution to an economy is not a new thing. There were prominent women business leaders in the Bible, over 2,000 years ago: in the Book of Acts, Lydia ran a fashion company, Priscilla owned an up-market residence franchise and Queen Candace governed her nation’s economy; and Deborah, in the Book of Judges, was the nation’s chief lawyer. There are many more examples. Those biblical heroines—and, indeed, women of today—show that women can be a voice, not just an echo.

17:15

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, it is a great privilege to take part in this debate; I am glad to do so. I thank my noble friend Lady Wheatcroft for initiating it. The purpose of our debates is often to decide how we should spend the wealth of this country; it is great to have a debate in which one of the central purposes is to show how we can maximise wealth creation in this country. We have heard in the debate, not least from my noble friend Lady McGregor-Smith, about the availability of productive potential. If women were as entrepreneurially active as men in our economy by 2030, something like £60 billion could be added. That is fantastic, dramatic potential.

We have heard two really impressive maiden speeches, each demonstrating the contribution that the respective speaker has made already to business, the economy and public life in this country—and, if I may say so, what a tremendous contribution they will make to this House. We very much look forward to that.

Why should I say something in this debate? I declare an interest: those who look at the register of interests will find that I am cited as an associate of Low Associates, the company founded in 2009 by my wife, Sally Low. I wanted to bring to this debate a number of illustrations from her experience. The first is that, as my noble friend Lady Wheatcroft said, we cannot ignore but have to live with the characteristics of the challenges that women often face. In 2009, my wife was trying to maintain a long-hours job as director of policy at the British Chambers of Commerce; at the same time, we had two children reaching school age, we lived in Cambridge in my constituency, and I was shadow Secretary of State for Health. The combination of all these things was frankly unsustainable, especially with the high cost of childcare, which has been cited by a number of contributors. So setting up their own business, using their own expertise and doing so from home is the experience of many women. The question is: can they overcome the obstacles?

One might ask my wife, “What are those obstacles?”. Actually, I have never heard her say that they were the consequence of being a woman; if anything, being a woman was an opportunity, bonus and benefit in trying to establish her business, especially since it was all about creating imaginative, high-quality conferences and events principally in Europe; I was occupying Britain, as it were, so she decided to occupy the rest of Europe. Running those kind of events in other countries is all about teamwork and, as has been cited, women are often excellent at creating that kind of teamwork—and that is what she has done. Seven years later, she has 16 associates and staff and runs major conferences, but the obstacles were ones that Members of this House will recognise face many small businesses—cash-flow management and trying to win tenders. Particularly in the European context as well as in British public procurement, sometimes those who issue tenders unwittingly discriminate against small businesses and very much favour large businesses, because they put arbitrary size criteria or cash-flow requirements on businesses—whereas, in my experience, often they get better service from small businesses than they do from larger businesses. But we shall leave that aside.

One of the conferences that Low Associates was responsible for managing was the Small and Medium Enterprises Assembly in Luxembourg last year. That was the fourth year they did it and they won the contract to do it again this year and in 2017, bringing that assembly—the leading SME assembly in Europe—to this country when we have the presidency of the European Union. I hope that we will then be looking forward to the continuing benefit of EU membership in a reformed Union.

The focus last November was in part on women entrepreneurs. It illustrated, right across Europe, that much of this is cultural. The data show that women are less likely to start up a business, very often because they see obstacles to being able to launch out on their own, for reasons of financial and other security. They are more likely to close a business for personal reasons. The statistics say that more than 25% of the reasons why women say that they close down a business is for personal reasons; it is about only 14% for men. So women are less likely to start up a business and less likely to grow it, seeing the challenges of personal and family life as impeding that. We should not do that. The cost of childcare should be as much an issue for men as for women. The sharing of parental leave should be the starting point of a cultural shift that says that men and women in partnerships who have caring responsibilities for children or for older people should absolutely share them. They should be no more an obstacle to women’s entrepreneurship than to men’s.

Government cannot legislate for changes in culture. As has been said, sometimes attitudes change slowly. But, just as the gender pay gap is so much smaller among young people, we can hope that there is a generational shift we can push forward on entrepreneurship as well. It will need role models. We have seen some fantastic role models for women here this afternoon and there are many others. If you believe the media and look at the statistics, three years ago, 16 to 21 year-olds asked about who their role models were for entrepreneurship talked about the noble Lord, Lord Sugar, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Richard Branson and, I fear, Donald Trump. We want women role models to be out there in the media. We want women mentors and that mentorship has, quite rightly, been illustrated here.

We want entrepreneurial aspiration. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, that one of the speakers in the assembly last November was Amy Millman from Springboard Enterprises. It is an American organisation, but it is about putting money behind women-run and women-owned businesses—since 2000, 599 such businesses, 11 of which have gone to initial public offering, with investment of $7 billion. It is a rational investment because we know that women-owned businesses, when you adjust for every other factor, perform better. That is the economic potential that this country could realise if we push this agenda forward.

17:22

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, I feel immensely privileged to have been in the Chamber this afternoon. Since I have been here—not a huge amount of time—I cannot think of a debate I have listened to that has been better informed, more interesting and more inspiring.

I add my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady McGregor-Smith, on her excellent maiden speech, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Rock, on another really fascinating and interesting speech. The noble Baroness, Lady McGregor-Smith, as chairman of the Women’s Business Council, has already made an incredible contribution to the cause of women in enterprise in this country. I know that both new noble Baronesses will make wonderful additions to this House.

As other speakers have said, the potential for women’s contribution to the economy is phenomenal. We contribute much, but even so we are undervalued and our potential is underutilised. It is to one particular aspect of that underutilisation that I address my remarks today: women in enterprise. In the last coalition Government I was the Women in Enterprise champion and published a report urging the Government to do more to help women entrepreneurs by being much more inclusive in their approach and the way they help businesswomen. Some progress has been made but more needs to be done.

However, I will begin at a much earlier time, before I ever thought about a parliamentary career, when I created several small businesses. Those businesses were much more modest than those of the vast majority of contributors to this debate. Nevertheless, I can speak from experience in describing the life of a woman entrepreneur balancing the needs of family and children with growing a business, and all the challenges and uncertainties that that involves. We still succeed, but we could be even more successful if the Government did a few small things.

Only one business in five is majority-owned by a woman, but there could be many more. We have heard some awesome statistics this afternoon but my favourite is from the Women’s Business Council, which estimates that if women set up businesses at the same rate as men, there would be 1 million more businesses in Britain today.

So what can government do to encourage would-be entrepreneurs and help their businesses to grow? During the last Government, several initiatives, such as tax-free childcare, the employment allowance, shared parental leave, and others which other speakers have mentioned, were introduced. However, more needs to be done, as the noble Baroness, Lady McGregor-Smith, said.

As the Women in Enterprise champion, I pushed the Government to be more inclusive in the way they communicated with women business owners. There is much improvement since the days when some civil servants believed that to be inclusive it was enough to use “gender neutral” language. The My Business Support tool on the Great Business website is much improved, but practical help on the ground is still lacking. The coalition Government abolished regional development agencies and gave local businesses and local authorities a blank sheet of paper on which to create local enterprise partnerships. I am all for devolution, but the lack of guidance and funding has resulted in a very varied group of LEPs, in terms of not just how they function but how well they function. I believe that some LEPs still have no women on their boards, let alone focus on specific local help for women entrepreneurs. Therefore, the first thing the Government could do is ask all the LEPs what they are doing to support women entrepreneurs. That would raise the matter in their awareness, if nothing else. Before the RDAs were dissolved, they had many support schemes for women entrepreneurs. Most of those disappeared, but the more enterprising of them stayed afloat. However, coverage is patchy, to say the least. Every LEP should give some thought to what resource it has in its area, and what is needed by all the diverse people who generate wealth on its patch.

Finally, government can help enormously through having a diverse and inclusive procurement policy. The case for procuring from companies which look like the people who government serve is not only a moral imperative but an economic one. Diverse businesses bring a greater understanding of customers’ needs, services and products are more appropriate and speed to market is faster. The noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, made that point very strongly.

One of the Liberal Democrat contributions to the coalition agreement was to build an aspiration that 25% of government procurement should be from small businesses. It would be a simple matter for this Government to have a similar aspiration for women-owned businesses.

So I say to the Government: please think inclusively when you are communicating with and planning help for business. Look at the performance of the LEPs and ask them, “What are you doing to encourage female entrepreneurs on your patch?”. Set an aspiration of, say, 20% of government procurement to come from women-owned businesses. The percentage figure is less important than bringing diversity of procurement on to the radar of government purchasers. While you are at it, why not appoint another champion for women in enterprise—there are plenty of excellent people in the Chamber this afternoon who could do that job—who could continue the work of bringing a cross-cutting focus from the woman’s perspective to help create greater self-fulfilment for women entrepreneurs and more wealth for Great Britain?

17:30

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

I add my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft—herself a notable role model—on this debate and the chance it gave us to hear two such imaginative and high-quality maiden speeches from the noble Baronesses, Lady McGregor-Smith and Lady Rock. It is good to welcome the sisters, especially to a debate such as this. We have celebrated some notable examples of women in business, such as Dame Stephanie, and we have been particularly honoured to hear some of the high achievers speaking in today’s debate. We need more of their sort.

The noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, told the FT:

“Gender equality in the tech sector will benefit the global economy”.

So will gender equality in every sector benefit the wider economy. Women’s advancement produces better outcomes and prosperity. Indeed, a trained, productive and better-paid female workforce is a surefire way of boosting economic growth, as suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Brady. As the President of the World Bank said,

“gender equality doesn’t require trade-offs; it only has benefits. And the benefits accrue to everyone, not just women and girls. Societies benefit and as even men are beginning to understand, economies benefit, too”.

It is the responsibility of all of us—government, business, women and perhaps especially men—to make this happen so that UK plc can benefit from this underused talent, by increasing entry into higher-paid and more productive jobs; by extending opportunities, training and promotion to women; and by removing the barriers to better employment for women.

We start, as has been made clear today, from a poor position: 96% of chairs or CEOs of FTSE 100 companies are men. As the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, said, more chairs or CEOs are called “John” than are women. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, reminded the House, the percentage of senior women in the private sector—19%—puts the UK in the bottom 10 countries globally, despite companies in the top quartile of gender diversity being 15% more likely to outperform the industry median, as the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, said. Given that women are key consumers, making eight out of 10 purchases, having them shape companies is bound to be good for business.

We can help women progress. Young Enterprise’s Women in Business programme encourages women-led creative start-ups, giving all-female teams the opportunity to set up and run their own businesses, gaining advice from mentors and in workshops, and on bringing a product to market. Participants increased their soft skills by 34%, with improvements in work-readiness and financial capability.

But encouraging and training alone will not help. We have to tackle that gender pay gap, which, to use the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, again, is glaring. At 19%, it is well above the EU average and, sadly, is larger in the private than in the public sector. Overall, it means that, relative to men’s year-round wages, women stop earning on 4 November. Furthermore, the gender pay gap is highest in London and in financial and insurance services. In particular, and perhaps of note to some of us in this House, women in their 50s earn 18% less than men. They are often the “sandwich” carers, looking after children or grandchildren as well as elderly parents.

Mandating gender pay transparency in large companies will help, but it ignores those millions of women in SMEs and is no substitute for better recruitment, training, promotion, fair pay and the flexible work patterns that were stressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Rock. Transparency alone does nothing about low pay in predominantly female labour forces—retail, hospitality, personal services and residential care—which have a poverty rate of 17% after housing costs, twice that of other employees. Training is key but while the majority of apprentices are women, they are underrepresented in construction and ICT while dominating in health, social care and hairdressing—the low-paid sectors. Indeed, on average female apprentices earn £1 an hour less than their male equivalents.

That gender inequality is felt not just by the people concerned but by the whole economy. The loss of women in science, for example, costs the economy about £2 billion a year. Klaus Schwab of the World Economic Forum said:

“Only those economies who have full access to all their talent will remain competitive and … prosper”.

The Government themselves have said:

“Our economy is losing out due to women’s academic achievements, experience and talents not being effectively utilised”.

But what are the Government doing about it? They are making work less attractive to women by allowing maternity discrimination to almost double in 10 years, with 54,000 pregnant women and new mothers—that is, one in nine—forced out of their job. They have created barriers to justice for victims of maternity discrimination by their cuts to legal aid and upfront tribunal fees of up to £1,200, leading to Maternity Action’s helpline getting 42 times more calls than it can answer.

Even the Conservative MP Maria Miller has tweeted:

“We cannot allow up to 54,000 new mothers a year”,

to,

“feel they should leave their job”.

So I am afraid that it is no good the Commons Minister admitting that,

“far too many women … face unacceptable treatment in the workplace”—[Official Report, Commons, 3/11/15; col. 322WH.]

It is her Government who have made things worse. Labour in government did an enormous amount to increase the fair treatment of women in work through the Work and Families Act, which extended maternity leave to a full year for all employed women, and tripling the number of nursery places. This Government must follow our example. They must walk the walk and not just talk the talk.

17:38

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)]

I thank my noble friend Lady Wheatcroft for securing this debate and for kicking it off so persuasively and amusingly. It is a pleasure to have listened today to so many excellent points and examples of good practice, and to speak on such an important topic.

First, I welcome my noble friends Lady McGregor-Smith and Lady Rock, who made their excellent, interesting and very personal maiden speeches. They will contribute strongly to our deliberations over the coming years and it is a real delight to have them on our Benches. As others have done, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady McGregor-Smith, on her work on the Women’s Business Council. I was also glad to hear about the brilliant mentoring of my noble friend Lady Noakes, who helped me to cope with the terrors of the Dispatch Box. She is very strict, for example, about getting titles right for noble Lords and noble Baronesses, which I always struggle with. My noble friend Lady Rock—the lady of imagination, as my noble friend Lord Borwick has christened her—joined other noble Lords in saying that the answer to success in this area is not to impose quotas but to open up the huge potential of women’s future economic contribution.

It might be helpful for a moment if I take a broad view, because like my noble friend Lady Wheatcroft, I love history. I am very conscious that 150 years ago, women were excluded from large parts of economic life as well as suffering other legal disadvantages. The transformation since then, for all sorts of reasons, has been amazing. Although it is always right to concentrate on the task in hand, sometimes we need to look back and remind ourselves what has been achieved.

Women did not start to enter the workplace uniformly across all sectors. They probably first entered new areas of work where they thought they were more likely to be treated fairly. Indeed, that was one of the reasons why, when I left university as recently as the early 1970s, I joined the Civil Service. In particular, there were for a long time relatively few women in the business sector—at any rate at the top level to which I aspired.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Lane-Fox and Lady Uddin, and others said that Steve Shirley—as I will always call her—was an inspiration to many people. That includes me. She gave me my early interest in ICT after I heard her at a management course. I have dealt with technology in almost every job that I have done in a long career in government, retail, media, consultancy and politics, and I very much agree with the importance of technology to today’s debate. We need more women entrepreneurs in the tech sector. I had a round table today on an aspect of the digital single market and was delighted to see a good turnout of senior women.

I also feel that technology is a great enabler. I know how my life changed as a senior executive when I had access to top-quality IT including phones, tablets, computers, videoconferencing and other equipment, and I believe that, as my noble friend Lord Borwick said, it helps to reduce discrimination. It helped me to get on and to juggle my domestic duties with my work duties, although a supportive partner is also incredibly helpful and important. It was good to hear from my noble friend Lord Lansley, who is clearly an example of this species.

The situation is now changing rapidly, and for the better, which must be to the advantage of UK plc. Overall, there are now 14.6 million women in work—more than ever before. This is an increase of nearly 1 million since May 2010, and 200,000 higher than a year ago. In part, this reflects developments such as parental leave, flexible working and state help for parents with the cost of childcare and the sort of provisions we have in the Childcare Bill. I do not agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, as there have been improvements, although we can always do better.

I am a glass-half-full person. It is encouraging that the gender pay gap, though far too high, as many noble Lords have said today, is at its lowest on record, at 19.2%, and is virtually eliminated among full-time workers under 40. We are already working with businesses to make sure that all large employers publish gender pay gap information, including bonuses. Indeed, we grasped this issue in this House during the passage of BIS legislation, which the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and I worked on last year. I believe—this is a personal reflection—that some of the differences may reflect the fact that, in my experience of female executives who used to work for me, they are less prone to demand pay rises than their male counterparts. This is worth reflecting upon.

Of course, everything starts with education, and here success has been startling. Girls’ achievements surpass those of boys at almost every level. I agree about the buzz and enthusiasm of girls when one encounters them while visiting schools. But I also noted recent comments from an authoritative female source—the head of UCAS, Mary Curnock Cook—that helping boys should now be the priority, because there are difficulties there as well.

This bodes well for the longer term success of women in all areas of work. Nevertheless, it is still important to seek to raise the aspirations of girls so that they all have a chance to fulfil their potential, and to ensure that success in school and at university is reflected in the workplace.

Encouraging a modern workplace is one reason why the Government have made a commitment to reach a figure of 3 million new apprenticeships in England between 2015 and 2020. Unlike most countries, women are well represented within English apprenticeships. Last year, 233,000 women, or 53%, started an apprenticeship.

Women entrepreneurs—business founders, as my noble friend Lady Jenkin rightly described them—are important in opening up the kind of opportunities that we seek in today’s debate. As my noble friend Lord Lansley said, we need to take advantage of the generational shift. Around 1 million of all SMEs in the UK—more than 20%—were majority-women led in 2014, which was an increase of 170,000 from 2010. In 2015, the Global Entrepreneurship and Development Institute ranked the UK as the best country in Europe and third best in the world for female entrepreneurs. More mundanely, I was delighted to discover recently that, at the British Library intellectual property centre, 58% of users were women. I felt that that was helpful and important for the pipeline.

My noble friend Lady Mobarik said that diversity was very important to successful entrepreneurship and in successful companies. The noble Baronesses, Lady Falkner of Margravine and Lady Uddin, added fascinating insights into the contribution of ethnic and Muslim women. I assure them that we are doing more to encourage diversity on boards and, indeed, in the public sector. That includes a review by Sir John Parker into BME on boards, working towards having no monocultural FTSE boards at all by 2020.

Finally, I want to talk about one of my own ministerial responsibilities, women on boards. Here, we have benefited, as many have said, from a successful voluntary initiative supported by government and led by the noble Lord, Lord Davies—not only noble but determined and dynamic—who has done a great job. On his watch, female representation on FTSE 100 boards has expanded greatly. There are now no all-male boards in the FTSE 100, and only 16 in the FTSE 250. This was frankly unimaginable not long ago.

We now need to focus on the talent pipeline of capable women, executives and emerging NEDs, to ensure we continue the good work. I hope soon to announce a new chair to lead an independent review, following on from Lord Davies’s work. In addition to maintaining the momentum on FTSE boards, the review will focus on improving representation of women in the executive layer of the FTSE 350.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Rebuck, said, this is critical. The Government have tried to do more in the public sector. In the previous Parliament, we set an aspiration that 50% of new public appointments should be women by 2015. We are all trying hard to achieve that in the public appointments we make. It was ambitious, but it was right to be ambitious, and we are making real progress: 44% of all recent new public appointments where the gender is known went to women. For many years, that figure was stuck between 32% and 36%. In my department, BIS, the executive board and the BIS board are 44% women. That is a long way of saying that it is important to lead from the front. I have always felt that everywhere I have worked.

The excellent suggestions that have been made today can and should play a part. Noble Lords spoke about mentoring, which I found very useful both ways, and about the need for more women and more work in tech and FinTech. We talked about building on success where it exists, as in publishing, and on the recent initiatives on STEM, which are wide-ranging and good. I also believe in using academia as a pipeline for business appointments on boards. It can be a good way of broadening diversity in the corporate world.

I should briefly comment on sport because that was mentioned by my noble friends Lady Brady and Lord Taylor. It is very important. There is a slightly disturbing statistic—again, this is a personal comment. It is that 40% of CEOs in the US played university-level sport. So involving women in sport, sports management and government, as the Government are trying to do by encouraging good practice in our new sport strategy, can be helpful.

My ever-challenging noble friend Lady Jenkin and my noble friend Lady Brady asked whether we should do more and how we can make sure that the great initiatives we have heard about in this debate are more widely understood and expanded—so that we get a mushroom cloud effect to share best practice. We have a joined-up approach in government. The Secretary of State, Nicky Morgan, and the Government Equalities Office try to draw together all that we are doing and go beyond party to bring together the effort on women, but of course we can do more and we will be looking carefully at all the suggestions made in this debate, including those of the noble Baroness, Lady Burt. I shall not comment in detail on all the specific points, but I think we all agree on the potential for bringing in extra ideas and moving forward, as I have sought to show.

Both male and female talent grace this Chamber and, indeed, nearly everywhere else where human endeavour is displayed. It is a delight to work with so many women on both sides of our House and to find such a relatively strong representation of women with a business background, which is strengthened by new talent today. We must all work to ensure that women continue to play an increasing role in UK business and in our growing economy.

17:54

[Baroness Wheatcroft]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. Her determination to increase women’s input into the economy is clear, and I have no doubt that she will succeed. I thank everyone who has taken part in the debate today; we have heard some excellent speeches on a wide-ranging band of experience.

We have also heard two brilliant maiden speeches. When I made mine, I took the opportunity to apologise to anyone in this House whom I might have offended by what I had written in a previous incarnation. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, was not a Member at that stage, so I take this opportunity to apologise to her. It was clear from her speech today that such is her passion for getting more women involved in tech, and for spreading the tech gospel, that it would be impossible ever to overhype the noble Baroness.

I know that the clock is against me so I shall wind up there. I thank all noble Lords for taking part.

Motion agreed.

ISIL in Syria

Thursday 21st January 2016 Lords Chamber

Question for Short Debate

17:55

Asked by

[Lord Truscott]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their strategy to defeat ISIL in Syria.

[Lord Truscott (Ind Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Government Whips’ Office for finding time for this debate, and I am grateful to the Minister and other noble Lords for participating in the last business of your Lordships’ House this week.

I commiserate with the Minister, who has been given the rather short straw of defending the Government’s strategy against Daesh. The strategy proposed so far is threadbare and lacking in detail, but more worrying is the fact that the public have no confidence that the Government are capable of finding a solution to the huge issues that they face in Syria, from achieving peace to solving the refugee crisis.

Since I tabled this debate, events have moved swiftly, with the other place voting in favour of air strikes against Daesh in Syria. The Government’s action to combat Daesh in Iraq has been superseded by the strategy outlined by the Prime Minister in the other place on 26 November 2015, and again during the debate on 2 December. It is a four-pillar strategy. We were told last November that pillar one represented a counterextremist strategy, meaning,

“a comprehensive plan to prevent and foil plots at home, and to address the poisonous extremist ideology that is the root cause of the threat we face”.—[Official Report, Commons, 26/11/15; col. 1492.]

Just how do the Government aim to achieve the latter? Given Daesh’s successful manipulation of the internet, what is required is a comprehensive cybercampaign to discredit Daesh and the hateful extremist ideology that it represents.

The other three pillars of the strategy refer to humanitarian aid, military action and support for the diplomatic and political process. Humanitarian support is of course vital for refugees and those, like the citizens of Madaya, who are starving. Her Majesty’s Government have already given more than £1 billion in aid and pledged £1 billion more for reconstruction. What strategy do the Government have for dealing with the 11 million Syrians in the region who remain displaced, and under what circumstances would Syrian refugees in Britain be repatriated? All this lacks clarity.

The UK’s military action in Syria is largely symbolic in the scheme of things, and I cannot believe it will make a material difference to events on the ground. Still, what are the operational objectives of the UK’s intervention in Syria, how long is it expected to take and at what human and financial cost? Perhaps the Minister can give an update on the UK forces committed to Syria, the number of aerial sorties and the co-operation with local forces such as the Kurds. Are the Government in favour of a grand international coalition of all the major powers to defeat Daesh, including Assad’s Syrian army? Lastly, after the incident when a Russian military plane was shot down by Turkish fighters, is he satisfied with the co-ordination between all the different anti-Daesh forces in the region?

More important is the diplomatic and political process itself. The UN special envoy to Syria has set 25 January as a target date to begin talks aimed at ending the five-year civil war. In late December, building on the work of the International Syria Support Group and the Vienna process, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 2254, which called for a Syrian-led political process facilitated by the UN. The aim is to establish within six months credible, inclusive and non-sectarian governance, setting a schedule for drafting a new constitution and free and fair elections to be held within 18 months under UN supervision. A ceasefire is also envisaged under a parallel process. That is an ambitious target. Do the Government think it is feasible? Can the Minister say how Her Majesty’s Government aim to ensure that this diplomatic process ends in success and in peace for Syria and the Syrian people? What is the Government’s assessment of the likelihood of a ceasefire over the coming months?

May I also inject a heavy dose of realism into my remarks? No one is suggesting that a solution to the Syrian conflict, which has cost hundreds of thousands of lives and displaced many millions, will be easy. It has helped fuel a refugee crisis which has shaken the foundations of the European Union and, without a Europe-wide strategy to deal with it, may influence the UK’s decision whether to remain in the EU or not. A failure of British government policy here, or the mere perception of failure, may have a profound effect on the country’s future in Europe. A whole series of proxy wars are being fought out in Syria, with Sunni ranged against Shia and Sunni against Sunni. It is a battleground for a regional power struggle between Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Iran, which has been discussed in your Lordships’ House before. It is also the focus of an old-style “great game” involving Russia and the United States and its allies. It is not a new Cold War; it is simply that the old one never ended.

In your Lordships’ House last week, several noble Lords asked whether Russia knew what it is doing in Syria, and the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, appeared perplexed that Moscow had focused much of its attention on supporting Assad. Whether we in the West like it or not, Moscow’s assessment is that what weakens Assad will strengthen Daesh and vice versa. Russia would hardly concentrate all its fire on Daesh merely to watch Damascus fall to the rebels. However, it is also clear that Moscow is not wedded to the brutal Assad regime itself but rather to protecting its vital strategic interests in the country and the region. It fears a Libyan-style disintegration of the country and a consequent loss of influence. It also fears the export of Islamist radicalism. I hope that the British Foreign Office’s assessment of Russia’s motives is merely disingenuous and not born out of lack of understanding.

Like any great power, Russia is acting in pursuit of its interests, and whether we disagree with it or not, its strategy is at least clear and supported by the Russian people. Apart from its military bases and long alliance with Damascus, Moscow is acutely aware of its own 21 million indigenous, mainly Sunni, Muslims, its own militant insurgency in the Caucasus and the possibility of contagion. Recently, our Prime Minister said that we maintained a relationship with Saudi Arabia, despite its appalling human rights record and military attack and intervention in neighbouring Yemen, because:

“For me, Britain’s national security and our people’s security comes first”.

Militarily, a solution to the Syrian conflict looks unlikely anytime soon. Even if your Lordships were to accept the Prime Minister’s unlikely figure of 70,000 non-extremists willing to fight the Assad regime and added in the 20,000 Syrian Kurds, this would still be fewer than the 240,000 soldiers in the Syrian army, backed by Hezbollah, the Iranians and the Russians. In any event, the UK Defence Secretary concluded that a majority of the posited 70,000 were non-secular Islamists, disinclined to support a western-style democracy. As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Richards of Herstmonceux, former Chief of the Defence Staff, has said, the most capable forces on the ground to defeat Daesh in the absence of western forces are Assad’s Syrian army and the Kurds. Incidentally, his assessment was also that around 40% of the population supported Assad. The remaining rebels are largely a disunited rabble, of varying degrees of extremism.

The West’s policy of regime change in the Middle East has been an abject failure. There was an interesting exchange on this at a meeting of the Liaison Committee in the other place, held on 12 January last, between MPs and the Prime Minister. Some MPs felt that getting rid of Saddam Hussein in 2003 and Gaddafi in 2011 had been a terrible mistake, as brutal as those dictators undoubtedly were. We are now seeking to do the same in Syria. Prime Minister Cameron seemed to make the same mistakes in Libya that had been made by his predecessors in Iraq, with the implosion of both states. By removing these dictators forcibly by western intervention, we have opened a can of worms in the region. For most people in these countries, life has got worse instead of better.

While we are in the West are not morally responsible for the horrors of Daesh, it is undeniable that we were partly responsible for its creation. It was former disgruntled Sunni officers of the dismantled Baathist regime which created Daesh in Iraq, as the police and army were forcibly dissolved by the western coalition in the hubris after victory. We should not make the same mistake in Syria. We should put the UK’s weight behind a diplomatic and political solution in Syria, but allow the people of the country to determine their own future.

18:05

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (LD)]

My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, and congratulate him on securing this debate. He has rather surprised me, because I expected his contribution to come from a certain perspective that would go along the lines of, “Russia good, Russian intervention good, and everything else we’re doing is a complete disaster”. He and I are old sparring partners and friends, so I do not think that he will mind me speculating that that is what I expected him to say, and I think he would admit that it would not be entirely without foundation. But the noble Lord asked a number of extremely pertinent questions. I hope that in replying the Minister, the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, will be able to touch on them because they are extremely relevant.

My concern about many of the debates on Syria that we have had in this House recently is that a trend seems to be emerging, particularly on government Benches, whereby there is a view that two things have happened which should make us change the strategy that we held in Syria between 2011, when the conflict started, and early in 2015.

The first—rightly—is the rise of ISIL. I cannot say that it was entirely unforeseen. In the numerous debates that I spoke in between 2011 and 2014, I warned that extremism was filling the vacuum that was increasingly existing in Syria. What was unforeseen was the dramatic capturing of territory and the dramatic collapse of the Iraqi forces, which happened so suddenly. Not only did they abandon huge parts of the territory but they left behind huge financial resources, as well as the oil wells and many other aspects of infrastructure, that enabled ISIL to continue to hang on to territory.

The second factor that implies that we need to change our strategy is the entry of Russia into this quagmire. One gets the impression in this House that people are now beginning to say that because Russia is there and because we need to deal with Russia and come to a diplomatic solution to solve the problem of Syria, we can somehow ignore Russia’s malign influence in all other areas of international life. It seems to me that this analysis suffers from a couple of fundamental errors, the first being that the Russian writ does not rule in Damascus. We know that it does not because, when there have been movements towards compromise, and when concessions have been offered about protection, training, arming and other viable alternatives, Assad vetoes even relatively positive Russian influences. So the constructive elements of Russian thought are not necessarily embraced wholescale by President Bashar al-Assad, Russia’s protégé.

The other reason why simply trying to do a deal with Russia will not wash is what I would describe as the very positive turn of developments with Iran. By saying that, I am not trying to suggest that Iran’s influence in Lebanon and Syria is entirely constructive or positive. I would not say that for a second. I think that the House knows well what I think of Hezbollah, Hamas and other organisations that are terrorism-inclined, if not clearly terrorist organisations. But the point I am trying to make is that since we are now in a position where we are co-operating with Iran, the idea that Russia should be the focus of our endeavours is rather misplaced. The focus of our endeavours should be Iran, because Iran has far more authority in Damascus with Assad than the Russians.

I was not able to be in the Chamber, but I read carefully the Statement made by the Home Secretary in the other place and repeated here by the noble Lord, Lord Bates, on Russia’s nuclear terrorism on the streets of United Kingdom. There are also Russia’s malign actions in Crimea and Ukraine, Russia’s record on human rights, Russia’s abandonment of the rule of law, and Russia’s pernicious hostility towards settling many outstanding disputes around energy, security, the Baltics and so on. So allowing Russia too large a space in what is happening in Syria will be counterproductive.

The noble Lord, Lord Truscott, mentioned Russia’s vital strategic interests. I assume that he is referring to the Russian base at Tartus. But besides that, Russia does not have vital strategic interests in Syria. If it did, it would not have stood on the sidelines for as long as it did. If we allow the international community to recognise these vital strategic interests, as they are described, we will be in danger of allowing that country to beat us around the head when its other, plausibly more significant strategic interests, which are nearer to our shores in the case of Belarus, Georgia, Ukraine, the Stans, the Baltics and other countries—where we have far greater and clearer obligations in terms of our NATO membership—are imperilled. I am trying to say that we need to be extremely careful about giving Russia too much credibility and too much space in resolving the conflict.

But resolve the conflict we must, and I want to pose some questions to the Government in terms of what will happen in the forthcoming 25 January Geneva talks. It appears that the Assad Government’s strategy in approaching these talks—and I am sceptical about whether they will take place—is simply to brand everyone on the other side as a terrorist group. We know that several of the people who have been vetoed by the Assad Government, Russia on the sidelines or the Saudi Arabians, who are themselves a hugely malign influence in Syria, are not terrorist groups. We also know, as we know from our experience with the IRA—and my God this country knows this better than most others— that when you need to get peace you need to talk to some pretty unpleasant people. The idea that we allow these vetoes to continue to hold imperils any attempt since Geneva in 2012 to get to the end of this crisis. We have had five years of it—we are now approaching the anniversary—and it seems that we will not get anywhere if we do not accelerate a resolution to the conflict.

The noble Lord, Lord Truscott, referred to the Foreign Affairs Committee meeting of 12 January. I also saw the transcript of that and noted that all three experts who spoke on the prospects for progress were profoundly pessimistic, noting that the persistence of the Syrian regime in labelling various groups as terrorists did not bode well for any positive developments or even for attendance.

The Prime Minister made an impassioned defence when he came to the House of Commons of a transitional plan—a peace plan—and said that extending military action into Syria, which he asked the House of Commons to approve last November, had to be accompanied by a political solution. We are now three months down the road. I accept that there has been some success in Iraq—the Iraqis have taken back some of the land mass—but one cannot see evidence of any military success in Syria.

Three months is not a long time and I am perfectly prepared to give the Government some more time on that. But what I would like to hear from the Minister in his concluding comments is an explanation of why only a few months ago the Prime Minister was so optimistic about a transitional plan, a peace process moving forward and involving the UN Security Council and so on, when we do not see any sign of accelerating what was the Vienna process and is now the Geneva process. Also, we are not getting any tangible messages from the Government as to where we are heading in terms of a longer-term strategy in Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Lebanon—essentially across the whole of the Middle East, which is more or less predicted to be unstable for the foreseeable future, with all the side-effects that that entails.

18:15

[Lord Williams of Baglan (CB)]

My Lords, the defeat of ISIS is of paramount importance for the future of Syria, but it is of even greater importance for the future of the Middle East. ISIS is a transnational movement. It will not be defeated in Syria, it has to be defeated throughout the region. Although as the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, mentioned, some progress has been made in Iraq in pushing ISIS back, let us not forget that it controls the city of Mosul, which is larger than the city of Manchester. I think that it will be a long time before it will relinquish or be forced out of Mosul.

It goes without saying too that ISIS poses a substantial threat to the security of this country and indeed to the democratic world as a whole. In our actions, and especially as a permanent member, we must pay special heed to the need for UN Security Council backing wherever possible. Here I gently note the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner. We need Russia because it is a member of the UN Security Council. Peace processes will not go forward without support from Russia. That is a fact of diplomatic life.

Four of the five permanent members, China excluded, are of course engaged in military action in Syria, although there is a sharp difference between the three western powers, the UK, France and the US, in their attacks on ISIS and those of Russia, which, while it is hostile to ISIS, has adopted an overt stance of supporting the Government of President Bashar al-Assad. Progress in addressing the long-running civil war in Syria is essential if a campaign against ISIS is to be successful. Last month, the Security Council issued a rare unanimous show of support for the negotiations between the Assad Government and the opposition. I should be grateful if the Minister could update the House on the present situation regarding the talks which we are all hoping will proceed next week in Geneva. Perhaps I may take the opportunity to commend the role of Staffan di Mistura, my former colleague in the UN and a friend, in leading the UN’s search for peace.

In the 19th century the great German Chancellor, Otto von Bismarck, is reputed to have said that making peace is like making sausages, you do not want to see too closely what goes into the process. Indeed, the Government need to be mindful of the compromises that are inherent in the necessity to silence the guns and to end the appalling humanitarian situation that prevails not only in much of Syria, but throughout the wider Middle East. UN missions in which I served in the 1990s had to negotiate with the likes of the Khmer Rouge and later with indicted war criminals such as Milosevic, Karadzic and Mladic. That is often the case when there is a need for a diplomatic solution. We must do that if we are to make progress in the search for peace. If we do not make progress in that regard, I fear that it will impede our strategy to defeat ISIS, the subject of this debate, and indeed perhaps even embolden it.

One of the few glimmers of hope in recent months in the Middle East, and here I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, has been the nuclear accord between Iran and the P5 plus Germany. I hope that hard on the heels of this very welcome accord we are talking seriously with Iran about the compromises that the country is going to have to make to see a more broad-based and representative Government in Damascus, and I would be grateful for the Minister’s acknowledgment that that is indeed the case. If we are going to find a way out of the bloody maelstrom in Syria, we need more engagement with Iran, not less.

Similarly, while we can abhor the practices and conduct of the Assad regime, we need to reach an understanding as to why so many Christians, and especially Alawites, of that country still support the regime. I recall one Syrian friend pointing to the example of Tariq Aziz, the late Foreign Minister of Iraq and saying to me rather provocatively, “When do you think we will see a Christian again as a cabinet minister in an Arab country?”. That was provocative, because there are Christian Ministers in Lebanon and Jordan, but it is true that one of the great losers from the UK-US invasion of Iraq and toppling of Saddam Hussein in 2003 was the Christian population in Iraq, the vast majority of whom have now, sadly, left the country.

Underlining my friend’s concern was the fear that in the sectarian storms between Shia and Sunni, there would be little room left for minorities. The Alawites are an important presence in Syria and, to a lesser extent, in Lebanon. It is important that in all our public messaging with regard to Syria, we underline our commitment to the continuing role and presence of minorities. Without them, ISIS will be that much harder to defeat.

Let me end by referring to some remarks made yesterday at a meeting in Paris between the US and French Defence Ministers, Ash Carter and Jean-Yves Le Drian. US Defense Secretary Ash Carter pointedly called on Arab countries to do more in the fight against ISIS. In this regard, he said that the United States was very much looking to countries in the Gulf. Does the Minister agree with that, and with the conclusion that Gulf countries have shifted their key military capabilities away from fighting ISIS to involvement in the Yemeni civil war? That is where the Saudis and Emiratis are concentrating now: on a conflict built on sectarian strife which pales compared to the need to defeat ISIS.

I believe that the figures for involvement in air strikes against ISIS in Syria show a diminishing involvement on the part of Arab air forces and a rising involvement on the part of western air forces. That cannot be how the struggle against ISIS will be successful. We cannot win this fight without the wholehearted support of the Sunni countries, but that engagement seems to me to be flagging somewhat.

18:22

[Lord Oates (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, for initiating this debate, and I am pleased to follow my noble friend Lady Falkner and the noble Lord, Lord Williams. I am slightly nervous about following such expertise, but I must confess that I am even more nervous about speaking in the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Powell of Bayswater. I have known him for 33 years, ever since I was a school friend of his son Nick and rather foolishly and precociously decided to provoke an argument with him about the then Conservative Government’s Budget. It is fair to say that he fairly comprehensively defeated me in that argument. Given that his expertise on foreign affairs is even greater than his expertise on economic affairs, it is nerve-wracking indeed to speak opposite him.

Last year, the Prime Minister set out the Government’s strategy to defeat IS, or Daesh. I have to say that I was not terribly convinced about it then and am not much more convinced now, but I will listen with interest to the Minister’s answers in the hope that I can be reassured. It is not clear to me how it is possible to defeat Daesh without credible forces on the ground, and the 70,000 so-called moderate forces seem to me neither a credible number nor a credible description. Those who have spent time on the ground in Syria are clear that the dominance of extreme Sunni groups in the armed opposition is almost total.

In Iraq, where the RAF has been operating for some time, there are ground forces with whom we can co-operate—both the Iraqi Army and the Kurdish Peshmerga forces. That is why the coalition decided that it should focus its efforts on Iraq rather than Syria: there was a coherent strategy in Iraq and an absence of one in Syria.

For understandable reasons, post-Paris, the Government felt they had to act. I understand that sentiment but to act without a credible strategy is a dangerous thing to do. To act when one cannot answer the question “And then what?” as we did in Libya can have horrific consequences directly impacting on our country.

Even if we have a credible strategy to defeat Daesh, that is not enough. We will have gained little if another violent extremist group takes its place. That is why we have to have a strategy to fill the vacuum and to bring peace and order back to Syria. More than that, we need a much wider strategy to tackle violent extremism around the world because, of course, it is not just Syria and Iraq that are afflicted by this curse, but Libya, Yemen, the Sinai peninsula, Afghanistan and Nigeria. The attacks recently in Ouagadougou and Jakarta also highlight the global phenomena that we are facing. If we do not develop a comprehensive strategy to tackle this problem, we will find that even if we are successful in Iraq and Syria the problem will emerge elsewhere, whether it is called Daesh, al-Qaeda or whatever new formulation emerges, and it will threaten and menace us still.

As we go forward, we must learn from our mistakes. I know that Governments and countries are not always good at doing this, but given the menace we face it is critical that we get better at it. The first lesson we need to learn is that formenting regime change has proved comprehensively disastrous for us in this region, whether in Iran in the 1950s with the overthrow of Prime Minister Mossadegh, the invasion of Iraq overthrowing Saddam Hussein, or Libya more recently. We have to learn that we do not have sufficient understanding of the complexities of these societies or of the consequences that flow from our actions to keep blundering in, in the way we have done in the past.

Moreover as Libya shows, we lack the attention span or the resolve to tackle the problems arising from our interventions. Our insistence on the removal of Bashar al-Assad was foolish. It was foolish because we had no way of effecting it, foolish because personalising the issue on Assad showed our lack of understanding of the regime and foolish because it helped scupper any chance that the original peace talks might succeed.

We must not let it scupper the next round of peace talks. As the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, pointed out in her speech when we debated Syria last year, to bring peace in the former Yugoslavia, people had to make peace with Milosevic. No one liked that; he was responsible for terrible brutality but that was the price for peace and it was one that was worth paying.

Indeed the best way to get rid of Assad, as was the best way to get rid of Milosevic is to end the war, particularly as there are many people in minority communities who, as long as the war continues, see Assad as the best of a lot of bad options. If we make Assad going a precondition we will simply ensure that the war continues and Assad remains, and as a consequence many more people will die. Everyone, including the Prime Minister, has accepted that we cannot ultimately defeat Daesh until there is a political settlement. On 26 November, the Prime Minister told the House of Commons:

“We are now seeing Iran and Saudi Arabia sitting around the same table as America and Russia, as well as France, Turkey and Britain. All of us are working toward the transition to a new Government in Syria”.—[Official Report, Commons; 26/11/15, col 1492.]

The difficulty is that so many of these parties want such different things. I hope the Minister can update us on progress towards convening the all-party talks proposed for 25 January. Can he tell us whether he sees any prospect of such talks taking place this month, as planned? It has been widely reported that in briefing the Security Council on 18 January the UN special envoy on Syria, Staffan de Mistura, expressed his frustration about the many obstacles being placed in the way of his ability to convene a broad representation of opposition groups at the talks. As my noble friend Lady Falkner has already suggested, in particular Saudi Arabia may be playing an unhelpful role in that respect. It is reported that Turkey is blocking the attendance of the Kurdish YPG and the Democratic Union Party, that Russia is blocking attendance of Saudi-backed groups such as Ahrar al-Sham and Jaish al-Islam, and that Saudi Arabia is insisting that the Riyadh-based and Saudi-aligned high negotiations committee is exclusively to be given the status of the opposition delegation.

Can the Minister assure us that the UK gives its full support to the UN special envoy in dealing with these issues? Can he give us some indication of the role that the UK Government are playing in ensuring that the talks take place as soon as possible? Finally, can he tell us what progress the International Syria Support Group has made towards securing a ceasefire among non-Daesh and ANF forces, which it agreed as a priority in October? Given the central role of the political track in the ultimate defeat of Daesh, it is concerning that we hear so much about the military effort and so little about the diplomatic track. I hope that the Minister will put that right this afternoon.

We must hope and pray that the peace talks bring some results, and that we can get to a position where coalition air forces can work with a reformed Government and reformed Syrian army to finally defeat Daesh and bring peace and order back to the Syrian people. I fear that that happy day may be some way off but, even when we achieve it, we will not have resolved the threat of extremist violence around the world. To do that, we need to look much more carefully at our strategy and how we adopt it across the region, instead of adopting a piecemeal approach. The establishment of the National Security Council by the Prime Minister under the coalition Government was a hopeful step forward, but I regret very much that it did not take a much more strategic view of issues, as we had hoped, and that there were few strategic discussions on areas such as the Middle East. We need a comprehensive approach.

I understand the difficulty that Governments face in tackling as complex a threat as Daesh, and how much easier it is to be critical when you are outside government. However, I hope that the Government will work as hard on the diplomatic track as on the military track. When peace is finally restored to Syria, I hope that the UK Government will not allow their interest and attention to wane, as they did so tragically in Libya.

18:32

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, the war in Syria has killed 250,000 people, contributed to the biggest refugee crisis since World War II, and become a breeding ground for Daesh and other extremist groups that threaten not only Syria’s neighbours but all the powers supporting one side or the other. I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord for initiating this debate and giving the House the opportunity to look beyond any one specific action and to consider what is meant by a “strategy” in the context of defeating Daesh.

The lesson from previous conflicts is that having a strategy is one thing but it needs to be followed through to fruition, with clearly defined objectives. The current situation in Syria and beyond highlights that a strategy to defeat Daesh cannot be limited to Syria alone, much as the conflict cannot be confined to its borders. In this context, modern conflict is not just physical so a strategy needs to be comprehensive, targeting Daesh not only in Syria but in cyberspace and at home as well as abroad. A strategy needs to be a broad approach recognising globalisation, the conflict and Daesh itself, otherwise it risks overly focusing on one aspect.

A strategy needs to be proactive and offensive, but also defensive, in the sense that care and attention need to be paid to how the strategy, and, indeed, Britain’s involvement in Syria, is presented. To my mind, too much attention is paid to the RAF bombing missions and not enough to other aspects. If we are to have international security and stability, development, defence and diplomacy have to go together. We need a joined-up, whole-government approach to this conflict.

If there is one lesson that should be learnt from more than a decade of combating Daesh and its previous incarnations, it is that no amount of foreign force can defeat the organisation without enlisting the help of an armed local resistance. Daesh strategy in Iraq and Syria is built around the objective of subduing locals and leaving them with no viable alternatives. The targeting of oil facilities and trucks may be paralysing the economy in Daesh-controlled areas, but we also need to understand how sometimes this pushes people to join the only employer in town to generate income for their families.

As Daesh embeds in residential areas to evade air strikes, it continues making money through taxation, extortion and other means that enabled it to take most of the areas now under its control before it laid its hands on the oil infrastructure. It is also quietly expanding in less strategic but vulnerable areas, such as those between Palmyra, the city of Homs and southern Syria, to avoid intensive bombardment or heavy military deployment.

The Secretary of State for Defence, Michael Fallon, said this week that we are entering a new phase,

“where we aim to systematically dismantle Daesh’s structure and capabilities … That means striking harder at the head of the snake, with an increased focus on infrastructure, lines of communication and supply routes”.

While that element of the strategy may be vital, it should not be the sole focus. We need to encourage local forces to fight Daesh. I therefore ask the Minister: what steps are the UK Government taking to work through existing and new channels to advise, network, train and provide non-military services to armed fighting groups in different parts of the country?

One example highlighted in a recent Chatham House report was support for a unique programme to promote moderate imams in an area controlled by various rebel forces, instead of extremist clerics affiliated to jihadi organisations. Part of the moderate clerics’ focus was to educate worshippers about the danger of takfir, or pronouncing fellow Muslims infidels or apostates. According to a field commander of the faction overseeing the programme, the culture of takfir is a major impediment to getting fighters to combat groups such as Daesh, especially if the faction is backed by western countries.

On the peace process, the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, referred last week to the fact that, as a result of efforts by the International Syria Support Group over the past three months, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 2254 on 18 December, requesting the UN to convene the Syrian Government and opposition for negotiations on a transition process. As we have heard, these negotiations are due to start on 25 January and will be a welcome step towards ending the conflict, but it seems that Russia is determined not to let Assad or his party lose power. Although I hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, says, I am of course aware that it remains the Government’s hope that Russia will use all its power with the Assad regime and persuade him to come to the talks and ensure that the team is engaged in true negotiations about peace to achieve a transition process.

However, does the Minister think that the UN process outlined for a new constitution and elections within 18 months is practicable in that timeframe? Are we actually predicting failure if we do not meet that specific target? Obviously, in any road map for peace, you need certain milestones.

The strategy also needs to focus domestically. I was pleased to note from yesterday’s Evening Standard that Scotland Yard’s anti-terrorism chief praised Muslims in London for coming forward to help fight extremism. However, anyone who watched Channel 4’s programme on Tuesday night this week will have seen it highlight the threat of jihadist extremists and how they can evade prosecution. Is the Minister satisfied that the counterextremism strategy is fit for purpose in such circumstances?

Refugees have, of course, to be a major part of the strategy. Yesterday, the Minister for International Development said:

“The overwhelming majority of refugees remain in the region and this is where our support is targeted. We have been at the forefront of the response and have pledged more than £1.1 billion to the crisis”.—[Official Report, 20/1/16; col. 760.]

However, I remain concerned for the millions of Syrian refugees in the region who remain displaced and, in particular, those in neighbouring countries or in transit. What representations have the UK Government made, for example, to the Lebanese authorities, about the forcible return of Syrian refugees?

18:41

[The Earl of Courtown (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, said that I had possibly drawn the short straw in replying to the last debate of this January Thursday. However, I could not agree less with him to be perfectly honest, because the high quality of the speeches made by all those who contributed on all sides of the House certainly impressed me. I am only too happy to admit that they have increased my knowledge of this issue. So I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions. A number of detailed questions were asked. I will do my best to answer them, but I hope that noble Lords will allow me to reply in greater depth in writing.

The Government’s strategy to tackle Daesh in Syria and globally is comprehensive, spanning political, diplomatic, humanitarian and, of course, military action. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Collins, said, it is the combination of all these factors that is so important.

The horrific attacks this month in Istanbul and Jakarta, as well as those elsewhere, demonstrate the very real threat that we all face. Our law enforcement and security and intelligence services are working constantly to keep the people of this country safe and secure. We are taking all necessary steps to make sure that they have the powers, the capabilities and the resources they need. I say to noble Lords who asked about our capabilities that that is why we are spending 2% of GDP on defence, recruiting an additional 1,900 officers for our intelligence agencies—which will also help with cybersecurity, about which noble Lords asked—doubling our investment in equipment to support our Special Forces and protecting counterterrorism policing.

As noble Lords also said, tackling Daesh requires a global response. The United Kingdom is a leading member of a global coalition of 65 countries and international organisations, including many in the region, united in our aim to defeat Daesh on all fronts. The United Kingdom and the coalition will work with any countries which prove they are serious about fighting Daesh and protecting civilians.

British and coalition efforts are focused on five areas. We are attacking Daesh militarily; restricting its finances; disrupting the flow of fighters; challenging its poisonous ideology; and working to stabilise liberated areas. To tackle the funding, the United Kingdom has led efforts to create and enforce an international legal regime, underpinned by UN Security Council resolutions, which we co-sponsored. We are working with our regional partners to ensure the implementation of UN and EU sanctions, to stop Daesh’s ability to trade outside the formal financial system and to prevent smuggling out of Syria.

The military campaign, as mentioned by noble Lords, is also crucial. The RAF carried out 15% of air strikes in the global coalition’s recent offensive targeting Daesh oil facilities. This offensive destroyed 25% of Daesh’s daily oil production capability, equating to approximately 10% of its total income.

Noble Lords also mentioned strategic communications. The UK is leading the effort to counter Daesh’s poisonous propaganda, co-chairing the coalition’s strategic communications working group with the United States and the United Arab Emirates. In September my right honourable friend the Prime Minister announced that the United Kingdom would create a coalition communications cell in London, with staffing and financial support from coalition partners. I am pleased to say that this coalition cell is now up and running. It will ensure that no communications space currently exploited by Daesh is left uncontested. It will generate a full range of communications at a pace and scale necessary to highlight Daesh’s perversion of Islam, its barbaric treatment of individuals under its control and its failures on the battlefield.

Military operations need to be followed by stabilisation efforts to provide security, governance and services to populations in areas liberated from Daesh. The United Kingdom is supporting the work of the United Nations Development Programme in Iraq. In Syria, the situation is more complex. The United Kingdom is working with existing local Syrian institutions, as well as with moderate partners on the ground. This will establish a strong foundation to support transition and restore stability as quickly as possible.

All noble Lords, I think, questioned the political future of Syria. Ultimately, a political solution in Syria will be key to stabilisation, reconstruction and the defeat of Daesh. We need an end to the civil war and to have in place a transitional Government with whom the international community could co-operate fully to help restore peace and stability to the whole country. That means a Syrian Government broadly accepted by their people. As the Prime Minister said to the Liaison Committee last week,

“as long as you have Assad in power, you are in danger of having a Daesh-style, Sunni … terrorist … state in western Syria”.

Assad cannot be part of the future of Syria. That is why we are putting Britain’s full diplomatic weight behind political talks to secure a transition to an inclusive Government in Syria who respond to the needs of all the Syrian people.

A number of noble Lords mentioned UN Security Council Resolution 2254, requesting the United Nations to convene the Syrian Government and Opposition for negotiations on a transition process. These negotiations, due to start on 25 January, will be a welcome step towards ending the conflict. I confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Collins, that Her Majesty’s Government are throwing the United Kingdom’s full diplomatic weight behind the efforts of UN Special Envoy de Mistura to bring the Syrian parties to talks on 25 January. As noble Lords will know, the situation is highly complex and fragile, but we remain hopeful that both sides will agree to take part in the talks. There is still clearly a long way to go on the political talks but also the best chance for peace that we have seen in four years.

The United Kingdom, as a member of the International Syria Support Group, is working with a host of countries including Russia, the United States—very importantly—France, Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the United Nations towards negotiations between the Syrian parties on a transitional Government. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary attended the last meeting of the International Syria Support Group, which noble Lords have mentioned, on 18 December in New York. The subsequent ministerial meeting of the UN Security Council which passed the resolution was an important step forward in the international community’s efforts to bring about political transition in Syria. The resolution is supported by all members of the ISSG, including Russia and Iran, and of course by the entire Security Council, but there is still a long way to go.

In Riyadh earlier in December, more than 100 representatives from a wide range of Syrian opposition groups met to form a common negotiating position, ahead of intra-Syrian talks convened by the United Nations, which the United Nations special envoy hopes will begin and continue next week, as I mentioned earlier. This is an important step on the political track.

The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Baglan, mentioned the importance of the minorities in this area. The situation is quite desperate for many such communities within Syria and Iraq. We condemn in the strongest terms the atrocities committed by Daesh against all civilians, including Christians, Mandeans, Yazidis, and other minorities—as well as against the majority Muslim population in Iraq and Syria, who continue to bear the brunt of Daesh’s brutality. Ultimately, the only way to protect the Christians and other religious minorities from Daesh is by defeating this organisation, which in turn requires, among other things, ending the conflict in Syria.

There are a number of questions that I have not answered in great detail, but I will write to noble Lords on those various issues.

To conclude, the Government’s strategy to defeat Daesh in Syria is a comprehensive one. We are working within the region in a global coalition across political, diplomatic, economic, humanitarian and military fields. We are also working with the international community to end the civil war and support a transitional government in Syria. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has said, we face a generational struggle. However, our strategy is the right one. Let me assure the House: the defeat of Daesh is a goal to which the Government are utterly committed.

House adjourned at 6.52 pm.