Oral Answers to Questions

Gavin Shuker Excerpts

Wednesday 18th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

I can very clear that we want to see an HIV, TB and malaria goal as being part of the health goal; we want to see specific targets on tackling those diseases. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the incidence of HIV has grown, largely because people are now able to survive it. We must work harder to ensure that we reduce incidence and do more on prevention.

[Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)]

How does the Secretary of State intend to achieve these health goals when a third of the health care delivery projects that started on her Government’s watch are falling short? Schemes in Montserrat, Uganda, Bangladesh, Mozambique, Pakistan, Zimbabwe, Sierra Leone and Somalia—schemes totalling nearly £0.5 billion—are failing. What does she intend to do to transform those projects and prove that universal coverage is not only desirable but achievable?

[Justine Greening]

I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman is setting out just a small number of the many health programmes that the Department has under way. One of the key things I have done over the past year has been to strengthen our programme management and increase the focus on getting results for the Department. I can assure him that there is a heavy focus on achieving all the goals that we set ourselves. We set out the results very clearly when we came into government, because we felt that there was not a clear enough focus on impact under the last Government.

Burma

Gavin Shuker Excerpts

Thursday 13th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sir Malcolm Bruce]

The Committee did not have the opportunity to visit some of the more disputed territories, either for security reasons or because access was not granted or there was insufficient time. We understood, however, that there was at least a ceasefire in place across the whole country, except in the north. That is good news. The bad news is that the process of turning that ceasefire into a proper process of moving towards civilian government and letting go from the centre has not begun. Indeed, there is plenty of evidence that the army has consolidated its position in exactly those provinces. That does not bode well, unless it starts to accommodate the other armed ethnic groups as part of the process of change. That is something that we think the UK Government could contribute to, so long as we have partners to work with.

[Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)]

We welcome this thoughtful and comprehensive report, which reflects upon the progress being made in this troubled Commonwealth nation. The Chair of the Committee referred to the role of DFID in helping to build democratic capacity and strengthen Parliament in Burma. Of course, DFID is not just the charitable arm of the UK Government; it is a major force for soft power. What work is the Committee planning to do to examine DFID’s wider work on building democracy, particularly in the light of recent examples such as Bangladesh, where those processes have had mixed results?

[Sir Malcolm Bruce]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments; I completely agree with him. Incidentally, we thought that the co-operation between DFID and the Foreign Office in Burma was particularly successful. Indeed, our visit would not have been the success that it was without the full co-operation that we had from the Foreign Office and from the ambassador and his team, although that is not in any way to suggest that the DFID team was not also extraordinarily important. That is the kind of working that matters, because this is a political process as well as a development process.

We actually had a much fuller section on parliamentary strengthening in the draft report, and we concluded that that was an issue to which we should return separately. The Committee has not yet agreed on that, but I think that we have unofficially agreed that we should produce a short report on how DFID could expand its role of parliamentary strengthening in all the partner countries. If we are concentrating on post-conflict countries and fragile states, building democratic institutions and making them work are surely central to that task. We have a unique capacity to do this work, and our view is that we need to put a lot more investment into it to ensure that our engagements are sustained and continuous, and that the contacts are maintained. These processes need to develop full, long-term relationships, rather than ending up with the odd seminar here and there or the odd secondment. I hope that we will be able to come up with a report that will develop that theme.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gavin Shuker Excerpts

Wednesday 5th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan]

I quite understand what my hon. Friend says, and I fully share his wish to give proper assistance to those in the UK affected by flooding. The international development budget, within our 0.7% of gross national income commitment, has to be used for official development assistance as defined by the OECD. It is not possible for us to redefine ODA in a way that would allow it to be transferred immediately to domestic purposes. The assumption in his question is therefore a false choice. I am pleased to say that the Government can help flood victims at home as well as abroad.

[Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)]

We know that the greatest risk that the UK faces from climate change is flooding, but the developing world will be hit even harder, so we all need a global climate deal. Will the Minister commit the Prime Minister to attending Ban Ki-moon’s climate summit in September, as other world leaders will, and to pushing for a stand-alone climate change goal in the post-2015 process?

[Mr Duncan]

The hon. Gentleman strays ever so slightly from the question on the Order Paper, but I understand his point. I am not privy at this stage to the Prime Minister’s diary, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the priorities that we set in our overseas aid programmes focus on climate change to a large extent and are doing an enormous amount of good.

Gaza (Humanitarian Situation)

Gavin Shuker Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2014 Westminster Hall

[Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) on securing this debate, to which many hon. Members from all parties have contributed.

I suppose that at the heart of the debate is the point made by the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh): we are called to deal with a humanitarian issue on the basis of humanity. In that spirit, I intend to speak primarily about DFID’s work in Gaza. I appreciate that hon. Members had only a short time to speak, so I am willing to take interventions.

The worsening humanitarian situation in Gaza is of enormous concern. December’s flooding has forced 11,000 people from their homes. That, alongside the ongoing blockade and recent closure of the tunnel network, has forced 1.7 million Palestinians into a daily life of extreme poverty. There is a serious danger that supplies of food, water and fuel—already diminished—will run out later this year. The humanitarian situation in Gaza is deeply troubling, as evidenced by hon. Members in this debate. Aid agencies as well as international organisations, such as the World Bank and the United Nations, have expressed particular concern about the serious and immediate lack of adequate water supplies and sanitation in Gaza.

The conflict in Gaza and the continuing blockade have exacerbated the chronic lack of basic infrastructure. We believe that the Israeli authorities must ease restrictions on humanitarian aid to Gaza. We fully support a negotiated two-state solution that establishes a safe and secure Israel, alongside a viable Palestinian state, with both sides enjoying the respect and recognition of their neighbours and the wider international community. I speculate that that view would be uncontroversial in the House. The previous Labour Government worked tirelessly with our international partners to help achieve that situation, but I appreciate and share the frustration that many people feel about the lack of progress on the issue, during that time and in recent years. The UK has a role to play and is playing it through the work of DFID.

I understand and welcome the International Development Committee inquiry into the effectiveness of DFID’s spend in the Occupied Palestinian Territories and look forward to seeing and debating the conclusions of its report. It is considering the effectiveness of DFID’s programme in the Occupied Palestinian Territories; whether DFID is focusing on the right sectors and working with the right organisations; whether DFID’s funding to the Palestinian Authority aids the twin goals of state-building and achieving a negotiated peace; and whether DFID should consider funding projects involving Israeli-Palestinian joint working. I hope that that will allow us another opportunity to come back in due course and debate these issues. It is important that we also scrutinise DFID’s work in the region right now.

In 2009, the Labour Government responded to the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, giving an additional £15 million at the height of the conflict. While I accept that this Government have increased spend in the Occupied Palestinian Territories since that time, has the Minister considered additional funding to meet the costs of December’s flooding and associated humanitarian issues? Although the immediate need is clear and must be met, Gaza must also be set on the path of sustainability through DFID’s investment. I would welcome a few comments from the Minister about how she is tackling the issue of both the short-term and long-term crisis.

I have two additional thoughts before I allow the Minister to step in and talk about DFID’s work. First, we know that the tunnel clampdown, which began last summer, has had a significant impact on the ability of Palestinians to get the bare necessities of day-to-day living. Food and building resources previously transported through the tunnel system have been stripped back, leaving a growing problem of food insecurity and undeveloped infrastructure. We know that that has had a massive effect on the Palestinian economy, with some £250 million being taken out of key sectors and some 20,000 jobs being lost. The construction industry, previously valued at a quarter of Gaza’s GDP, is among the sectors that have been hit hardest.

Secondly, there are serious, immediate concerns about health. A recent World Health Organisation report concluded that a third of medicines and half of medical disposables are simply out of stock. There are no cancer drugs. At a time when hospitals are trying to deal with the fallout of the floods, hundreds of thousands of gallons of sewage-filled water are washing out entire districts and pressure is being added to areas where disease is already rife. What is the Minister doing to ensure that we can respond to the immediate needs of the situation, which has been exacerbated in recent months?

DFID has committed £94 million of bilateral aid to the Occupied Palestinian Territories over the past financial year. Will the Minister lay out how that spending is split between the territories? Will any spending be shifted in response to the humanitarian situation in Gaza? There is clearly much more work to be done, and Gaza requires immediate assistance, as well as long-term strategy and investment in basic infrastructure, to meet development needs. It is right that the UK Government, alongside other partner nations, should play their part in helping to give the people of the region a chance to build an equitable future free from poverty and disease and truly secure.

Violence Against Women and Girls

Gavin Shuker Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2014 Westminster Hall

[Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am grateful to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Brooke. There have been many well informed speeches today. I welcome the broad approach of the Government in making this a strategic issue in the work of the Department for International Development, but it is also right to raise some of the concerns flagged up in the Select Committee report.

Violence against women is a violation that cannot be justified by any political, religious or cultural claim. Around the world, violence against women and girls takes many grotesque forms, a lot of which have been raised in this debate. One in three women will face violence in their lifetimes: that is 1 billion women and girls—1 billion stories of violence against women. However, that is not a stagnant statistic; there are a number of situations happening now, globally, that should spur our focus on this issue.

There is the vulnerable situation faced by women and girls in the Philippines in the wake of Typhoon Haiyan. Early reports indicated that the collapse in law and order, the widespread displacement of people and the distress, disruption and sheer desperation following a disaster of that magnitude had put more than 65,000 women and girls at risk of sexual abuse and trafficking. There were the 4,000 incidents of violence against women documented in just six months by the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission. Those incidents included maiming and amputation of body parts, acid attacks, kickings, beating with a wire, pulling out of hair and burning, rape, prostitution and forced abortion. That highlights the precarious situation of women on the eve of our withdrawal from Afghanistan. There is the worsening situation undoubtedly faced by women and girls in the Central African Republic, in Syria and in South Sudan as violence in those fragile states escalates.

Women and girls who experience violence suffer from a range of physical and psychological health problems. It diminishes their ability and confidence to participate in normal human activities and public life and cripples their contribution to development and peace. In doing so, violence against women impoverishes not only women, but their families, their communities and, ultimately, entire nation states.

However, at our worst, we have allowed fears of cultural insensitivity to overpower and suppress our moral obligation to stand up for women worldwide. We have allowed abusers to go unpunished for their crimes. We have allowed violence against women not to get the reckoning and retribution that it deserves and let it be removed, at times, from the international agenda. Perhaps most shockingly, we allowed it to be negotiated out of the millennium development goals. At this crucial time, we cannot and must not allow that to happen again.

The Government’s determination to tackle the collusive silence that surrounds debate on this issue is laudable, although I am concerned that on some levels that approach is flawed. The International Development Committee’s second report of this Session highlighted important ways in which we can strengthen our approach to tackling violence against women and girls.

Specifically, the report spoke of the danger of DFID’s narrow focus on reactive support services above proactive, transformative projects that deal with the underlying causes of violence. The report found that of 117 interventions listed by DFID, just 16 were aimed at changing social norms. Instead, the majority focus on building institutional capacity to respond to acts of violence—supporting survivors to access justice or the protective care and support services that they need.

The report recommended a fundamental shift in emphasis. Gender activists have supported that call, saying that they have often found it difficult, particularly at country level, to see how DFID is challenging social norms and that evidence of DFID’s much lauded and commendable “Theory of Change” being mainstreamed into key DFID programmes can sometimes be scant. In their response to the report, the Government agreed. In answer to the concerns raised, they highlighted

“ongoing efforts to deliver our commitment to help ten million women and girls access security and justice services by 2015.”

At the end of last year, DFID published another strategy entitled “Addressing Violence against Women and Girls through security and justice programming”. I acknowledge freely that it is not an either/or, but I am concerned that that invades the principal recommendation that stems from the report. Will the Minister respond to that?

Although investment in security and justice systems is a crucial building block for violence prevention, establishing accountability and redress, evidence shows that better-functioning institutions will have limited impact on the reduction of violence against women and girls unless efforts are also made to tackle the root causes of violence: women’s lack of power and discriminatory social norms.

The strategy states that one of its key objectives is to protect women and girls from all forms of violence and the threat of violence, but only seven of the 44 case studies listed across the two guidance notes make any attempt to prevent violence against women and girls; the other 37 case studies refer solely to the provision of services after violence has been committed. Moreover, it appears that we often fail to follow our own advice. The guidance asserts in bold:

“Any training or awareness raising work”—

of security and justice actors, including soldiers, occupying forces, peacekeeping forces or demobilised troops—

“must focus on improving knowledge and changing attitudes and changing behaviours.”

That is at odds with the tone used by the Prime Minister when he gave evidence to the Liaison Committee last week:

“We cannot ask our soldiers, sailors and airmen to do too many different things. They need clear instructions and a clear goal, but, yes, that can be part of it.”

The “that” is the role of UK armed forces in training overseas forces about violence against women. The guidance stresses the importance of informal provision and the role of women’s rights organisations and states that

“supporting women’s organisations and other CSOs to lobby for policy reforms and support implementation is a key priority”.

However, Womenkind Worldwide highlighted the concern that despite their enormous added value, many women’s rights organisations have not received the resources that they need to scale up their delivery and influence. They suffer from a shortage of funding that commits beyond an annual cycle. Womenkind Worldwide undertook analysis that showed that UK aid funding amounted to $16.41 million in 2011, compared with, for example, $118.6 million in the Netherlands and more in other countries. Very few southern-based women’s rights organisations are direct recipients of DFID centralised funds, and only one women’s rights organisation, Gender Links, was found to be funded under the programme partnership arrangement fund. No direct grants were found to be offering support under the civil society challenge fund.

I appreciate that we are dealing with a difficult area in which there are many competing needs, but surely there must be a shift towards tackling views among men and boys as well as protecting women and girls from violence. That is an issue not only further afield but in this country, so we should look at our views and those of others. Analysis by Amnesty International highlighted the fact that only three of 27 DFID country programmes have identified violence against women and girls as a strategic priority.

In the Government’s response to the International Development Committee’s report, much is made of the newly announced research and innovation fund, which is mentioned 12 times in the 24 pages. Although more research is welcome, I remain concerned that the research component is unlikely to be activated until later this year, and that only £25 million has been allocated, with no commitment on length, amount or protection of future funding. I am concerned that that fund may delay our response to this crucial issue. It is important that research goes hand in hand with active country programmes that challenge the perceptions of men and boys about violence against women and girls. The fund must not be treated as an omnipotent panacea. I welcome the Government’s response on those issues.

The International Development Committee’s report raises crucial questions and highlights some important ways in which we can strengthen our response. Although I stand four-square behind the Government’s approach of making the matter a strategic priority, I hope that the Minister will reflect on some of the areas of the report in which the Committee wanted DFID to do more or do things differently.

International Development (Gender Equality) Bill

Gavin Shuker Excerpts

Friday 17th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am grateful that we have got to this stage in the passage of the Bill. We had a positive, lively and celebratory Committee stage and it is good to get to Third Reading. It goes without saying that the Opposition fully endorse and support the Bill. I acknowledge the changes that were made in Committee to ensure that it would be workable in practice.

[Mr Cash]

May I make one point that I had meant to mention in my speech? The Secretary of State attended the Committee, which is very unusual, so I would like to place on the record my thanks to her for that.

[Gavin Shuker]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. We welcome the approach of the Government on violence against women and girls in particular and on gender equality more broadly. I believe that the measures in the Bill will be extremely helpful.

Before I turn to the substance of the Bill, I thought it might be helpful to the House if I clarified a couple of points that the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) put to the Minister that are central to the argument over why the Bill is necessary. The Bill speaks to two scenarios. The first is where there is a broader programme of poverty reduction and the second is where there is humanitarian assistance. Humanitarian assistance relates not just to the period immediately following a disaster, such as that in the Philippines, but to the weeks and months that follow because such operations have a long time lag.

The consideration of gender equality can literally be a matter of life or death. In the light of recent conflicts and humanitarian disasters, for example, we have seen alarming reports of women finding themselves at extreme risk of exploitation and of serious and sexual violence. It is right for the Department to give due consideration to that point. The basis of all successful humanitarian interventions is effective planning, and DFID has also been doing good work in that regard. I believe that is why we have been a successful partner in work around the world. Awareness of gender issues is required, and we know that women, much more than men, are at risk of violence in lawless conditions. It is therefore right to have the dual provisions in the Bill.

We know that gender inequality is one of the defining issues of our time. It is core to development now and will be as we go through the post-2015 process. As the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) rightly pointed out, we live in a world in which women shoulder 66% of the burden of work but own only 1% of the property. It is a world in which women account for two thirds of the 1.4 billion people living in extreme poverty and the 774 million people struggling with illiteracy; in which, tragically, an estimated 1.6 million daughters each year are not born because of a deep-seated preference for sons; in which one in five adolescent girls continue to be denied an education by the daily realities of poverty, conflict and discrimination; and in which one in three women are subject to violence, whether at a time of armed conflict or behind closed doors. We know the disproportionate impact of conflict on women, yet less than 3% of signatories to peace agreements are female. The House should also remember that only one in five national parliamentarians are female.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the women who had helped him in the preparation of the Bill. The Opposition should draw attention to my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), who I know was intensely involved in helping the Bill come to fruition, not least in Committee.

The fact that we live in the world that I have described places a moral duty on all of us to do more. Manifestations of inequality, brutality and cruelty still occur on a daily basis, which is why we welcome the Bill. In government, Labour started the journey of prioritising gender equality in development work—from DFID’s first ever gender policy document in 2000, which highlighted the importance of women’s empowerment beyond just regarding them as instruments of poverty reduction, to the three-year gender equality plan launched in 2007, which imposed specific responsibilities and embedded expertise across DFID’s delivery of programmes. In fact, one reason why we welcome the Government’s approach to the Bill is that at that time, there was concern about that action plan coming to an end. I believe that the Department has a genuine commitment to gender equality, from the Secretary of State downwards, and we support it in its work.

Some of the biggest global challenges that we face will require the empowerment, participation and achievement of all global citizens, both men and women. The UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation estimates that equalising access to productive resources between men and women could raise output in developing countries by as much as 4%, which is critical considering that more than 800 million people worldwide do not have adequate access to safe and nutritious food.

Reports documenting the impact of Typhoon Haiyan have emphasised the links between gender inequality and heightened vulnerability in the aftermath of environmental disasters, yet analysis last year by Development Finance International and Oxfam found that gender-related spending had fallen behind investment in other millennium development goals. That goes to the heart of why the Bill is important—it will set a standard for the rest of the world to meet.

[Mary Macleod]

I recently held a round table in the Punjab about female foeticide, and also talked about violence against women, economic empowerment, the absolute importance of education and other issues. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a third-world country will never have a chance to develop fully until we address gender inequality and until it uses the skills and talents of half its population?

[Gavin Shuker]

The hon. Lady makes an important point, which I have made before. When I came into the post of shadow International Development Minister, I believe I became the first male Member of Parliament, either in government or in opposition, to have responsibility for the brief of the prevention of violence against women and girls and gender inequality, since it was divided out as a separate area of responsibility within DFID’s work. I say that because we increasingly need to encourage men to have confidence to speak on those issues. This debate is a good example of that. Holding back women in society is not just holding back women, it is holding back society. It affects not just the development of women but the development of nations, which is why we absolutely need to make the case for this being a mainstream issue, not just a “women’s issue”.

Experience has repeatedly demonstrated that targeted initiatives for women need to be complemented by action to bring mainstream attention to gender equality and women’s rights across all development interventions. A focus on gender equality is often characterised by tokenism and hollow gesturing. That is why I believe the Bill is important—it is not a box-ticking exercise, it is about a shift of mindset in how we engage in these complex issues. I hope it will address them by putting the well-being of women and girls and the achievement of gender equality at the forefront of everything that we do. Gender inequality is so deeply entrenched in our global society that only through embedding those principles into each and every thing that we do can we hope to address the structural inequalities that affect millions, if not billions, of women and girls each year and that reproduce gender inequality generation after generation.

The scale of the challenge that we face must not be underestimated or ignored, and I welcome this landmark Bill and congratulate the hon. Member for Stone on his hard and dedicated work. The Bill sets out one further commitment, and it is one that the Opposition are proud to support.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gavin Shuker Excerpts

Wednesday 4th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

The hon. Gentleman is right to raise that point. It may be some time before homes that are able to withstand such natural disasters are built. In the meantime, the United Nations, working alongside the Government of the Philippines, is co-ordinating an effort to make sure that we can provide shelter for people who need it. I should also say to him, as I have been clear with the House, that this is a real challenge because many of those people live in incredibly remote communities.

[Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)]

May I begin, Mr Speaker, by conveying the apologies of the shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy), who, as he has already informed you, is in the Philippines today? The Government have rightly activated the rapid response facility to commit funding to organisations working to help the population of the Philippines. It is now the 26th day since the typhoon hit, so what proportion of this funding has already been paid out?

[Justine Greening]

As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, we allocated £8 million to a variety of UK non-governmental organisations who, as part of the facility, quickly responded with what they felt was needed. We have allocated all the money that they have requested so far. Clearly, they will then go through the process of making sure that the supplies that the money purchases get out to people on the ground. At this point, I would expect and anticipate that those supplies are largely there. In fact, as he will also be aware, we have since sent many other cargo flights of supplies which have superseded them.

[Gavin Shuker]

Turning to another issue related to the Philippines, alarmingly the United Nations has predicted a spike in the trafficking of women and girls for sex in the areas heaviest hit, fuelled by the inevitable collapse of civic society and the widespread displacement of people following a disaster of this magnitude. What is the Secretary of State doing to protect the 65,000 women at risk of sexual abuse?

[Justine Greening]

First, we are highlighting the risks to women and girls in emergencies, which is why I held an international call to action summit the very week, as it turned out, that Typhoon Haiyan hit. In respect of the particular crisis mentioned, we have sent two of our specialist humanitarian experts who are particularly specialist in this area to work with the UN and the clusters that are providing support on the ground, to ensure that not only direct, but indirect support is provided across all the work that happens.

Overseas Aid (Private Sector Contracts)

Gavin Shuker Excerpts

Monday 11th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Major companies in the UK such as M&S know this as well—that is why it has NGOs such as Oxfam on its sustainable retail advisory board. It seems that the only people who have not caught up are the Opposition.

[Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)]

May I commend the Secretary of State for her courageous commitment to the 0.7% target, but say to her that the way to appease those on the Benches behind her who do not want that commitment to go through is not to try to sound right wing on aid, but to take on the argument?

[Justine Greening]

We have been making the case for international development, and I would say to the hon. Gentleman that what I have announced is what I think is the right thing to do; it is not about how I want to please anybody in the House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gavin Shuker Excerpts

Wednesday 30th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I can reassure my right hon. Friend that I am planning only to visit Algiers. I am sure he put down an urgent question at the time of the events to which he referred, and got a response.

[Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)]

Q13. Last week the Prime Minister said he was paying down Britain’s debt, but on his watch it will go up by £600 billion. Would he like to take this opportunity to correct the record?

[The Prime Minister]

I have been very clear: we have got the deficit down by a quarter, and in order to get on top of our debts, we have to get on top of the deficit. That is stage 1 of getting on top of our debts. It is also worth reminding ourselves of of why we are having to do this in the first place. Who was it who racked up the debts? Who was it who racked up the deficit? Who was it who gave us the biggest deficit of any country virtually anywhere in the world? It was the Government whom the hon. Gentleman supported.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gavin Shuker Excerpts

Wednesday 13th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I am well aware of this campaign. I seem to remember spending a lot of time at Crewe station during the last Parliament, normally accompanied by people dressed in top hat and tails—some of my colleagues will remember that.

My hon. Friend’s suggestion is not in the current programme, but we will look sympathetically at it. We want to see more electrification of railway lines in our country.

[Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)]

The right hon. Gentleman’s Government said that university tuition fees would average £7,500, but in actual fact they average £8,400. How can he open the UK taxpayer to such a liability of £0.8 billion over this Parliament?

[The Prime Minister]

Let me give the hon. Gentleman some of the figures. Only nine universities are charging £9,000 for every student; 58 universities will not charge £9,000 for any of their courses; and 108 out of 124 further education colleges will charge less than £6,000 for all their courses. However, the point I would make is this: university degrees have not suddenly started to cost £7,000, £8,000 or £9,000; they have always cost that. The question is this: do we ask graduates to pay—successful graduates who are earning more than £21,000—or do we ask the taxpayers to pay? The money does not grow on trees. We have made our choice, and the Labour party, which introduced tuition fees, must come up with its answer.