Skip to main content

Westminster Hall

Volume 520: debated on Tuesday 14 December 2010

Westminster Hall

Tuesday 14 December 2010

[Mrs Linda Riordan in the Chair]

Legal aid

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

I am delighted to have secured this important debate so soon after the publication of the legal aid Green Paper. It is a mark of how significant such issues are that there is a good attendance in the Gallery and that a number of Members of Parliament are present hoping to make a contribution.

Members of Parliament have a particular interest in legal aid, particularly in the broader context of advice services, because we are part of the family of advisers. That was brought home to me during my first week as an MP when, at my very first surgery, a gentleman asked me for assistance in having his wife deported. I was not able to refer that case to a partner legal aid firm.

Over the course of 13 years, I have made extensive use of, and am enormously grateful to, private firms, law centres and other advice centres in my constituency and elsewhere, and I will pay tribute to them by name. Paddington law centre is an excellent local facility that has assisted thousands of people in the community. The London borough of Westminster is often used as a byword for prosperity and the great institutions of central London, but in fact it includes a number of the most deprived wards in the country. Westminster citizens advice bureau is another superb organisation and I had the pleasure of attending its annual meeting a couple of weeks ago. Other organisations include the North Kensington law centre, the migrants resource centre, the Mary Ward centre—that is not in my constituency, but it is an important local organisation—Just for Kids Law, to which I will refer in a moment, and many private practices, as well as the Central London law centre and the Brent private tenants rights group, which is just over the border and provides an important service to tenants.

Those professionals in the sector provide, for the most part, a service to many of the most vulnerable and distressed people in society, and they do so for what is a challenging level of remuneration in a professional context. We hear—sometimes rightly—about the eye-watering sums of money paid in legal aid in some criminal cases. I understand that such cases cause public concern, but as in so many areas of public policy, we are being driven by policy making by anecdote. We need to address extreme examples and issues, but, overwhelmingly, legal aid practitioners are not well remunerated and they do an excellent job at astoundingly good value to the public purse.

My hon. Friend says that those professionals are not well remunerated. Does she agree that they are not even as well remunerated as many of the senior police officers and teachers in our constituencies? Their average income is between £28,000 and £40,000 in London.

My right hon. Friend makes a good point. It is true that legal aid practitioners who take on institutions in the public sector, and sometimes the private sector, are significantly less well paid than those professionals who make the public policy decisions that they challenge.

It is important to put on the record the fact that the previous Labour Government took decisions that bore down on legal aid expenditure. Not everyone will have agreed with those decisions—they may have challenged them—but there was a healthy debate. It must also be accepted that had Labour been re-elected, there would have been cuts in the legal aid budget. It is not the case, however, that the unfolding policy of the Labour party would have placed the pressure, which we now see emerging, on civil, family and social welfare law. Those are the areas of concern that I want to address.

It is critical to protect criminal legal aid. If it is not available at the right level and provided by quality professionals, justice will be denied. It is very important to protect a proper criminal legal aid budget. I pay tribute to Lord Bach, the former Minister with responsibility for legal aid, who looked at ways in which to bear down on exceptional costs in the criminal legal aid budget without sacrificing the principles of access to justice. I think there was consensus on that.

My concerns are about the manner in which the legal aid Green Paper attacks—and it is an attack—the legal aid budget. It bears down particularly severely on civil cases, including family and social welfare, and takes a number of areas out of the scope of aid entirely. Such areas include children and family cases in which domestic violence is not a stated factor, education, immigration where a person is not detained, clinical negligence, welfare benefits, employment, debt and some areas of housing. As a consequence, more than 500,000 people each year are less likely to receive help. Not only will that have an effect on those people unable to access legal aid services, but it will destabilise and possibly destroy such services in many areas and make it extremely hard for public services to be held to account when they are at fault.

My hon. Friend makes her case powerfully. The cuts are atrociously harsh on civil cases. Nottingham law centre in my constituency says that last year it helped 1,300 people avoid housing repossession. I am exceptionally worried about the impact on homelessness and the potential for people to lose their homes. This is important stuff.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point and I will return in a moment to the issue of housing and homelessness.

Funding for judicial review is retained within the legal aid Green Paper. However, in many cases it is not based upon the legal help that allows for an effective judicial review. I have been told that retaining judicial review but withdrawing so much legal aid is as useful as having a flight of stairs between the first and second floors of a building when there is nothing between the ground floor and the first. Judicial review emerges from a wider pool of cases and there will be inadequate tests of the law if legal aid is withdrawn.

As we know from the Green Paper, eligibility for legal aid is to be further reduced. Over recent years—this is already a trend—the proportion of the population eligible for legal aid on a sliding scale of contributions has fallen from about half of the population to about a third. The Green Paper further lowers the level at which people are asked to contribute from their assets, and increases the percentage level of contributions from earnings. Moreover, for the first time, those on social security benefits should, it is suggested, be subject to a full asset test. Will the Minister write to me and state whether the Department has calculated the cost of such an exercise? Taken together, all those measures prompt the question of whether even those who are potentially entitled to legal aid can afford to take up that entitlement, and what that will mean for access to justice.

Members of the public are being asked to insure themselves to cover future legal aid cases. However, since those who lose out are, overwhelmingly, low-income households, it is extremely unlikely that they will be able to find money for a hypothetical eventuality, rather than for the daily struggle to house, heat and feed themselves. There is nothing wrong with taking out insurance in principle—it should be encouraged—but is it realistic to ask low-income groups to insure against eventualities that are simply not as foreseeable as those risks that lead people to insure their homes and cars?

The loss of legal aid will mean that most, if not all, of the 500,000 people affected will lose access to advice and representation. That figure will include many of the most vulnerable categories of people. The legal aid consultation itself acknowledges that in respect of issues such as debt, welfare benefits and education, people with disabilities are likely to be disproportionately affected. For example, 63% of legally aided clients in the sphere of welfare benefits assistance are disabled.

The excellent briefing produced for this debate by the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux states that

“alternative sources of advice are simply not available, suitable or accessible for the overwhelming majority of our client group”


“the voluntary sector and pro bono does not have the capacity to fulfil the need currently met by Legal Aid in terms of the volume of people or the specialism required for more complex cases.”

Will the Minister say, either now or later, whether the Department has carried out a full capacity assessment to assure us that voluntary and pro bono facilities are available to fill the gap that will be created by the proposals in the Green Paper?

In the context of my hon. Friend’s remarks about the impact of the proposals, does she agree that yet again we are seeing a disproportionate impact on women, especially, of course, in relation to family cases?

I do believe that the legal aid budget in this country is huge in comparison with those in other European countries, but I have had representations from the New Forest citizens advice bureau to say that it has two part-time caseworkers and it is wondering where its most vulnerable clients will go if that service is cut back in parallel with cutbacks in legal aid.

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point; it will be one of the issues that I address. There is an argument in addition to the argument about how much we fund legal aid by. There is consensus that the budget cannot expand indefinitely, but there are still issues about the speed at which and the manner in which legal aid funding is withdrawn and the impact that that could have on providers.

I think that value for money was also at the heart of the hon. Gentleman’s remarks. Is it not the case that expenditure on legal aid and advice services does provide value for money, because it ensures that public services and others operate effectively and well, that errors are corrected and that public law is constantly challenged? It also helps people to redress wrongs and ensures that the take-up of benefits and other services is done properly.

The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, among other organisations, convincingly argues that there is a very poor business case for what the Government propose. Taking so much social welfare out of the scope of legal aid will undermine value for money. It is argued that between £2 and £10 is saved for every pound invested in the legal aid budget. An analysis based on data from the civil and social justice survey and on Legal Services Commission outcomes data estimates a saving of £2 for every £1 spent in relation to housing, £3 for every £1 spent on debt advice, £8.80 for every £1 spent on benefits advice and £7 for every £1 spent in relation to employment. That is besides the benefit to the individual; 80% of social welfare legal aid cases record positive outcomes for the clients.

It is impossible in a limited time—I want other hon. Members to have an opportunity to contribute to the debate—to pay proper attention to every area of civil law affected by the proposals, so I shall make just a few remarks on the areas that cause me greatest concern.

In relation to family law, no one disputes the value of mediation or the fact that in cases that go to court, the court action can have an extremely damaging impact on the families. However, relying on mediation is not always an option. It is not always the case that both partners are prepared to go to mediation. Also, it implies that there is a willingness to compromise and that the compromise should be somewhere around the middle of the argument about child welfare, maintenance or whatever. That ignores the fact that in many instances, one partner or the other has behaved excessively badly or is making unrealistic demands; indeed, it encourages them to make such demands.

Good and powerful cases have been raised by the Legal Aid Practitioners Group, and I shall read the details of two into the record as examples. One case study states:

“I am advising a client who is seeking contact with his children. The children’s mother has remarried and has a new child with her husband. She seeks to marginalize our client from the children’s lives, has denied contact, refuses to engage in mediation and has moved to a secret address. The case requires a preliminary application to ascertain the children’s whereabouts and once identified an application for contact. Clearly mediation is impossible and without early advice the client will have absolutely no idea how to re-establish contact with his children. His options would be to try to find them through any means available to him which would not be helpful or to give up which would deny the children the right to have a relationship with their father. With early advice, the application for disclosure would be made by solicitors and once the children’s whereabouts were identified a tactical attempt to negotiate and encourage mediation…would take place. This particular client has some learning difficulties and to navigate the court system as a litigant in person would almost certainly be impossible and any attempts made would be hugely time consuming.”

The other case study states:

“I am advising a client. He has 4 children and has shared residence for all those and is very active in their lives. We have helped him in the past with residence issues with the benefit of legal aid…He is now facing an application by one of the Mothers to take his 14 year old daughter to New Zealand where the Mother has a 2 year work contract. If this is allowed, from seeing his daughter half the week he will be lucky to see her in the holidays and will not be able to afford air fares…In future this client will have to deal with this on his own. This will lead to him probably giving up on fighting the application.”

Even in cases in which domestic violence is not an issue, without legal aid there are real dangers that individuals, particularly those who have difficulty in being sufficiently articulate or confident to navigate the courts system, will lose access to their children.

The hon. Lady is making a very powerful case, but given that she has said that civil, family and social law are bearing the brunt of the proposed cuts, I wonder whether she will comment—or the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter), will comment later—on where her party would have made the cuts had it been re-elected. As she mentioned, cuts would have been made had Labour been re-elected. The cuts proposed are less than 20%. If criminal law is to be protected, where does she or the shadow Minister suggest that the Government make the cuts? The speed and manner of the cuts seem to be the main criticism. We would like to see more detail.

As I said, the previous Labour Government had already made cuts to the legal aid budget, which were highly controversial. Many hon. Members who are in this Chamber made fierce representations on that point. I have already said that there were areas, particularly very high-cost criminal cases, in which the Government intended to go further. Ministers were also examining ways in which the civil and social welfare budget could be protected within the global legal aid budget, because it was understood that in many cases, savings in that area would lead to a false economy. Therefore I will not be drawn into an argument about equivalence of cuts and into coming out with every figure, because I dispute the basis of what the hon. Lady has said.

One of my greatest concerns is about the proposed cuts in relation to education. The Government’s intention is to take education out of the scope of legal aid. Given the often unfulfilled statutory duty on local authorities to ensure that young people receive an education, that is bound to hit the most vulnerable the hardest.

I am indebted to Just for Kids Law, a specialist organisation in my constituency, for the information that it has provided and for its assistance with a number of cases that I have referred to it. Last year, Just for Kids Law took 34 cases, with two thirds having a satisfactory outcome. These are cases of children without a school place and cases in which there are serious disputes in relation to children who have or who require statements of special educational needs. Given that the latest figures for my borough show that we have 364 children without a school place at this point in the school year, the need for representation for parents is extremely clear.

I shall give a couple of examples of cases, from Just for Kids Law’s caseload, which would receive no representation in future.

“E…is a highly gifted boy who is on the autistic spectrum. His father was offered a job in New Zealand so the family emigrated and E…started Year 7 there. Regrettably there was no special educational needs provision for him and he was so severely bullied that, by August, his parents had withdrawn him from school and made arrangements for the family to return to the UK. They had kept in regular contact with their local authority, however, when they returned in January 2009, there was no place available...After six weeks at home with his mother he was provided with a Personal Tutor for two hours per week. His behaviour was rapidly deteriorating and he started self harming. He told JfK Law he…wanted to go to school like everyone else and didn’t want to end up”—

in a dead-end job. Just For Kids Law made representations to the local authority and, when that was unsuccessful, issued urgent judicial review proceedings. After two mediation meetings with the local authority lawyers, he was eventually offered a place at a specialist autistic centre that integrates into a mainstream school. Without representation at every stage, it is likely that that child would have ended up with no school place and no provision, with catastrophic consequences for him.

The second example states:

“R…was permanently excluded from school in 2006. He has special educational needs and had been receiving specialised support”

for his behavioural problems, which had been successfully managed in reception and year 1, but in year 2 his behaviour worsened. Instead of referring him for an assessment for a statement of special educational needs or asking for the local authority’s advice the school permanently excluded him. His mother felt that was because her relationship with the head teacher had broken down. Just For Kids Law advised the mother at the governing body appeal, which she lost.

“JfK Law then appealed to the Independent Appeals Panel…and made representations that it was not lawful to exclude a child because of the breakdown in relationship between a Head Teacher and the mother, the school should have dealt with the problem by way of a “managed move” to another school that could meet his needs….The IAP agreed with JfK Law’s representations”

and overturned the permanent exclusion, which is no longer on the child’s record. That is a case about a very vulnerable family.

We have referred to housing and homelessness. The Government intend to retain provision in cases of people at risk of imminent homelessness, but, perversely, they are taking debt and other areas of financial advice out of scope. Those issues are almost always the preliminary problems that lead to homelessness.

Brighton and Hove is expecting a reduction of 80% in legal aid cases—down to only 280 cases per year. Although we all agree that we should make some cuts, does the hon. Lady agree that we need to monitor that level of reduction carefully?

I absolutely agree. I am extremely concerned. In other areas of public policy, we are seeing reductions in housing benefit expenditure and entitlement, which are coming in next year. There is, apparently, a rise in homelessness. There are major changes in housing policy, some of which were announced yesterday, which will lead to homeless households being discharged into the private rented sector, with all the associated risks of that. Yet, at the same time, the representation and advice available to people at the most critical stage of their path through the housing system is being removed. I am sure that the consequences of those changes in policy and the reduction in legal aid representation will be catastrophic for highly vulnerable families, many of which include children with disabilities and special needs. I predict that the changes will explode the budgets associated with local authority responsibilities under the Children Act 2004, as many cases will be referred to local authorities. Once again, this is a false economy.

There are many other things that I would like to say, but I will conclude simply by referring back to the argument of the impact of the cuts on providers. Of course, we have to start from the point of view of the client. The client is the most important, not the provider. However, if a client cannot access a provider, if there is an advice desert and no one within 50 or 100 miles or a reasonable distance for people to afford to get to, then justice is denied to that person. If staff contracts are lost, money withdrawn from a law centre, firm or citizens advice bureau on the piecemeal basis indicated in the proposals, and services are removed—the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) gave a good example—at a time when local authorities are facing record cuts in expenditure, many such services will go under. They will collapse in an unplanned way. There will not be a coherent pattern of advice services, because no one has overall control of ensuring that that happens.

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and apologise for my late attendance; I had dreadful problems with my computer. I received an e-mail from Flintshire CAB, which is very worried about losing the equivalent of five posts—a total of £170,000. It deals with some of the most vulnerable people in our society, who are often the same people who end up coming to see Members of Parliament. It is worried that the cuts will devastate the area.

That is absolutely right. I shall now sit down to listen to examples from, possibly, both sides of the Chamber. I urge the Minister to ask his colleagues to think again about how the changes are being implemented. The dangers are that they will lead to advice deserts and reduced access to justice for many cases—500,000—involving the most vulnerable people. They will lead to the perverse consequence of greater expenditure in many other areas of public services and, because the providers will not be held to account efficiently by lawyers, worse public services. I hope that the Minister will hear not only what I have to say but what other Members have to say, and go back to the Department to ask for an urgent review of the Government’s proposals.

I understand and appreciate that there is some merit in the Government’s decision to simplify legal aid and that the costs in recent years have spiralled and become unsustainable, particularly at a time like this. Considering what the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) has said, however, I feel that the decision has not really been fully thought through. The impact to local legal services could be devastating. In my constituency, the changes will mean that only two legal firms can continue to provide vital, high-quality family law legal aid services—previously, it was nine. Those two firms will now be taking on the work that nine firms undertook formerly, so the effectiveness and speed with which sensitive family issues are dealt with will be compromised.

We will also lose expertise in what, from my perspective, is one of the most challenging areas of law—that which deals with divorce and child custody. From a legal aid perspective, people from disadvantaged backgrounds will be hardest hit, which will be a challenge in Eastbourne.

I recently met a constituent who was unable to find legal representation in Eastbourne, because, of the two remaining firms that would have been able to offer legal aid, one was representing her ex-husband and the other her son. Due to a possible conflict of interest, she had to look elsewhere, to either Rye or Brighton, which is a round trip in excess of 50 miles. That does not sound very far, but the constituent, whom I know quite well, is disabled and unable to travel by public transport. She would have had to travel by taxi; I do not need to tell anyone here that a taxi fare is not an easily affordable luxury for someone in receipt of disability living allowance.

As well as the threat to legal service provision in my constituency, I am profoundly concerned that the proposals include the removal of funding for large areas of specialist social welfare-related help and guidance. That is often delivered by local community-based charities, such as BHT Eastbourne Advice and the Eastbourne citizens advice bureau in my constituency. They complement that specialist help and guidance with a more general advice service provided by volunteers. There are such crucial service providers in every constituency. In Eastbourne, those charities risk losing in the region of £230,000 to £250,000 per annum of legal aid funding.

I hear the hon. Gentleman’s sympathetic comments, but what would he say to my constituents in the Bargoed area of the Rhymney valley, 375 of whom claim legal aid for welfare benefit issues and 450 of whom stand to lose access to legal aid for debt issues?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Although the overall legal aid budget has spiralled out of control, I have real concerns about the Government’s proposals—they are based on the previous Government’s proposals, which is one of the ironies—for changing legal aid. I do have concerns, which I why I am here this morning.

The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful case, and I agree with some of his points, but does he acknowledge that the previous Government reduced the cost of civil legal aid by 24% over 10 years? We have to disaggregate the civil and criminal cases and concentrate on where the Government’s cuts are having an effect—on the most vulnerable in our society.

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. That is a fair comment, and I certainly will not dispute the facts of what she says.

I was talking about the upwards of £250,000 that the two charities in Eastbourne stand to lose. They use that funding to support more than 1,500 of the town’s most vulnerable residents with complex debt, benefit and housing problems, many of which have been alluded to. I and many others believe that the social welfare help that the Government plan to reduce is very much preventive and enabling; it is focused not on generating unnecessary litigation, but on preventing crises by solving complex problems at an early stage.

Does the hon. Gentleman not also accept that people face clusters of problems? Even if people can still access some legal help, removing some categories of legal help altogether will inevitably mean that there will be areas of difficulty where people can no longer get the help that they need.

That is a fair point, and I look forward to hearing exactly how the Minister will respond.

I recognise that these are difficult economic times and that the Ministry of Justice faces incredibly difficult budgetary decisions. However, I am concerned that without a clear alternative for resourcing and supporting preventive advice in particular, the proposals will increase the demands not only on the crisis-related legal advice services that remain, but on other public services.

As I indicated, legal aid cuts have a particular impact on housing. Over the past few years, legal aid has funded BHT Eastbourne Advice’s handling of 800 to 900 specialist housing cases per year. That was reduced to 530 cases per year for the most recent three-year forward contract, which commenced on 15 November.

It is estimated that the current proposals could reduce housing advice capacity by 20%, which will have a very detrimental impact on advice provision in my constituency and many other towns, at a time when such advice will be in high demand following the implementation of the housing benefit reforms. I agree that those reforms are necessary, but they will have a knock-on effect.

Advice is effective in preventing homelessness, especially if it is given early. The proposals to limit legal aid to those in imminent threat of repossession flies in the face of all the evidence that early intervention and prevention create long-term savings, as well as averting hardship for constituents.

I urge the Minister to revisit this issue to see whether the remaining funds can be targeted differently to ensure that legal aid—particularly for civil and family law cases—is more extensively protected.

It is a pleasure to be under your chairpersonship, Mrs Riordan. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) on securing the debate.

When legal aid was first introduced in 1949, the late Arthur Skeffington said that the law at that time was like the Ritz, in that those who could afford to pay had access to it, while those who could not did not. Legal aid was introduced, and it is fundamental to giving everybody in this country access to justice.

When the Green Paper came out, paragraph 1.2 of the summary said:

“The Government strongly believes that access to justice is a hallmark of a civil society”,

which is great. The problem is the rest of the Green Paper; it starts well, but it is all downhill after that. We need to examine a number of issues relating to the Green Paper.

The background has to be that cuts were already being made in legal aid, and many of us in the Chamber who were in the previous Parliament were very concerned about that. Indeed, we raised those concerns consistently with Ministers, because the cuts were leaving the most marginalised, vulnerable people with no redress whatever through the legal system. That deeply concerns me.

The cuts have been accompanied by a series of ill-informed, unfair media attacks on the entire legal profession and the legal aid system, which have been led by the Daily Mail, the Daily Express and the Evening Standard. Those newspapers routinely print isolated and outrageous figures about payments to some barristers, while at no time looking at the reality of the number of legal aid firms that are paid so little that they can no longer afford to represent anybody and have gone out of business. In inner-urban areas such as the one that I represent, which is the eighth poorest part of the whole country, many people simply cannot get any representation whatever, because there is no legal aid lawyer to deal with them.

Let me quote from a letter dated 1 October 2010—many colleagues will have seen something similar at various times. It says:




Non practising as of Midnight on 30th September 2010”

It continues:

“We were unable to secure viable indemnity insurance despite our best efforts particularly in view of uncertainty surrounding the legal aid contracts and so it means Sheikh & Co cannot provide legal services any more.”

This was a busy local practice dealing with a whole range of issues, including housing, immigration and family and education matters, and its closure left thousands of people with no representation. Their files will be passed on through the appropriate body to another solicitor, but that solicitor may go under, and the files will then move on to somebody else and somebody else again. Along the way, they will be lost, which means that very poor and vulnerable people will be left without any representation whatever.

I am proud to represent my constituency in Parliament. I am also proud of Islington law centre, which does fantastic work. When I visited it a couple of weeks ago, the director told me that a

“10% cut across the board is being proposed”

in its Legal Services Commission contract funding and that

“we have been cut hard in both housing and employment, where, although we were ranked first in terms of our tender score, we have been given a much smaller contract from mid-November than we had previously”.

The director added that that will mean

“250 less employment clients per annum that we can help, and 185 less housing clients. I expect the total cut next year to be around £130,000,”

which is more than two full-time equivalent caseworkers. That is a busy law centre, which is doing its best. Such events could be replicated all over the country at hard-working law centres.

When the Minister replies, I hope that he will recognise the value of law centres and the need to give them support and funding.

I also hope that he will recognise that, without law centres and legal aid practices at solicitors, many of our most vulnerable constituents will simply go without any access to justice whatever.

Order. I intend to start the winding-up speeches at 10.40 am, and at least six other Members want to speak. If they can keep their remarks brief, I will get everybody in. I call Robert Buckland.

Actually, Mrs Riordan, I was giving way to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms). I was not concluding my contribution. If you want me to conclude, I suppose I must, but I would be grateful if you gave me just a bit more time.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and to you, Mrs Riordan.

I wanted to pick up my hon. Friend’s point about advice services. I wonder whether it struck him, as it struck me, that the Green Paper suggests that costly legal advice can be substituted with much less costly voluntary advice services. The problem is—and the author of the Green Paper does not seem to realise it—that most such voluntary services are themselves funded by legal aid, and that that funding will go if the proposals are implemented.

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, which is true. Legal aid funding goes through law centres, Citizens Advice and all kinds of other advice agencies, which will be cut. In any event, none of the advice services’ funding is ring-fenced in local authority terms. I have done a head-count audit of my borough, and there is probably less one-to-one advice available than there was 25 years ago. I suspect that colleagues could tell similar stories. We need fair access to justice.

The Law Society briefing for the debate is very good. It notes:

“The cuts in scope and eligibility for civil legal aid will mean that many fewer people will be able to bring cases to court”.

It continues by pointing out that

“solicitors will either find other areas of work or ‘cherry pick’ cases”.

We have many brilliant law students in this country—many brilliant young people who want to go into law and do their very best. They often end up, whether they want to or not, doing property and commercial law, because that is where the money can be made and where they can get work. They do not do legal aid because there is not enough money around to do it with. There are not enough companies doing legal aid work. So we have amazing levels of representation for well-off people, in commercial or corporate cases, but we do not have the same availability for criminal, housing, immigration or family cases.

There is a lot that I could say, but I take your earlier hint, Mrs Riordan—you do not want me to go on too long. It was very subtly put, if I may say so. I have two quick points that I want to make. The idea of separating family law cases so that legal aid will be given if violence is involved, but not if there is no violence, is utterly absurd. I am sure that we have all seen how families can implode under many pressures. The degeneration of a relationship into a battle and a court case can get very nasty. Mediation does not always work—of course we all want it to, but it does not always. That can degenerate into violence. If sensible, effective legal advice is available at a much earlier stage, much of that degeneration into something far worse can be prevented.

I am pleased that the Green Paper specifically excludes any cut in representation for asylum cases. I welcome that and pay tribute to the Minister for it. Those who face deportation in asylum cases, possibly with the prospect of death or torture on their return to where they have come from, deserve legal aid. I absolutely defend that, and I am sure—or at least hope—that every hon. Member in the Chamber would too.

However, in immigration cases, which are often very complicated, legal aid is limited; it is available for dealing with detention, but not for the case itself. A family who are put in detention—quite wrongly, in my view, if children are involved—can get legal aid to try to get out of detention, but not to deal with the burden of the case. That seems a non sequitur; either we support immigration cases or we do not. I hope that the Minister will recognise that the injustices surrounding that state of affairs, in particular with regard to applications under articles 6 and 8 of the European convention on human rights, are very important and that such cases deserve legal aid.

The late Sir Henry Hodge, who was a judge at the immigration appeal tribunal, constantly made references to the Legal Services Commission wanting sufficient resources to make representation available. An immigration appeal where there is no representation for the applicant, but there is representation for the Home Office, is unbelievably, blatantly and obviously unfair. It is not a credible way of doing things.

I urge the Minister to think again, seriously, about those aspects of the matter, and to remember the principle of access to justice for all. That will not be possible if the cuts go through.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) for truncating his remarks. I shall follow his example and be as brief as I can. I should declare an interest: I was a criminal legal aid barrister for nearly 20 years, and am still in receipt of some payments for work done before the election. However, my remarks today are centred on what other hon. Members have discussed in the context of the reduction of the ambit of civil legal aid: community legal service funding for work by a number of providers, including law centres. In Swindon, the Wiltshire law centre does excellent work and provides advice for people with debt, housing and welfare benefit problems. I shall not repeat the points that other hon. Members have made. They are right about the important saving that can be made by giving early advice and help to people on welfare benefits. My remarks are focused on the detail of the helpful table towards the back of the Green Paper.

I want to preface my remarks about the Green Paper by saying that I hope it will be the last such consultation for a considerable time. The Lord Chancellor was right to note with some despair that there have been more than 30 consultations about legal aid since 2006. It led to practitioners, including me, getting our heads in a spin, when it seemed that almost month by month the previous Government—or the Legal Services Commission, to be more precise, because that was of course an arm’s length body, though it is now to come back into the Ministry of Justice—issued consultations on legal aid. We do not want permanent revolution. That has caused providers a lot of problems, and has led to some of the uncertainty about sources of work that the hon. Member for Islington North raised. The table at the back of the Green Paper is helpful, but in some cases it is unclear. I hope that the Government will take on board what is said today, and the written evidence that will be submitted by 14 February.

I want first to discuss family legal aid and what is called the domestic violence test. There is no unified definition of what is meant by “domestic violence”. Some might say that they know it when they see it, but questions arise about what the term means. Does it just mean physical violence where there is injury? I submit that that would be far too narrow a test. Does it just involve violence between spouses or partners, or does it include violence against children of the family, or in their presence? All those questions need to be answered. I have dealt with domestic violence cases for many years, and they take many forms. It is not just a question of physical violence. Often there is a course of conduct involving a mental process and psychological damage to a partner. I should like clarity about the meaning of the term “domestic violence” by the time the White Paper is issued.

To deal briefly with education, I noted with concern the suggestion that all education cases would be taken out of scope. We must not ignore the fact that soon the Department for Education will produce its own Green Paper on special educational needs. I know that Ministers intend to look carefully at reform of the current system of tribunals, and the adversarial system that is so often a barrier to parents and children with special educational needs. That is welcome news, and I hope that the Green Paper will contain a commitment to radical reform of the system, so that parents do not feel they must always fight for their children’s rights with respect to special educational needs. However, if that is not what happens, and the Government do not intend to reform the system for SEN provision, legal representation should not be taken out of scope—particularly at the upper tier tribunal level, where there is a lot of law and there are a lot of lawyers; that is a daunting prospect for any parent of a child with SEN.

The matter of clinical negligence in this context is often overlooked. There will be some cases of great complexity, such as where several different causes have led to the condition of the litigant—who will often be very vulnerable and ill, even at the time of litigation. That requires a large amount of work and costly medical expert evidence. It would be a brave set of solicitors that took on cases of such complexity on a no win, no fee basis. I ask that at the margins that aspect of the Green Paper be looked at carefully.

I end on this note: a lot has been said about legal help and representation for debt matters where someone’s home is at immediate risk. I simply ask, what does that mean? Does it mean immediate risk when possession proceedings have been commenced? Does it mean immediate risk at an earlier stage, when perhaps the householder has had a set of letters relating to unpaid debt and is, therefore, greatly concerned? There are a lot of words used, but frankly not carefully enough. I accept that this is Green Paper stage, but I ask for much more clarity when it comes to assessing the precise ambit of scope. As a former member of a funding review committee for the Legal Services Commission, I can say that these criteria are applied very carefully indeed. They have to be right.

Often for a practitioner, such as those who work in the Wiltshire law centre, a case will present itself, which at first blush will appear to be one type of problem, but will transmogrify into another, or a whole different range of problems. Therefore, questions of scope are not just academic; they are very important for solicitors and practitioners when assessing whether cases will come within or without the scope of legal aid. I urge the Minister to take on board hon. Members’ comments today, and to ask his colleagues to look carefully at the ambit of these proposals and to refine them in a way that helps not only litigators and solicitors, but, most important, those in greatest need.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) on securing this important debate. The changes and cuts proposed in the Government’s legal aid Green Paper are of great concern across the country, as we have heard this morning, but in particular in areas such as Wolverhampton, where there are high levels of deprivation. The only recourse to justice for people who are deprived and vulnerable is through the legal aid budget.

I would like to make two brief points. First, the legal aid system was instigated by the post-war Labour Government at a time of national deficit, and hot on the heels of setting up the NHS. The legal aid system has become a pillar of the welfare state. If these Green Paper proposals go forward, that pillar will be put at risk. We should not forget that before 1949 the only people able to access justice in our country were those who could afford it. I do not want to go back to that.

Secondly, I want to put on record my tremendous respect for the professionalism and work of citizens advice bureaux up and down the country, but in particular in Wolverhampton. Wolverhampton CAB deals with 14,000 inquiries every year, which is astonishing. Of those, 1,700 are legal aid inquiries. It is widely recognised by others in the region that Wolverhampton CAB is a beacon of best practice. Last year, it won the outstanding black country business of the year award, voted for by the black country chamber of commerce, for doubling its work load with the same resources.

As in Wolverhampton, in Swansea the CAB does a marvellous job. Its contract for legal aid for debt and welfare was terminated on 14 November and since then no one has had that contract. There has been a signal that it might get it again. Is it not appalling that there should be a hole in the budget flow, a change of provider and great uncertainty among very vulnerable groups? Does my hon. Friend share my concern about financial provision and continuity for the future for the CAB?

I could not have put it better myself. There are great concerns in the CAB in Wolverhampton. It is facing a cut not only in legal aid, but in the financial inclusion fund, to which I will refer briefly later.

I want to come on to the issue of the day. I know a lot of hon. Members are concerned about the cost of the legal aid budget. Let us not forget that the starting point for our debate today, as recognised in the Government’s Green Paper, is that half a million people in our country get help from the legal aid budget. That is a sign of a civilised country; it is something to be proud of, not to be attacked or ashamed of. Although we obviously have to look at the costs, I remind colleagues of my earlier point: the previous Government were looking at these issues. In the past 10 years, there was a reduction in real terms in civil legal aid of 24%. Capping the fees paid to solicitors and barristers was also being considered, as well as getting better value for money for the taxpayer by looking at how contracts were awarded and seeking economies of scale. That sort of rationalisation is a far cry from removing wholesale entire categories of legal aid from the budget. For example, family law, which other hon. Members have mentioned, welfare benefits, debt, housing and education.

I want to refer specifically to withdrawing legal aid in cases of welfare benefits. Around 80% of the social welfare legal aid cases dealt with by the CAB record positive outcomes for the individual involved. That goes to show that there are issues there. When the Government are bringing forward deep and far-reaching welfare reforms—I do not believe that they should—it is precisely the wrong time to be taking this area completely out of the scope of legal aid.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the poor quality of decision making in the social security system also creates an increased need for legal aid? We all naturally hope that that level of decision making can be improved, and I hope that the Government will give that attention. In the meantime, it is important for people to have that protection, particularly when we look at the high rate of successful appeals against decisions on employment and support allowance.

I could not agree more. Members of all parties know that such examples come up time and again in their surgeries. The other day someone came to my surgery who had been overpaid benefits and now has a massive sum to pay back, though the matter was not their fault. The state has responsibility to such people.

Is my hon. Friend as shocked as I was to hear from Nottingham law centre that 42% of the clients’ problems it helps to solve are caused by administrative or procedural errors by Departments or local authorities? Does she share my concern that many of those constituents who had help have poor levels of education and that some struggle with literacy? Without assistance from a law centre, they will not be able to resolve those problems.

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. That goes to the heart of the argument. These cuts will affect the most vulnerable in our society; yet another example of Government cuts hitting the poorest hardest.

I want to refer to taking debt out of the legal aid budget. The Government have recognised in the Green Paper that many of the people who are mired in debt are ill or disabled, and that debt often afflicts the most vulnerable in society. Yet they are still proceeding to introduce proposals and measures that will deny those people access to legal advice and representation.

I will briefly mention something I raised in the House last week. I asked the Leader of the House what was going to happen to the financial inclusion fund, which is a great source of help for people with debt problems. In Wolverhampton, hundreds of people are helped every year by this fund. I was given wise counsel by the Leader of the House that I should raise the issue this morning. He was sure that the Minister would give me an answer. I know that the matter is being administered by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Treasury, but I urge the Minister to give clarity on whether the fund is to go ahead beyond March. Again, the uncertainty that my hon. Friends have raised applies and it is not helpful.

I do not wish to be too long because I know that other colleagues want to get in. I want to add that, apart from failing the test of social justice, these proposals also fail on a cost-benefit analysis.

My hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North eloquently explained that the cuts will be a false economy in many areas. The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux published a business case for legal aid this year. It said that for every pound of legal aid spent on housing advice, the state saves £2.34, and for every pound spent on debt advice, the state saves £2.98. It also stated that on welfare benefit advice, the state saves £8.80, and that on employment advice, it could save £7.13.

Have the Government looked properly at the savings that early intervention makes possible? Have they done a proper cost-benefit analysis of the costs of their proposals for public services down the line? I fear that this is short-sighted, and that the Government are seeking short-term savings that will have significant costs later. Other Members have made the same point.

The other thing that worries me is that the Government say in the Green Paper that other alternatives will be available. The document then outlines what those alternatives might be. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North has already mentioned this, but it is telling: NACAB says that the overwhelming majority of its client group will not be able to access the alternatives identified in the Green Paper.

Does my hon. Friend agree that although one alternative, the expansion of telephone advice, is welcome—I agree that not enough telephone information available—it is not suitable for the most vulnerable, particularly those in debt, as many who use mobile phones cut themselves off in order to save money?

I could not agree more. There is no substitute for face-to-face counselling and advice. As my hon. Friend rightly states, the cuts mean that the only recourse for vulnerable people will be some sort of telephone system, but they may not be comfortable with it and might not be able to afford it.

The proposals in the Green Paper will make the poor poorer and the most vulnerable more vulnerable. The cuts should fall elsewhere. There are other ways to reform the legal aid budget, and the Government should think again.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) for initiating this incredibly important debate, which cuts to the heart of the kind of society that we want to live in. It is important for the House to record that we do not want to go back to the time when this work was being done by volunteers. We talk about access to justice, but at its heart is social justice and the kind of society that we seek. I believe that we should live in a society where the most vulnerable have access to justice.

I speak as a former Minister with responsibility for legal aid. If we go back to the earlier part of the last decade, before the 30 consultations that we heard of, I was considering fixed fees and new ways of contracting, but that is a long, long way from the Green Paper.

I remind the House of what the Prime Minister said in the run-up to the election about family policies. He said that he wanted to make Britain the most family-friendly country in Europe. Only a few days ago, he said:

“The seeds of so many problems, as well as success stories, are sown in the early years. Family is where people learn to be good citizens, to take responsibility, to live in harmony with others. Families are the building blocks of a strong, cohesive society.”

He cannot make such pronouncements and then run a coach and horses through family life in constituencies throughout the country.

The services that family practitioners provide for vulnerable families facing breakdown and for people having to decide who should have contact and how it is to be arranged, are essential in modern society. If we take that advice away, except in cases of domestic violence, we will see chaos. We will see people presenting at court as litigants in person. When those cases come to the county court, people will not be receiving advice from the court clerks or the judges; they will simply get a form to fill in. They will be on their own. What will happen? Families, but mostly women, will not get that advice. I ask the Minister to think hard about whether that is the sort of family that we want, and whether that is consistent with an undertaking to put families at the centre of British life.

I will not give way, as there is so little time.

It cannot be right that people will get a practitioner only if they already have an injunction. Are we really saying that a woman should pitch up to court on her own if she is concerned about her children having contact with her husband, who may be violent? Is it right that she should have to make her way on her own, in such vulnerable contexts, without access to legal advice? Are we really saying that when families are in dispute—perhaps one parent wants to take a child abroad—the parent fighting that decision should have to find access to justice on their own and without sufficient funds?

Are we saying—I ask as the Member of Parliament in whose constituency the baby P case occurred—to the many thousands of families affected by care proceedings that ultimately end in adoption, which changes the legal nature of the child’s relationship with its parents, that they cannot have legal aid to fight it or challenge it in court if they are concerned about losing their children? That cannot be right. That is not the kind of society that we want.

The policy is not consistent with the big society. Yesterday we saw the announcement of cuts of up to 40% in local government budgets. That will decimate much of the voluntary sector that the Ministry of Justice says people should rely upon. How can that be part of the big society? What will happen with welfare benefit cuts, given that many of the groups that support the most vulnerable—those with mental health problems, immigrants and those who have been without work for a considerable time—will find support withdrawn at this time of profound change? How can that be right?

In relation to immigration, the Churches consistently remind the state about its responsibility. We have pared back so much on legal advice about immigration and asylum matters that lawyers specialising in this area now help the system; they help constituents provide information to the bureaucracy—to the court system—that is easy to understand, which makes justice quicker. This Green Paper will drive those people underground; it will drive them into ghettos where they cannot be seen or found, as they will not have the right documents. That is the sort of thing that we see in other parts of continental Europe. We do not want that in this country.

The Green Paper is particularly worrying. It is possible to pass it off as unimportant, but we cannot call ourselves a civilised country unless we provide adequate legal aid. The previous Government stabilised legal aid. In that context, I contend that enough is enough. Now is the time to stand up and say what civilised really means. It is certainly not the time to walk alongside hypocrisy by suggesting that we can support families, that we can have a big society, that we can be fair in a civilised democracy and then run a coach and horses through the only access to justice that vulnerable people need.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mrs Riordan, and to be opposite the Solicitor-General. It has been a privilege to listen to so many well-informed speakers from both sides. Although it invidious to pick out people, I will do so by saying that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and the hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) showed their decades of experience in dealing with such matters. I hope that the Minister will listen to them and to other contributions that are made during the consultation process, and realise that mistakes have been made in the proposals to cut legal aid.

I pay tribute, too, to my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck), who is standing down as chair of the all-party group on legal aid, for her unrivalled record in pursuing such matters and for securing the debate today. Like her, I will mention my not-for-profit agencies. For the past 20 years, I have had the pleasure of serving on the management committee of Hammersmith and Fulham community law centre, which does a fantastic job. Threshold housing advice and the Shepherds Bush advice centre were also excellent but were closed this year because of the withdrawal of local authority funding. The law centre, too, has lost all its local authority funding and is therefore under threat. I am talking about a pattern that is all too familiar.

The practitioners of legal aid, many of whom are here today, will be among the most astute and trenchant critics of all Governments when it comes to supporting the service. Even they would concede that Labour Governments, over the 60 years since the service was introduced, have—perhaps by taking two steps forward and one step back at times—increased the scope and eligibility of legal aid. Having said that, and, to save the legs of any Members on the Government Benches who want to stand up and read the Whips’ briefing about what we would cut, I shall add, “Yes, we were in a period of retrenchment and yes, there would have been cuts.”

I will not give way because there is only a short time left. There would have been cuts under a Labour Government. In some respects, we would have made cuts to private family law, although we should look again at the definition of domestic violence, as the hon. Member for South Swindon said. We would, I think, have taken a much more forensic look at criminal legal aid, which has just been brushed over. However, we would not have made cuts to social welfare legal aid. I pay tribute here to Lord Bach who, over a period of years as Minister, supported, defended and spoke out for social welfare law, and, as a Government, we did a very good job in protecting it and we would have gone on protecting it. Given the short time that we have to debate this subject, I shall devote my remaining comments to that area and follow the lead given by Members speaking today.

The briefing from the citizens advice bureau states that

“proposals to exclude most social welfare law issues from scope will mean over half a million fewer people getting help every year”.

That is the first statistic. What types of people are we talking about? Many examples of them have been cited this morning, including parents going to special educational needs tribunals; tenants facing problems of harassment or disrepair; disabled people whose welfare benefits have been cut; and people who have been unfairly dismissed. In the vision section—I am sure that no irony was intended—of the business plan for the Department, it says the aim of the programmes is to have a legal aid system

“that supports those at greatest risk, not those who are most litigious.”

Rather than being the “most litigious”, I see such people as being the most vulnerable in society.

When the Lord Chancellor made his statement to the House on 15 November, he talked about the back-to-basics principle of the Green Paper. This is very basic indeed. A truer account was given in the Sunday Telegraph the day before—if one wants the fullest account of Government policy, one should always look in the papers the day before the statement is made to the House. The Sunday Telegraph, which is no great friend of legal aid, said:

“Legal Aid for civil cases will all but disappear.”

I do not think that that is an exaggeration. There are to be cuts of 23% in the Ministry of Justice, which is one of the highest cuts of any Department, and a cut of a third in the civil legal aid budget and a 42% projected fall in the income of legal aid practitioners. The impact assessment that goes with the Green Paper says that there will be a cut of up to 92% in the legal aid funding for the not-for-profit sector.

How can the Minister defend, or explain, cuts of that order, which effectively wipe out the not-for-profit sector? Effectively, there will be a 15% cut in the CAB’s funding. For law centres, there could be a cut of up to 50%. Furthermore, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) pointed out, the financial inclusion fund faces an uncertain future. What is the future of that fund in the new financial year, because it alone provides 10% of CAB funding? Moreover, it was praised by the National Audit Office very recently as providing good value for money and a high-quality service.

I do not have time to go through each area of practice. I am very grateful—and I am sure that the Minister is—for the briefings that have been provided by Shelter on housing, the Special Educational Consortium and many others because they highlight the effect that these cuts will have on issues such as disrepair, allocations and the challenging of rogue landlords. The SEC’s briefing gets rid of the idea that it is a litigious organisation or that it is intent on making mischief and going to court for no reason. It states that

“most parents win their appeals (82%) once they reach the Tribunal itself, and in 30% of registered appeals the local authority concedes before the case reaches Tribunal stage.”

That is very much the case as regards clinical negligence as well. We must look at the defendants in many of these cases and consider why they are fighting them. A highly respected practice of clinical negligence solicitors told me that once legal aid is withdrawn, it will not be economic for it to take cases in which damages will be less than £100,000.

In the few moments that I have left, let me run through a few of the practical problems that the Government have not addressed when they put forward their glib response to making cuts in this area of civil legal aid. Some 10 problems have occurred to me over the course of 10 minutes. Will other agencies pick up the cases that will no longer be covered by legal aid? The Government say that the Child Poverty Action Group, Age UK, Shelter and the Disability Alliance will, but have they been approached and what have they said in response? We have been told about other funding streams. I began my remarks by talking about what had happened in my own constituency and that picture is repeated all over the country. Other funding streams have already been cut. Law centres are surviving on funding from the Legal Services Commission, because local authority funding has already been cut.

Several Members have explained that such matters are complex and often inter-related. A debt problem often arises because there has been a benefit or employment problem. Tackling one but not the other is not an option. What about the economic viability of the not-for-profit sector? Is it feasible for the Government to make swingeing cuts but cherrypick the parts that will remain? I do not believe that it is, or that many law centres or private firms will survive under such a situation.

The issues of self-representation have been raised by Ministers in regard to this matter. In response to a parliamentary question from my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham), the Minister with responsibility for legal aid said:

“In most cases individuals will be able to”—

this is talking about welfare benefits—

“prepare their appeal to the First-Tier (Social Security and Child Support) Tribunal without formal legal assistance.”—[Official Report, 22 November 2010; Vol. 519, c. 115W.]

I am afraid that the Government are living in cloud cuckoo land, and their own figures do not support that claim. Some 40% of cases going to incapacity benefit appeals are successful with no representation and 67% are successful with representation. One of the solicitors firms that briefed us in preparation for this debate said that it had an 82% success rate in challenging employment support allowance cases, as against a national average of 40% where there is no representations.

The gateway has been mentioned. There is nothing wrong with telephone advice, but it cannot take the place of advice that is provided in person. With telephone advice, documents cannot be shown and people who have learning or language difficulties simply cannot use the telephone for that service.

Vulnerable people are not considered in this Green Paper. Unlike in the Bradley report in 2009, which dealt with people with learning difficulties and mental health difficulties in the criminal law system, no regard seems to have been given to those people in the Green Paper. Little regard has been given to the equality impact assessment, as demonstrated by the figures given by my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North. The eligibility criteria are so restrictive that very few people will get any access to free advice in this sector at all. The cost issues have also been raised, including the fact that this change is, in effect, a false economy that will cost more in the long run than it saves.

Another point that has not been raised yet is the fact that courts and tribunals will be clogged by litigants appearing in person and legal practitioners—the Solicitor-General was a legal practitioner for many more years than I was—will realise that this change will be a nightmare for the judicial and court system.

Those are only a few of the issues that need to be raised. I hope that the Solicitor-General can respond to many of those points and if he cannot do so, I hope that he will write to my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North and to other Members who have taken part in this debate.

This is only the beginning of the debate on legal aid; the debate will continue until the end of the consultation period, in the first instance. However, I hope that the Government realise that there are serious issues that have not been properly addressed in the Green Paper and they need to be addressed if we are to have a continuing civil legal aid system in this country.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) on introducing this most important subject to Westminster Hall this morning. As the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) has said, she is the founder and chair of the all-party group on legal aid and I am sorry to hear that she is stepping down from being chair of that group. However, I hope that she will continue to take a close interest in this area of public policy.

I am speaking in the absence of the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), but I think that it is fair to say that legal aid is an acutely difficult area of public policy. Everyone who has spoken today—those who have spoken directly and those, such as my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), who have intervened—approached the debate with no sense of political malice.

I think that in all our constituencies we find areas where there is a huge need for legal assistance; both legal advice and legal representation. My reply to this debate will be incomplete and will not come with the knowledge that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State would have brought to it, since I have taken on this—I was going to say “case”—reply for the Government from another Department, which is normally a rather non-speaking Department.

Nevertheless, I hope that hon. Members will understand that we are at the very beginning of the consultation process, which will end in February, as the hon. Member for Hammersmith said. So I urge all those who have spoken in the debate and all those who have listened to it to participate in the consultation process. I also urge all those who have contacts with others outside Westminster Hall to encourage them to participate in the process, too. It is a deliberately lengthy consultation process, so that the Government can receive the benefit of the advice and the experience of those who know a great deal more about the matter than I do, and who provide advice and assistance.

The hon. Member for Westminster North and many other Members have today praised—quite properly and justly—the work of their citizens advice bureaux and not-for-profit advice providers in their constituencies. One that does not have to represent a constituency such as those of the hon. Lady or that of the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) that, on the face of it, is challenged economically and socially to know the importance of those providers. One can represent a constituency such as mine that, on the face of it, appears to be prosperous but that has pockets of deprivation and great need for social welfare.

I would like to associate myself with many of the comments that have been made, especially those of my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland). However, one particular issue that concerns me as the MP for a very rural constituency is the real possibility that we will end up with the hinterland of my constituency of Aberconwy not having any legal aid representation whatsoever, with people having to make round trips of 40, 50 or 60 miles to access support. Will my concern be addressed by the Ministry of Justice?

I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon, will ensure that the Ministry of Justice addresses those points and I am certain that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) will want to participate in the consultation process.

Another point that occurred to me as I listened to the debate is that none of the arguments that I heard this morning is new. Indeed, I was making some of them myself between 1997 and 1999 as the Opposition spokesperson for the Lord Chancellor’s Department, when Geoff Hoon was the junior Minister dealing with this area of public policy. He was introducing proposals that turned into the so-called Access to Justice Act 1999. At the time, I suggested to him that those proposals would have had Attlee spinning in his grave.

However, to be in government is to have to make decisions and choices. The main factor that we have to address at the moment is the economic difficulties that the national budget faces. Every day, we are paying £120 million in interest payments alone. Would it not be better if we could spend that money on legal advice and representation? However, we have to make choices and I do not think that the hon. Member for Westminster North ducked that issue. In essence, she said that she accepts that choices have to be made, and that reductions in public expenditure have to be made. It is the pace with which and the areas where the cuts are made that she finds controversial.

The Solicitor-General is right to praise the work of citizens advice bureaux. However, the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux says that at the moment, a quarter of its funding nationally comes from legal aid. That funding will be entirely lost if these proposals go through unamended. Are the Government looking at an alternative way of funding welfare advice services across the country?

I want to make two points. First—yes, of course the Government are doing so, and that is the point of the consultation. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will participate in that consultation. Secondly, citizens advice bureaux are funded not just by central Government, but by other funding streams. Some are funded by as many as 15 funding streams.

That is not a complete answer to the right hon. Gentleman’s question, but I will throw back to him, as a former Treasury Minister, a question: where do we find the money at a time when we are spending £120 million a day on interest alone? We have to make difficult choices.

I accept that none of the answers that the Government come up with during this period will provide anybody with complete satisfaction. Nobody will leave this debate and go home for Christmas dancing in the streets about what I have said. However, we have to be realistic and face the hard choices that the previous Government have left us.

I thank the Solicitor-General for giving way. I was in error in my introduction to the debate in not welcoming him, given that he has graciously stepped in to cover the Minister whose area of responsibility legal aid is, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly).

I would just like to ask the Solicitor-General to ensure, when he passes the message about this debate on to the Under-Secretary that he says that I would like an answer to one of the questions that I posed. The assumption underlying the Green Paper is that there is some mythical capacity in the voluntary and pro bono sector to deal with the areas of service where legal aid will be withdrawn. If we accept that there are cuts that will have a major impact on services, does the Solicitor-General agree that we have to be honest about the implications of those cuts and not effectively massage them away by saying that, somehow, somebody mythical will pick all this up? What estimate have the Government made of that capacity?

The Government have commissioned an impact assessment, which I believe was published at the same time as the Green Paper. However, let me do a deal with the hon. Lady. First, of course I accept that we are facing difficult choices and I do not shrink from them. Secondly, however, does she accept my point that not every problem in life that our constituents face and that we encounter as constituency MPs has to be dealt with by a lawyer? Not every problem—be it debt, housing, family-related or some other area of dispute—has to be tackled by a lawyer. We need to refocus our attention to find solutions.

I do not shrink from saying that this is a difficult area, or from saying that sometimes the state will have to provide legal assistance. However, we have to narrow the scope or ambit of the taxpayers’ responsibility for providing legal advice and legal representation. That does not mean that others in other parts of the community cannot come forward and provide the assistance that, as has been so clearly indicated by other Members, is so desperately needed.

I am sorry that this type of debate really requires rather longer time than we have had today. Nevertheless, I hope that the hon. Lady will take the debate outside into the wider community, so that the Government can have the benefit of hearing her views and those of her colleagues between now and next February.

Intensive Dairy Farming

I am very grateful to have been granted this important debate on an issue that has not thus far spent too much time in the headlines, but which is fundamental to the way of life of many of my constituents. Today’s attendance demonstrates the great interest that the farming community and people who live in rural Britain have in the subject. It is a great pleasure and an added bonus, Mrs Riordan, that the debate should come under your chairmanship; that makes this, my first Westminster Hall debate, a privilege rather than the ordeal that it might otherwise have been.

I shall begin in perhaps something of an odd place, by recording what the debate is not about. It is not about—at least, not specifically about—the super-dairy that developers wish to land in Nocton in my constituency, in close proximity to a number of other villages: Branston, Dunston, Potterhanworth and Metheringham, to name but four. Now that the planning application has been validated, that issue will be properly considered in due course by North Kesteven district council. Nor is the debate about the planning process itself, at least not at this stage. Planning matters are rightly devolved to local government, where they are best dealt with, and this Government have made it clear that that arrangement will continue and be extended, which is to be welcomed.

What the debate is about—and I am pleased that Members have, for the first time, the opportunity properly to consider the issues surrounding proposals such as the one for Nocton—is the question of how we should go about producing what has been one of the staples of a balanced diet since mankind began to farm animals for his own use. It is also a debate about what is left, and about what should be the future of the British dairy industry after the 13 years of poverty for dairy farmers and their families under the previous Government. I hope that the Minister is now able to tell us that that is being brought to an end.

The simple fact of the matter, and indeed the starting point for any debate about the future of the dairy industry, is that dairy farming in this country has been in crisis for well over a decade. It has been in crisis not merely because central Government previously showed no real interest in British farming, but because of the power of the supermarkets and the other bulk purchasers to drive down prices, which they have done remorselessly and single-mindedly for far too long, without having their wings clipped.

I know that the Minister intends to do something about that. The power of the supermarkets and the large purchasers might be good for consumers in the short term, but it has not been good for farmers—nor, I suspect, is it beneficial for producers or consumers in the long term. It has driven down the price of commodities, including milk, to levels where it has become difficult, if not impossible, for British farmers to make a living or compete with producers across the world.

Those producers—and, most importantly, comparable farmers in other European Union countries—have a lower cost base than their British counterparts, principally because they are unaffected by the gold-plating of the plethora of red tape emanating from Brussels that has stymied the farming industry in this country.

To a large extent, that is an issue for another day and possibly even for another place, but it is not going away and it lies, in one sense, at the heart of this debate. It provides the reason why dairy farmers in particular have been forced to the brink, some of them into insolvency. It also provides the reason for why we are now seeing the first proposals for the sort of dairy farming industry that I know fills many ordinary people and many traditional dairy farmers with horror. Just at the moment when the British farmer is producing the food that the British consumer wishes to buy, in the way the consumer wants it, a recession and continued pressure on prices are forcing the dairy farming community to consider production mechanisms that give rise to grave concerns for animal welfare, local communities and the environment more generally.

It is often said by people in towns who have no real knowledge of how we live in rural Britain, that farmers do not care about the environment or about their animals. That argument is as wrong as it is offensive. In my experience, farmers care more about the environment and their animals than any other section of society does, but they have families to support, which is why in any debate about how we are going to produce our food and our milk in the 21st century, we need to recognise that whatever measures are introduced and whatever decisions are taken, farmers have to be paid a proper price for the food they produce.

If that were already happening with the dairy industry, we would not be having this debate today. If just a few extra pence were paid by consumers for the milk that graces our breakfast tables and tops our interminable mugs of tea, the British dairy industry would not need to consider undergoing the form of fundamental change that proposals such as those for the super-dairy at Nocton involve.

I hope that the Members who have come to today’s debate will join me in the Chamber on 12 January when I seek the House’s permission to introduce a Bill on the super-dairies and the issue of whether farmers receive a fair price for their milk. Those two issues are indisputably and irrevocably intertwined.

My particular concern is that the opening of intensive dairy farming units across the United Kingdom would inevitably drive more small dairy farmers out of the market. The cows that they keep, with which every schoolchild in this country is familiar from an early age, would effectively be replaced by extraordinarily high-yield animals, bred and milked in an intensive setting and with statistically higher occurrences of welfare problems. It is absolutely clear that the public would not support that if they knew about it and if they turned their mind to the question of how they wished their milk to be produced.

The Minister will know that a recent Ipsos MORI poll showed that 61% of the British public would not knowingly buy milk from mega-dairies. That is undoubtedly why many supermarkets have publicly expressed negative views about milk produced in that way, and have indicated that there is, as far as they are concerned, no market for milk produced in super-dairies.

What, one is driven to ask rhetorically, is the point of these intensive dairy farming operations? What is the point of British dairy farming going in that direction? If the British public and the British supermarkets are not going to buy the milk, it will have to go overseas, with all the associated implications for carbon miles. I have to ask, perhaps rhetorically, whether that is the way forward or whether, as I venture to suggest and as I ask the Minister to accept, it is simply better to pay a little more for the milk we need in this country and ensure that we are self-sufficient for all our dairy requirements from our existing farms.

One of the problems is not that the farmers sell directly to supermarkets, but that they sell to intermediaries who may then sell to supermarkets.

My hon. Friend is correct. The real point is that the price pressure that has come down from the supermarkets, whether through intermediaries or those responsible for purchasing milk production, has been so great that many farmers have been driven out of business, and those who remain in business, however efficient they are, are effectively driven to a point where the costs of production are almost equal—and sometimes greater than—the price that they are being paid for their milk.

The Government will have to grapple with that problem in a way that the previous Government did not. I venture to suggest that we would not be having this debate if we paid our dairy farmers a proper price for their milk, because there would be no need to consider super-dairies.

I have already made it clear that every farmer I have met is concerned more for the welfare of his or her stock than is generally accepted, yet the proposals for mega-dairies undoubtedly give rise to legitimate concerns about the welfare of farm animals. Although the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Minister, in his previous utterances, are correct to say that the most significant influence on welfare is the stock keeper, rather than the system, that statement depends on the existing status quo and, with regard to the proposals for Nocton and other mega-dairies, might not take into account potential future developments in the industry.

Future intensive dairy farmers, if we are to go down that route, will have to comply with existing welfare legislation for their animals, a point that I look forward to hearing the Minister confirm. Those animals will need space to move around in and adequate bedding, and all the other regulations for the existing dairy industry will have to be complied with. If we are to go down that route, there is no reason to believe that farmers would not treat their herds as well as the vast majority of small dairy farmers currently treat their own. It would not be in their interests to mistreat their animals, and I do not suppose that that would happen. However, it is equally clear that very large dairies require better monitoring, and different—much more stringent—animal welfare guidelines, and I hope to hear the Minister confirm that.

The point is that although poor welfare can occur in both intensive and less intensive systems, the evidence available from the United States and various other jurisdictions plainly shows that intensive systems are more predisposed to increasing the risk of poor animal welfare. Intensive milk production models are driven almost exclusively by volume; they demand high yields from cows to cover their inherently high set-up and operating costs. The relentless pursuit of more and more litres of milk to reduce the unit costs of production can take its toll on health and welfare, which is what concerns so many people. The toll on health and welfare can reduce the longevity of animals and place pressure and stress on them.

Experience from overseas, as I have indicated, is not promising. The driving up of milk yields through intensive selection has come at the well-documented expense of animal welfare, so the real fear is that mega-dairies in this country would do nothing to address the lameness, infertility and other health problems that already affect too large a proportion of Britain’s existing dairy herd.

However well cows are kept while indoors, it seems to many to be wholly unnatural to keep them inside all year round, and I understand those fears, although it is fair to say that that happens in some colder parts of continental Europe. Not allowing cows outside to graze during the grazing season seems to many to savour of battery farming, someone that this country set its face against a long time ago.

We must not ignore the fact that a lack of access to pasture concerns many people and is often responsible for animal health problems, which I do not exaggerate, as I am sure the Minister will accept. A review carried out by the European Food Safety Authority in 2009 concluded that zero-grazing systems give rise to a higher incidence of various health problems in animals and reduce their capacity to engage in normal social interactions. That concerns many farmers and many consumers when they turn their minds to the question.

Dairy farming has been part of this country’s agricultural economy for many hundreds of years and is part of our rural heritage, as it is in my constituency. That is partly why the reduction in the number of British dairy farmers is of such concern to so many of us. The numbers are frightening: in 2000 there were 23,286 registered dairy production holdings in England and Wales, but today the number is 11,233.

Many of those farmers have gone out of business for reasons to which I have already alluded—they cannot get a good price for their milk and too often have to sell at below the cost of production. I accept that intensive dairy farms could provide economies of scale and allow for greater mechanisation, which would start to reduce those trends, but I hope that the Minister will accept that that must naturally come at the expense of smaller operations.

To put it another way, although such economies of scale are great for the owners of intensive dairy farms, they sound a further death knell for many smaller producers. Although many people say that they would prefer to purchase their milk from smaller producers, there is, as the Minister knows, no requirement to label the origin of milk, a fact that supermarkets know well and wish to see continue.

On my hon. and learned Friend’s previous point, is he aware that a number of auctioneers across the UK are simply not taking bookings to sell milking cows until well into next year because there is such a backlog of farmers going out of business and trying to sell their dairy cows?

I was not aware of that, but it does not surprise me, given the state of the British dairy industry. That issue is at the heart of the debate. What do we want to see in future for the British dairy industry? I want to see existing producers paid a suitable price for their milk so that they can provide a decent living for their families and continue the tradition of farming that has gone on in this country for hundreds of years and that does not result in the environmental concerns associated with intensive dairy farming, which for the most part I set my face against.

This is not a situation that the Government can permit to continue. Given the pressures on small farmers up and down the country, it is unacceptable for the Government to say that it is all merely down to the planning process, leave it up to local authorities and allow smaller producers simply to be undercut by intensive dairy farms, which for many might be the last straw. If intensive dairy farms are to be allowed at all, I hope that the Minister will state that there will be action on price and labelling so that British consumers who wish to avoid purchasing milk from intensive dairy farms will have the opportunity to do so. If freedom of choice means anything, it certainly means that we should be able to do that.

I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend on how he is taking the debate forward. He has made the important point that there has been enormous price pressure on existing dairy farmers, but does he agree that one way to address the problem would be to have the so-called grocery ombudsman or regulator to ensure that a few large dairies cannot take advantage of many small producers?

I agree with my hon. Friend. I believe that at the election all three main parties promised a farming ombudsman, and that the Minister intends to introduce one. Given the constituency that I come from, I hope that that will happen soon.

Be in no doubt: we need a farming ombudsman, and not just for dairy farmers. We all hear tales about how supermarkets in particular put pressure on farmers so that they can improve their bottom line. Consumers who purchase food at those supermarkets simply do not know about that; incidentally, I believe that they would be disgusted were they to know the full truth.

We need a farming ombudsman, and, if it is not out of order or inappropriate, perhaps the Minister would confirm that we will get one in due course, and that it will be soon. I agree with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams).

My hon. and learned Friend has just used a phrase that I would not wish to gain currency. I can confirm happily that the Government are committed to introducing a grocery ombudsman, but he used the words “farming ombudsman”. That is not what is under discussion. I am sorry, but I wanted to make that correction.

I am grateful to the Minister for that correction. At some point, we may need to have another debate about the scope of the ombudsman’s jurisdiction and powers, but perhaps we can leave that to one side for the remainder of today’s debate.

I said at the outset that this debate is not primarily about the specific proposals for Nocton, but one aspect of intensive dairy farming is that it can adversely affect local communities in several ways. As I have seen from my postbag, the ongoing application for the proposed farm at Nocton is almost universally opposed by the communities in which it would be sited, and by those who have lived in settled farming communities for all their lives. This is not nimbyism—at least it is not just nimbyism. It is a legitimate desire to maintain recognisable rural communities away from the hurly-burly of the industrialised practices that are associated with such farms, just as they are associated with light or heavy industry.

Also, let us not forget the slurry: cows produce slurry, which must be disposed of. Digesters are part of the answer for such operations, but significant quantities of dirty water remain to be disposed of either through environmentally-unfriendly tankering operations or through discharge, which, unless carefully managed, runs the risk of polluting aquifers.

As far as the opposition in my constituency to Nocton is concerned, the problem emphatically is not exclusively about odour—an odour which those of us who live in the countryside are used to and, indeed, of which we are rather fond. Effluent contains pathogens and other harmful substances, including residues of pesticides and veterinary medicines. The use of anaerobic digestion to process slurry cannot mitigate the entire problem, particularly when dealing with waste from a large number of cows.

This may not be a problem at present in Lincolnshire—although it is worth noting that it is one of the driest counties in the country—but the fact is that this country and the world face increasing pressure on water resources. Intensive dairy farming units would put a great deal of strain on those resources, as they use large quantities of water. Dairies such as those proposed for Nocton can cause strain on local water resources. I venture to suggest that, if this country were to go down the road of intensive dairy farming, the Minister might wish to regulate where such farms can be sited, given local water resources.

Another reason why local communities are right to be concerned about proposals for large-scale dairy operations—I shall end my substantive comments today with this—are the traffic issues associated with any form of industrialised process, whether in the farming industry or any other. Large numbers of cows that are milked for high yields produce large quantities of milk that need to be transported, and require deliveries of all manner of feed and other products associated with their maintenance and support. In areas where traffic is already an issue, the strain that would be placed on existing infrastructure would be, at best, undesirable.

In areas where traffic is not an issue, perhaps because of their rural nature, the position would be just as bad. Additional traffic movements, particularly of heavy and slow-moving vehicles, could contribute to accidents. Communities in those areas are not used to such traffic, and there is not the infrastructure to deal with the issues surrounding the additional movements. To some extent, that is certainly the case at Nocton, where such issues rightly concern many of my constituents.

The solution to all that, as matters are at present, is that we need to make careful inquiries about the mega-dairy bandwagon and prevent it from gaining steam. At the same time, we must recognise that the necessary price of that is developing and paying properly for the remaining existing dairy farming industry.

We need a rural economy based on sustainable, conventional dairy farming, which includes farmers breeding robust cows that retain the capacity to look after themselves—cows grazed on pasture during the grazing season, and farmers striving for and achieving greater longevity for their animals, producing valuable male calves that can be reared economically for beef.

I apologise for my late arrival; unfortunately, I was detained elsewhere in the House on other business. I have thoroughly agreed with and enjoyed as much of the hon. and learned Gentleman’s speech as I have been able to listen to.

Would the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that mega-dairies are actually the thin end of the wedge, and that we may well find in the future that there is almost no rural economy? The ideal location for one of these super-sheds is somewhere like Stoke-on-Trent, on a brownfield site next to major road infrastructure, where materials, feed and so on can be brought in, and waste products can be removed. This could be the start of the end of the British dairy farming industry.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. That was my reason for asking for this debate in the first place. It is also the reasoning behind my solution. Mega-dairies are not the road to take. The hon. Gentleman raises the prospect of super-dairies being sited in large sheds on brownfield sites, with all the difficulties that that would cause in respect of not only deliveries of milk, feed stuffs and so on, but disposal of the animals’ waste, which would have to be tankered away from such sites—nothing else can be done with it. I agree that this is the thin end of the wedge, and that is why we have to face it down. I hope to hear from the Minister that that is the Government’s view.

Intensive dairy farming is not the future that I wish to see. I hope that the Minister agrees with my view, which is that, in the best interests of the industry, rural Britain and our dairy farmers, we should create a supply chain that ensures that farmers receive a proper price for their milk. We do not need any super-dairies, whether at Nocton or anywhere else in the United Kingdom.

I join in congratulating my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) on securing this debate. Any discussion in this building about the plight of rural communities, in particular the agricultural aspects of it, is encouraging.

If I may, I would like to start with some of the economic context which my hon. and learned Friend mentioned, and quote some figures. I do this as a brother-in-law of a dairy farmer, the son of a dairy farmer, and the husband of a dairy farmer’s daughter—hon. Members will get a general idea of my position. At present—admittedly, this is only one set of figures—farmers are producing milk at a loss of between 1p and 2.5p per litre. The dairies sell their products for a profit in the region of 4p to 5p, yet certain supermarkets—I shall try to be careful about naming them—are selling at a profit of 22p a litre. That is the economic context which my hon. and learned Friend mentioned. I absolutely agree with him that the buying public, if they were aware of the muscle that is applied by supermarkets, would greet that knowledge with a certain amount of disdain and, indeed, disgust.

Let me take that a stage further. One supermarket prides itself on paying its suppliers a rather higher price—about 28p a litre. If the truth was known that only 800 suppliers—some 10%—qualify for that price, the public would raise an eyebrow. In addition, the supermarket in question does not fork out that extra amount itself. Instead, it has insisted on the middle man at the dairy negotiating a more stringent price with the supplier. What did the dairy do? The dairy froze its payments to farmers who are not providing that supermarket, which meant consequentially that their price was reduced. Although that supermarket is obtaining good public relations for distributing press releases talking about fair trade for farmers, it has not been impacted on at all. Yet all those farmers who are not lucky enough to provide that supermarket chain have been penalised. That is the actual, factual economic context behind this important debate. That is why—there is no other reason at all—we are looking at the prospect of super- dairies, if that is the right expression.

I want to inject a degree of measured middle ground, if I may. It is obvious that, increasingly, farmers recognise that scale is the only way that they can make money. I am not talking about making large sums, but about making sufficient money not to go bust and to be able to invest in new technology, which is not just desirable for milk production, but is required by law in the current economic and legal climate.

I represent an area of west Wales in Carmarthenshire, in probably one of the largest milk-producing areas in the UK, where there is a significant problem of tuberculosis in cattle. Fortunately, that is a debate for another day. I am aware, through my constituents, that there is an attraction to housing cattle indoors as far as possible, because doing so reduces the risk of infection from TB and enables farmers to bulk buy feed and bedding materials. Hon. Members will be aware that feed has never been more expensive than it is this year.

It is also clear that production on a larger scale reduces the chances of pollution. We are all aware, sadly, of the incidences of pollution as a consequence of leaking slurry tanks and the like over the years. Fortunately, there has been a decrease in such instances, partly because of housing measures that people have put in place and are increasingly under pressure to implement.

There is an argument, whether it is proven or not, that indoor milk production reduces the carbon footprint of particular farms. Other hon. Members will no doubt expand on whether that is a compelling argument.

I am not trying to justify or promote large-scale dairy production; I am simply trying to set out what my milk-producing constituents see as an essential consequence of the supermarket grip on the industry, and saying that they regard themselves as being much more likely to be able to invest decent sums in modern technology—we have heard about anaerobic digesters—under such conditions than they would be able to under any other system.

My hon. Friend is generating an interesting point of view, which is that we need a range of dairy farms, from small and medium-sized ones to larger ones. The hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) said that there is a welfare code for dairy animals. Perhaps animals kept in larger units might need a different approach under the welfare code, because they will be kept in different circumstances.

I agree. There is no greater expert on this subject than my hon. Friend.

I want to return to welfare concerns. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) made an interesting intervention on whether dairy production would be encouraged to move from its traditional countryside location to brownfield sites. Although there is a danger of that happening, I am not as convinced of it as he is. There is more to dairy farming than milking cows; there is young stock, dry cows and sick and lame animals that cannot be housed indoors. There will always be a need for animals in green fields. I do not think that we want to assume that milking is the only part of the process and that dairy farms can be located anywhere in the UK. It is not quite as simple as that.

When we discuss animal welfare in this context, there is a gulf of difference between reality and perception. My hon. and learned Friend mentioned legitimate concerns. I am always wary of legitimate concerns unless they can be backed up by evidence. The Department is assessing the welfare implications of indoor cattle. We Members of Parliament, particularly those representing agricultural areas, would be well advised to be a little bit cautious about talking about legitimate concerns until we know that there are legitimate concerns to be cautious about.

It is important to remember, in considering the scale of milk production, that thin, lame or ill cattle can be segregated in bigger herds, whereas in normal circumstances, in small-scale production, they can be prone to bullying by other animals in the herd. Being able to do such things on a larger scale, there is an argument, which I accept is unproven, that says that welfare standards can be improved. In other words, big is not necessarily bad. I suspect that we are all aware of small dairy producers—the sort that we are trying to champion—whose welfare standards are not as good as larger, slightly more industrial units, to use an unattractive term.

We have to be cautious about assuming things and being led by the nose—I am not suggesting for one moment that hon. Members are—down the road that says that big is bad and that the only kind of high-welfare milk production is undertaken by small producers. We know that that is not so. We need evidence to hand before we make judgments in that regard.

I welcome this debate, which has been waiting to be heard and which has huge consequences for the rural economy. If the Government get this wrong—I am not suggesting that they might—there will be massive social and environmental consequences and it will be hard to be put things back together.

Hon. Members have mentioned economic circumstances, but tracing this issue to its source it comes back to a simple question. How do we deal with the stranglehold of the supermarkets over our dairy industry? It is not the fault of farmers, the planning system or the Government; it is the fault of supermarkets, which are putting short-term gain at the top of their agenda, at the risk of putting the UK dairy industry either into terminal freefall or being exported.

We need to impress on the supermarkets the importance of this matter. A demonstration by Welsh farmers outside Asda in Chepstow tomorrow will express this view. I said that I would not name a supermarket, but now I have. It is a sad day when any section of the agricultural community is subject to such pressure, because the long-term downstream consequences for the rural community as a whole will be devastating unless we get this right.

I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) on securing this debate, his measured introduction and balancing clear arguments on welfare and costs. May I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart), who brings personal expertise to this debate in a way that most hon. Members cannot? It is more than 60 years since I first tried to milk a cow by hand and if I tried it today, I probably would not be good at it.

Anybody who has been brought up in the west country, as I was fortunate enough to be, cannot fail to recognise the importance of the dairy industry to the rural economy and to our countryside environment.

My hon. and learned Friend initially said that super-dairies were a planning issue, although he moved away from that posture. Technically, that is correct, as is the case with the one in his constituency, but I venture to suggest that the issue goes much deeper and is a moral one. Those of us who are sad enough to wake up too early and find ourselves listening to “Farming Today” know only too well, because we hear about it with monotonous regularity, the plight of the dairy industry. Having heard the figures—they were placed on the record again this morning—we understand how dairy farmers are being screwed by the supermarket industry. That may be inelegant, but it is accurate.

The debate so far has concentrated on the obvious economic problems to the detriment, to some extent, of the moral argument. Those of us who have knocked around in this place for a bit—some of us are here today—participated in the campaign to ban veal crates in the United Kingdom. We were highly delighted when we succeeded, and the Government of the day outlawed the use of crates in this country. With glorious hindsight, with which we are blessed, it was a pyrrhic victory, because all we did was to move the problem from A to B, and veal calves that were once reared under relatively humane conditions, albeit not desirable, in the United Kingdom are now reared under infinitely worse conditions on mainland Europe. Not only that, they are first transported to mainland Europe by sea. Far from win-win, we can fairly say with hindsight that it was lose-lose.

My concern is that unless we get the matter right, we are in grave danger of moving the dairy problem from A to B, to the detriment of the British dairy industry and of animal welfare, so again it could be lose-lose. Reference was made to regulations from Brussels being an argument for another day but, with respect, I believe that it is an argument for today. Unless we engineer a situation that overrides European regulations on free trade, and put in place measures that will not allow to be sold in the United Kingdom animal produce that has been reared under conditions that we would not permit in this country, we shall lose.

I detect that no one in the Chamber wants super-dairies to take over from traditional dairy farms, but the danger is that those who fund the super-dairies will take their money to northern France, Belgium, Holland or elsewhere close by on mainland Europe and produce precisely the same quantities of milk under precisely the same undesirable circumstances. We will import it and our British dairy farmers will go out of business.

I am listening with great interest and appreciating the passion of the hon. Gentleman’s speech. Will he draw some parallels with what has happened in the pottery industry in my constituency, where the work has gone abroad? Pottery owners drove down prices as much as possible to try to compete with cheap imports until they were no longer competitive. Production moved abroad, goods were produced more cheaply and then imported back, and were passed off as being produced here because they were packaged here. Is not the same thing happening already in the food industry with pork being imported, packaged and sold to unsuspecting British consumers as though it were British pork? I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s line of argument, and perhaps he will draw some parallels.

I will not be tempted down that road, simply because it is probably outside the remit of this debate, and because there is a fundamental difference. Of course, I accept that cheap imports of anything from anywhere can damage our UK producers and, therefore, to some extent our UK economy. Mass production is a feature of the world, and we import goods from all over the world, but we are talking about welfare. We still import veal that has been produced in veal crates, while not allowing veal crates here. That is a welfare issue. We still import chickens and pigmeat that are produced under intensive conditions that we would simply not allow in the United Kingdom. I fail to see how it can be right for us to shackle United Kingdom agricultural producers and to tie one, if not both hands behind their back, while cheerfully allowing European trade regulations to override all those welfare considerations so that our markets are flooded by anything from anywhere, produced under any circumstances. That is morally wrong, and we must stop it.

If the public seriously believe in the moral and welfare issues, they must be prepared to pay. We must be prepared to pay a fair price to farmers for our food—not to the middle man or the supermarket, but at the very beginning to farmers. That is the only way to secure the right to demand high animal welfare standards. But I must tell my hon. Friend the Minister that in tandem with that, we must get regulation under control so that we not only pass, but enforce on Europe and the rest of the world the welfare regulations that we apply to ourselves here in the United Kingdom.

I thank my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) for obtaining this important debate. He could not have picked a more important time to do so, as we have heard. We are all aware that we are at a crucial stage with a plan for a new factory dairy farm. It will either be approved by Lincolnshire county council or, if the decision is deferred, considered by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. I hope to contribute to persuading the Minister to use his influence to encourage the Secretary of State to delay that application when it is submitted. I shall briefly explain why.

We have heard arguments on animal welfare and broader environmental concerns. A broad range of organisations, including Compassion in World Farming, the Campaign to Protect Rural England, the World Society for the Protection of Animals, Friends of the Earth, the Campaign Against Factory Farming Operations and many others, have made their views known. I want to return to another major concern.

The Minister told hon. Members in the House that he welcomes the fact that people are looking to invest in our dairy sector. But is that the kind of investment that we want? No one can deny that if the mega-dairy model is a success, it will impact heavily on traditional dairy farming in this country. If the new model works, the old model will have to give way at some point. Farmers will go out of business, and for those who survive, there will be little prospect of their children taking over. We will see a profound transformation of our countryside with acceleration of the depressing trends described in the brilliant speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart).

Today, just over 16,000 dairy farms produce 12 billion litres of milk. If the CPRE research is correct, the same quantity could be produced with just 232 Nocton-style mega-dairies. We have seen in the United States how quickly intensive agriculture can take hold. In 10 years, the number of cows reared in intensive conditions nearly doubled from 2.5 million to 4.9 million between 1997 and 2007.

If we are to move to a situation in which farmers are replaced by a handful of technicians, cattle food is imported, fields are left empty, and cows are denied grazing, at the very least we should consider the implications because that shift is not inevitable, as we have been led to believe. It will not result from some kind of overwhelming evolutionary market force. It has nothing to do with the market. I have yet to meet a single consumer who wants to buy such stuff. Even some of the mega-supermarkets that have rightly taken a bashing this morning—I will give them another bashing later—and household-name supermarkets have said that they will not sell milk from mega-dairies. There is no shortage of milk. We export more than we import. The market is not what will take us towards the mega-dairy—or, indeed, towards cloned meat or genetically modified food, both of which seem to be back on the agenda. However, politicians might take us in that direction.

We have a new farming Minister who is almost unique in that he is respected by both small and large farmers. He belongs to a Government whose leaders spent a great deal of time before the election, crucially, supporting slow food, organic food, sustainable food, local food, farmers’ markets and the works—the antithesis of factory production. I do not believe that the Minister wants to preside over a process in which our countryside is effectively handed over to US-style intensive agribusiness.

I recognise that the National Farmers Union has, more or less, endorsed the Nocton plans, but the NFU stands almost alone among farmers’ groups with that support. It would be wrong to mistake the NFU for an authentic voice for farmers, given that its president casually recommended recently:

“We need to experiment…We should give it a try.”

He was not speaking for farmers but for agribusiness. That is why, outside Parliament a few years ago, representatives from countless small farming organisations lined up with posters saying, “NFU: No F…ing Use”—I was there at the time.

Nocton is opposed by a wide range of farming bodies, from FARM, the Small Farms Association and the Family Farmers Association to the Soil Association, and including the Farmers Union of Wales, which said recently:

“Given that a single super-dairy could take the place of scores of average sized family dairy farms, we would prefer to see traditional family farms staying in business and receiving a fair price for their milk, rather than single massive units pushing others out of business”.

I know that the Minister shares that concern for the future of farming in this country. I urge him to step in now, before it is too late. We do not always have to yield to the lowest possible standards. We could, for example, invest the £2 billion or so spent on food in schools and hospitals on the best quality, local, British sustainable food, cutting food miles, giving patients and children the food that they want and immediately boosting the rural economy.

As we have just heard in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr Gale), we can insist that whatever food is imported should meet the same standards that we apply to our own farmers, so that our farmers are not unfairly outcompeted. Yes, that requires us to take on the trade rules but, if the rules make no sense, the Government’s job is to challenge them. We must do that if we are serious about protecting the British farming sector.

In addition, we could negotiate a better deal from the supermarkets. I will not repeat the arguments that we have already heard, but they are absolutely valid and I echo them. There is an imbalance of power—again, I cannot imagine any other body in this country, other than the Government, that is able or equipped to challenge and address that imbalance. That is a prerequisite for ensuring the survival of the farming sector.

We have heard that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs does not have the power to stop Nocton or such a dairy model. However, if the Minister is persuaded that the risks are too great, he can raise standards without legislation, to prevent such developments from happening. I do not expect him to be persuaded in this forum, in a brief series of speeches, but I ask him to acknowledge the concerns and to use his influence to put the project on hold until he has commissioned a broad and thorough analysis of the likely impacts, not just on welfare, which is key, but on the whole farming sector. Without that information, we cannot take a proper, responsible or reasonable decision.

Thank you, Mrs Riordan, for the opportunity to contribute to a debate that is close to my own interests. I thank my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) for the way in which he introduced the debate and, in particular, his reference to the power of the supermarket—I am looking forward to that debate in the new year, when we will address what is a fundamental issue in this debate.

I have three reasons for wanting to contribute to the debate. First, for the first 15 years of my working life, I was a dairy farmer. I gave up dairy farming because, with 70 cows and a pipeline system, I was finding myself left behind. I had to make a huge investment to go up to 150 cows, so I took the decision to stop dairy farming and to switch to beef and sheep.

I also spent seven years as the chair of a local planning authority, so I have a significant interest. The issue that we are discussing is a planning one, making the debate of interest to me.

My third reason is the application for a 1,000-cow dairy unit in my constituency, quite close to my home, which has been controversial. I do not want to make particular reference to that planning application, because there are pluses and minuses. A local young farmer has general support for wanting to stay competitive in a difficult industry, but on the other hand the unit would be close to a local school, so it will be a big issue for the local planning authority to decide.

There are mixed views. I am keen to see a balanced approach to the debate. My fundamental approach to any issue is to ask, “Why not?” We are talking about a completely new type of dairy unit. It is important to start from the general principle that people should be allowed to do what they want unless there is a good, solid reason for not doing it. The same applies to planning. A planning authority starts from the position that it should grant planning permission, unless there are good planning reasons not to do so. I want to approach the debate with that general attitude.

I am as much a romantic as, probably, any of us. My first experience of dairying was on my nain and taid’s farm, where they milked seven cows. My nain milked the cows by hand. They made cheese and I used to spin the churn—it was pretty hard work, too. I am probably the only one present who has done that, and it is pretty significant work—my granny was quite elderly and had no problem at all, but I did—and milking cows by hand is not easy, either.

I have an instinctive antipathy to the idea of nearly 4,000 cows in a unit, but we need to go beyond that and look at why we might oppose such plans. It is not straightforward.

My hon. Friend is concerned about 4,000 cows, but I wish to make it clear that the proposers of the development at Nocton originally put in an application for more than 6,000. If he is concerned about 4,000, it has been made clear that that will in due course become 6,000, so he ought to be even more concerned. I hope that he agrees with me.

I heard that the original Nocton proposal was for 7,000 cows. Once we reach 1,000, the principle is much the same—we are dealing with a big unit in which the animals are housed for almost the whole time. That is a different way of producing milk. I accept my hon. and learned Friend’s point.

Let us go into the reasons for not doing it. The first was in the more significant part of my hon. and learned Friend’s introductory speech: the driving out of small farmers as a result of the economic conditions that the larger farmers might create. I am not sure that I accept that reason. When I was milking 70 cows, I was accused of driving out small farmers. That was the position then. In truth, a person hand-milking seven cows was just not economic—that was the reason for stopping the business. In those days, the 70-cow unit was economic, but we reached a stage when it was not.

Small farmers will be and have been going out of business—we heard the numbers earlier. That has happened and will continue, irrespective of the large farming unit. I do not think that there is a direct correlation between the two issues.

We are in danger of muddling two things, one of which is the size of the unit. Plenty of farmers have gradually crept up from seven cows to 70, from 70 to 170 and, in my family’s case, from about 100 to 400. Is there some cut-off point, above which they should not be allowed to go? That is one of the issues we are discussing. The other issue is whether it is appropriate to be milking cows indoors 365 days of the year. We are in danger of confusing the two issues.

Several issues are probably involved, so I want to make my second point, which is that we might want to resist the development on welfare grounds. We can include housing for 365 days a year as a welfare issue. Even with a seven-cow herd, the animals were indoors for six months of the year. Being indoors is not particularly unusual. I think that the application for a 1,000-cow unit in my constituency proposes that the animals should be indoors for almost two thirds of the year. I suspect that the application for the 7,000-cow unit proposed having the animals indoors, apart from the followers, for 12 months of the year. What we have to keep at the core of our thinking is high welfare standards, and we must be guided by science or we shall lose the argument in the end.

[Mr Edward Leigh in the Chair]

I do not accept that it is necessarily more difficult to meet welfare standards with a large herd than with a small herd. I know that some people will disagree, but I just do not think that the large size of a herd is a proven reason for that. In fact, we can argue a little bit the other way, because for a large herd, there will almost certainly be professionally trained staff, and a large unit will be able to afford to keep them professionally trained. It will be able to do the training that smaller units cannot. A large dairy unit will almost certainly have an ongoing relationship with a veterinary surgeon, who will call in regularly. The smaller units do not have that. Most farmers with herds the size of mine considered themselves to be veterinary surgeons. We were not willing to pay what I thought were excessive bills at the time—we did it ourselves. I think that we shall find that the welfare standards in large units will be very impressive, and if they are not, they will not get permission.

There are many other, environmental reasons why one might want to refuse an application for a large unit, and I think that planning authorities should be willing to turn down applications, unless they meet their exacting standards. The application in my constituency is within view of Powis castle. The local planning authority will have to consider that issue. The Environment Agency will have to examine all the implications for the environmental impact. All such issues will have to be considered by a planning authority before approval is secured.

I want to deal now with the public resistance element. During my eight years in the National Assembly for Wales, I was a huge enthusiast for organic farming and farmers’ markets. We should continue with that, but we have to persuade people to come and buy from these units. The reality is that most customers—consumers—will buy where the price is cheapest. The supermarkets will drive down the price, and unless British farmers produce the product, they will import it. My hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr Gale) made a very good point about exporting a problem. That is exactly what might happen in the dairy industry unless we deal with the matter. In relation to public resistance, we need a balanced and open mind and a view based on scientific knowledge.

I want to appeal not only to my hon. Friend the Minister but to everyone who participates in the debate—because it will be an ongoing debate; the issue will not be dealt with in the short term—not to take an instinctive view. Mine might be one of antipathy. We must examine the science, because in the end that is what will rule the decision. If we in this House are to have an impact on the issue, we have to present the facts and have an influence, we hope, on the purchasers, which are mostly supermarkets. Only the Government can do that now, because supermarkets have reached such a state of dominance in the market. By taking a balanced approach, we may well have some influence and, while not necessarily returning to the image of my childhood, staying rather closer to it.

Order. I want to allow time for the winding-up speeches, so I will call Neil Parish now, but he must finish his speech, please, within five minutes.

I should like to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) and say that my views on this issue are also mixed. If I look at the commercial situation and even the animal welfare situation, I do not think that there is a problem with the unit that we are discussing, because there will be vets on call, the buildings will be exceptional and the quality of everything on that farm will be excellent. I do not think that that is the issue.

I shall explain my concern. When we see the advertising of milk, cheese or butter, we see the wonderful Kerrygold cows hopping around the field. I do not think that the Kerrygold cows are any happier than anyone else’s cows, but of course that company is very good at marketing the product.

I worry about the dairy industry as a whole. We live in a time when people want to eat less fat and we need to market the product well, and I am not convinced in that respect with regard to 4,000, 6,000 or 8,000 cows on a farm in Lincolnshire or wherever that are kept indoors all the time. Let us say that a farm has 6,000 cows. Six fours are 24; that is 24,000 feet. Imagine turning those out into a field; certainly, if it was one of my fields in Somerset, it would not take long to turn it into a plough ground. I know that, in reality, not all 6,000 cows would be turned out together, but the chances of those cows going out into the field and being seen grazing are pretty negligible. I think that we all accept that.

We can argue the rights and wrongs of the single farm payment and the common agricultural policy, but farming does take quite a lot of public money one way or the other, and the public, rightly or wrongly, want to see a certain style of farming. They want to see cows out in the fields. We have only to think back to the time of foot and mouth disease in 2001, when so many sheep and cattle were, unfortunately, slaughtered. The one thing that the public told me was that they missed the livestock in the fields. We have to face up to that.

My hon. Friend the Minister has a huge conundrum to solve. From the point of view of the economics, welfare and planning, there is probably no problem, but in terms of the industry, the welfare of farmers and the public’s concept of farming, there is a big issue. We can argue about the economics of dairy farming, but it will be accepted that even now, people should be able to make a reasonable living from 200 cows, so do we really want to go to 4,000 or 8,000 cows, which will take out 40 or 80 of what I would call commercially viable farms?

Then what are we doing? We are handing over even more power to the supermarkets. They will love to get their milk from herds of 4,000, 6,000 or 8,000 cows, because they can send dirty great tankers along, probably all day long, to collect the milk. I suspect that the cows will be milked several times a day, so there will be milk there all the time and the supermarkets will be able to get tanker-loads of it. That suits everyone from a commercial point of view, but will it actually increase the price of milk? I doubt that very much. I suspect that it will decrease the price of milk and then the 200-cow herd, the 300-cow herd and even the 400-cow herd will be under pressure.

I know that I am perhaps wanting to have my cake and eat it. I want to say, “Let’s have commercial farming,” and then say, “Well, this is a little bit too commercial. Let’s stop it here.” However, we do have to consider the issue carefully, because we are talking about the overall health and the overall marketing of the dairy industry and what I believe is an excellent product; it is very good for people to consume. Returning my remarks to my constituency in Devon, I have to say that keeping cows out grazing is part of the landscape that people expect to see.

I do not envy the Minister his task today because he has to balance many elements, but as we move forward on this proposal, or stop it or whatever, we must be conscious of the dairy industry as a whole, of smaller farms and of the public’s perception of dairy farming.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Leigh, as it was under Mrs Riordan’s. This has been an excellent debate. I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) on securing it. He spoke with great passion and authority.

I also wish to commend the contributions of the hon. Members for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) and for North Thanet (Mr Gale), who referred to the moral argument underpinning the issue and to the need for EU-level reform. I thank the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), who made an interesting and thoughtful speech. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) spoke of the need to promote further scientific research with the authority of being a dairy farmer. I also wish to commend the speech of the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish).

The dairy industry in the United Kingdom has been through an extremely volatile period. Intensive farming raises three challenges: first, animal welfare; secondly, greenhouse gas emissions, to which I think the hon. Member for Richmond Park referred; and thirdly, market distortions, which we hope the work on the grocery ombudsman, begun under the previous Government, will address. I hope that that work will be implemented under the current Government. I shall develop each of the points in turn.

After a period of extreme volatility, the dairy industry in the UK is still the third largest in the EU and the ninth largest in the world, producing more than 11 billion litres per annum, amounting to more than 16% of agricultural output last year, and contributing £3.1 billion to the economy. Despite the volatility in production and prices, yield per cow increased between 1995 and 2005, and average yield per cow increased in 2008 and 2009. The NFU said earlier this year that a typical UK dairy farm with a herd of 113 is likely to produce approximately a million litres of milk per year, with the average yield per cow increasing from slightly less than 6,000 litres in 2000 to more than 7,000 in 2010.

It is clear that it is ultimately for the local council and, if brought in by the Government, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to determine what happens in Nocton. I do not wish to comment on the precise legal technicalities of the process that may come in future. However, the debate has raised wider questions on what the view of DEFRA and right hon. and hon. Members should be towards intensifying farming, based on the three points that I mentioned.

There does not seem to be consensus that intensifying farming will universally lead to negative outcomes on animal welfare. The Farm Animal Welfare Council and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals have said that, in their view, intensification will not necessarily lead to a diminution in animal welfare.

Does the shadow Minister accept that there is a fundamental difference between animal health and animal welfare? One is quantifiable and easy to identify, and the other is much harder to identify, but just as important.

That is an extremely good point. The hon. Gentleman anticipated the argument that I was going to advance. There is a need for more research into intensification. In the United States, farms of 15,000 cows or more are not unknown, and the proportion of farms with more than 500 cows has doubled from 31.3% to 59.5% of the national herd. Less than half the farms with under 99 cows are still in business, so it is clear that there has been an impact on the small dairy farmer in the US. It is important that we conduct economic research into whether the same would happen in the EU.

In the US, which is a much larger country, there is a minimum separation zone between these sorts of intensive farms and the nearest settlement. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is important? It may be one reason why these intensive dairy farms are not appropriate for many places in the UK.

That is another excellent point, and it is why we must move with extreme care and ensure that we get the best evidence on animal welfare and on the economic impact on small farmers. I hope that the Minister can give us further information in his closing remarks on any impact assessment that DEFRA is conducting.

The UN Food and Agriculture Organisation said earlier this year that the global dairy sector contributes 4% to total global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, and the share from global milk production is 2.7%. There is a balance to be struck between the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which taking more cows inside and using anaerobic digestion more may diminish, and the wider arguments on animal welfare. Some concerns have been expressed by Compassion in World Farming, for example; it said that excessive intensification could lead to growing incidences of lameness, mastitis and other illnesses affecting cattle.

However, some advantages of intensification have been identified, which we must properly evaluate and not rule out. For example, the FAWC has said:

“In general, management of dairy cows that are housed all year round is easier for the farmer”.

It goes on to say that housing cows all year round allows for more effective control over feed composition and for diets that are targetable to specific groups. There is also a reduced risk of parasitic infestation and greater biosecurity. It is clear that there is no consensus on whether intensification is intrinsically bad, which is why we need further economic and scientific research to explore the issues more fully.

There have been extreme swings in the market in recent years, particularly in EU milk prices. Indeed, the Commission had to produce a package of support in 2009 to support dairy farmers in the UK and across the EU. In the discussions on CAP reform, which we hope will be concluded by 2013, there needs to be a longer-term settlement that will put the dairy industry, across the EU, on a surer footing. I hope the Minister can indicate the position that the Government will take on dairy farming in those negotiations.

This is an extremely controversial issue. The planning application for Nocton in itself raises important matters, but I think the wider debate we need to have about the three principles is more important—animal welfare, greenhouse gas emissions and correcting the problems in the dairy market. I hope the Minister can set out the Government’s position on all three in his concluding remarks.

I am grateful to be serving under your chairmanship for, I think, the first time, Mr Leigh. I start obviously, but genuinely, by thanking my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) for securing the debate. He feels strongly about this issue, which is obviously precipitated by his constituency. It is a matter of great concern, as we all understand and has been demonstrated in the Chamber this morning. I have received countless letters and e-mails from people all over the country expressing concern, as I am sure other Members have.

If I may, I shall make a slightly provocative statement. For the past 30 years or so, all political parties and consumer organisations have called for the dismantling of agricultural protection, in whatever form it took, and for a move to a market-based system, because the consumer pays too much for food under protectionist systems. We have moved a long way in that direction over the past few years, and the debate today is the consequence of that move.

What we have heard in the debate is almost a plea to go backwards. We have heard that consumers would pay a bit more for their milk to protect farmers, but that is a bit like the letters we get from people who say they would rather pay more tax than have the funding to their children’s school cut. However, the reality, as we all know, is that they will not pay more tax if they are given the option, and I am afraid that it is the same with dairy farming.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr Gale) referred absolutely rightly to what happened after we banned veal crates, and the same applied with sow stalls, when the pig industry was decimated. We simply exported those standards. Units in the pig and poultry industries have become larger, with fewer individual proprietors, and concern has been expressed that milk will go the same way.

The reality, of course, is that we have imported pig meat, veal and other commodities from other countries because it is cheaper to produce it abroad. As my hon. Friend made absolutely clear, that is what consumers wanted. The only protection against that is not to raise our standards or to instigate some form of import control, which, as we all know, is illegal under European law and the World Trade Organisation.

I do not believe that we want to go backwards, but this proposal wants to go forwards too fast. It will see off too many medium-sized farmers who can make a good living. That is my point.

I understand my hon. Friend’s point, and I will try to pick it up, although I will obviously not be able to respond to all the important points that my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain) have made.

There has been a bit of a battle for credibility between some of my hon. Friends as to who first milked cows. If I might join in, it is about 44 years since I first milked cows. In those days—we can all say “in those days”—most dairy herds were in the 20-to-30 cow bracket, and 100 was a massive herd. If we had had a debate about mega-dairies in those days, we would have been talking about 100 cows.

The average herd in England is now 113 cows. There are lots of herds with more than 500 cows; one has 2,000 cows and several have more than 1,000 cows. The world has moved on, and no Government of any colour—we have obviously had all shades over the past 44 years—have blown the whistle and said, “This is too big.”

The Minister is right to have identified, as others have, the perverse European rules that force us into a situation where our farmers are out-competed by farmers importing substandard products from elsewhere in Europe. Before the election, the Prime Minister pledged to challenge those rules, and my question is simply whether the Government still have any appetite to do so on behalf of our farmers and food security groups. It would be welcomed by farmers across the board if that pledge was fulfilled.

Without wishing to duck that question, I should say that trade issues are, as my hon. Friend is well aware, a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills. Obviously, however, we would wish to pursue as best we can commitments made by the Prime Minister before the election.

Let me move on to the point about competition in the domestic market and about supermarkets, which all my hon. Friends have raised in various ways. First, let me reaffirm that the Government are committed to introducing legislation to bring in the supermarket code adjudicator. We will call it an adjudicator because, compared with existing ombudsmen, it is not strictly an ombudsman.

I urge those of my hon. Friends who share my view that the sooner we introduce the adjudicator the better, to press the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills because this is his legislation. We will proceed as quickly as possible, but we need to be absolutely honest with ourselves and with farmers that this proposal will not in itself lead to a price rise; it is about ensuring that we have fair and transparent terms of trade and about enforcing the code, which has been in operation since February. We must not be accused of misleading people into thinking that the adjudicator will somehow make everything all right.

My hon. Friends said a lot about supermarkets, so I will not go further into that issue. However, we also need to look at processors. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) said, certain processors have massively bid for contracts to process and bottle for supermarkets. They then pass on to the producers the results of what is, in many ways, over-bidding. We are now in the absurd situation where the farm-gate price paid for milk that goes into liquid products or relatively high-value cheese products is lower than that which people could afford to pay if they were going to convert that milk into skimmed milk powder, which is the lowest-priced global commodity—although, even then, the global price for the raw milk is about 27p or 28p a litre.

The Government are, of course, committed to the concept of free trade and open markets, and the Opposition probably largely share that fundamental belief. We do not believe in interfering in how business operates, but it behoves business to operate a fair market arrangement.

I cannot stand here and say that the Government will never intervene if we clearly see unfair practices going on. We hope that the adjudicator will resolve all that, but let me make it clear to the dairy processing and retail sectors that it behoves them to operate a fair market. They must recognise that if they do not, we will, as hon. Members have frequently said, lose the British dairy industry, whatever the type of housing, to overseas competitors. The result will be ever-more volatile prices.

I am sorry, but I cannot give way any more.

People would not have the cheap liquid milk that they want, because, as we all know, importing liquid milk is always expensive given its bulk cost. As a result, therefore, business will find that it is operating against consumer interests in the long term.

That reminds me of the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) made about imports and exports. He is right about the figures for liquid milk, but virtually all our liquid milk exports actually go over the Irish border, from Northern Ireland to southern Ireland, where they are made into cheese before coming back into the UK market.

Overall, our dairy market is massively reliant on imports of dairy products, which is why I personally believe—there is no strong evidence one way or the other—that the fear that a mega-dairy will destroy smaller dairy farmers is not necessarily justified. There is huge scope in this country to improve and expand our dairy industry. With the exception of Ireland, we grow the best grass anywhere in Europe, and we should be competitive. It is my job to try to create that competitiveness.

I am clearly running short of time, and I cannot respond to all the points that have been made. However, as my hon. and learned Friend opened the debate, I must emphasise that, as has frequently been said, I have no powers to intervene in any application. Issues to do with traffic, pollution and noise are for the local council to consider. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park talked about my using my influence on the Secretary of State if an application went to appeal, but that would be seen as illegal and would be wide open to judicial challenge, so I am afraid that I cannot accept that invitation, much as I might wish to.

In conclusion, the Government understand the great public concern about this issue and about the changes to cattle—a lot of genetic improvement has taken place—and we accept, as the hon. Member for Glasgow North East said, that there is a need for research. That is why we have commissioned research—the previous Government commissioned some of it, and we are very happy with that—from the Scottish Agricultural College on improving the robustness and welfare of cows through the development of breeding indices, as well as a further study on the management and welfare of continuously housed cows.

If those studies demonstrate that the Government need to act on welfare codes, or in any other way, we will, of course, have to consider that, but I do not wish to pre-empt the conclusions of those studies. The Government believe in being led by scientific evidence; we will examine those research studies when they come out and we will act if necessary. I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for giving me the opportunity to discuss this matter.

Early Years Education

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Leigh.

There is now almost universal agreement in the House that early years education improves children’s outcomes in school and beyond. I want to focus today on the take-up of the entitlement to 15 hours a week of free early years education for three and four-year-olds, and to stress how important it is that all children should benefit from it. Currently about 8% of three and four-year-olds do not take up their free entitlement. Figures show that children who do not receive early years education are significantly more likely to be from non-working and lower-income families.

The free places were introduced as part of a strategy to improve child outcomes, as an abundance of research has shown that attendance at high-quality settings is linked to improved outcomes, both at the time of attending and later in life. That, too, was a central message in the recent independent review of poverty and life chances by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), who said that the first five years of a child’s life were the most important. The Prime Minister agreed, and wrote to him that the foundation years

“are the critical ones in terms of promoting a fairer and more mobile society”.

In short, we all agree that early years education can make a difference to outcomes, and that it has the potential to reduce inequalities.

In January 2010, according to the Department for Education, the number of three-year-olds benefiting from some free early education at maintained schools or in the private, voluntary or independent sector was 584,200—or 92% of the three-year-old population. However, close analysis of the figures shows that the take-up of early years education remains lower among non-working and low-income families, some ethnic groups and families living in more deprived areas, who, I would argue, are precisely the children who would benefit from it most.

The child care and early years survey of parents 2008 showed that uptake of free early education for three and four-year-olds was highest, at 90%, among couple families where both parents were working. The figure for working single parents was 88%. By far the lowest take-up was in couple families where neither parent was working, where the figure was 79%, and among lone parents who were out of work, where it was 76%. That pattern roughly accords with figures that I have obtained locally.

In Stockport, the average take-up of places by three and four-year-olds is 96%, which is above the national average, but in the two most deprived areas of my constituency the take-up figures are lower. In Brinnington the take-up is 92.7% and in Lancashire Hill it is 84%. I believe that the Brinnington figure is higher because it is a more settled community, has a higher working population, and has had the benefit of one of the first children’s centres in the country, whereas Lancashire Hill has lower levels of employment and the population is more unsettled and transient. Although those figures are higher than the national average they are still cause for concern, because it is extremely important that children from the most deprived families should take up their places. Research shows that that increases educational opportunities in life and means those concerned are less likely to fail in later years. It also means that the state needs to spend less money later to pick up the costs of that failure.

Improving take-up of early years education for the most disadvantaged families is crucial. Perhaps some lessons can be learned from the experience of the pilots of free nursery places providing high-quality learning for the most disadvantaged 15% of two-year-olds, which the Labour Government introduced. I welcome the fact that the coalition Government have announced that they will continue that offer, and plan to put their commitment into legislation by 2013. In a written statement yesterday, the Secretary of State for Education referred to the commitment to

“extending free early education with an entitlement for disadvantaged two year olds from 2013”

with funding of £64 million in 2011-12 and £223 million in 2012-13. That will be part of the early intervention grant, which is for early interventions across all the age ranges. The early intervention grant is not ring-fenced. However, in the statement, the Secretary of State said:

“Against the background of greater flexibility to decide priorities locally, there are key areas of early intervention where the Government are ensuring that the overall grant provides support”. —[Official Report, 13 December 2010; Vol. 520, c. 68WS.]

One of the key areas is two-year-olds; indeed, specific funding was announced in the statement, together with children’s centres and short breaks for disabled children.

Will the Minister confirm that that is ring-fenced funding? If it is not, will he confirm that the continuation of the current offer for two-year-olds until there is an entitlement in law, in 2013, will be determined by local authorities? As the Secretary of State has announced that the early interventions grant will be 10.9% lower, in 2011-12, than the aggregated funding through predecessor grants, is the Minister confident that local authorities will continue to fund the offer for two-year-olds when there will also be pressure to fund services to young and vulnerable adults? Coincidentally, those are the same disadvantaged young adults whose life chances would have been much improved by early education. If the distribution of all the early intervention grant will be at local authorities’ discretion, what monitoring will the Department do to ensure that there is provision in all local authorities?

Stockport participated in the pilot for two-year-olds, which has been very successful. I believe that that is one of the reasons the take-up of the free entitlement for three and four-year-olds in Stockport is above the national average. Some of that success could be copied and transferred to help to increase the uptake by three to four-year-olds nationally. I maintain that in Stockport take-up has been high because of the nature of the proactive work that has been done in engaging families and children in the pilot for two-year-olds. In addition to high-quality places for 10 hours a week over 38 weeks, Stockport families were given access to strong family support. Although it was not a condition attached to a place, families were actively encouraged to participate in home learning support, or wider parental support. I hope that the Government’s offer for two-year-olds will involve such additional family support, which is vital. As part of the Stockport pilot parents were encouraged to ensure that they obtained an appropriate place for the free entitlement to 15 hours that their child would gain on turning three.

Stockport’s project for two-year-olds was successful also because of strong commitment from all partners. I pay tribute to Vicki Packman, from Stockport’s children and young people’s directorate, and her team, for their incredible enthusiasm and commitment to early years education in Stockport. The Stockport pilot had a data-driven approach, with a clear focus on early intervention and prevention, and family support. Allocation of places was by a multi-agency panel. It built on strong, existing universal and targeted outreach networks. Those teams took a holistic approach to the identification of support needs, and used their professional experience and judgment to refer appropriate families to the panel. They also helped to engage directly a number of hard-to-reach groups. A brokerage service offered by Stockport’s family information service was a key feature. It provided a key contact for parents, some of whom needed extra encouragement, support and advice, and offered home visits to explain the options to the family. In that way the service developed a trusted relationship with parents and carers. An initial visit to the setting was set up for the family and their support worker could attend. Those relationships, formed at an early stage, were crucial to the success of the placement and the project. It is interesting that that brokerage service ensured a very low drop-out rate. Only two children out of 117 left the project, and that was because both moved away from the area. Those figures are truly excellent.

It was very important that those disadvantaged two-year-olds had such a positive experience outside the home, as a proportion would have been on the child protection register, or the family would have experienced recent domestic abuse, or substance misuse in the previous 12 months. There are lessons to be learned, and the success needs to be transferred to encourage the families of three to four-year-olds who receive no early years education to get their children to attend and benefit from the free sessions to which they are entitled.

Kate Wood, the co-ordinator of the Two Year Old pilot project in Stockport explains things perfectly. She said:

“The Two Year Old Pilot Project is giving support to families who need it early on, before challenges become unmanageable. It is giving disadvantaged children a chance to learn and develop with new experiences outside of the home in a positive and social environment and it is giving families a chance to access other activities and services. We hope that these children will be more ready to access their free hours at three and to start school at five and will have the same opportunity to achieve as their peers.”

That is what we want for all those children who have difficult lives: an opportunity for them to learn, develop and have experiences outside the home, which will enable them to cope better and achieve when they start school. There is a variety of reasons why parents say they do not take up their free entitlement. Some parents simply want to look after their own children, but others will lead too chaotic a life and find it too challenging to get their children to the nursery on a regular basis, and we need to help them.

The Department for Children, Families and Schools 2008 survey asked parents who said that their children were not receiving free entitlement whether they were aware that the Government paid for some hours per week of nursery education for three and four-year-olds. Only 61% of those parents said they were aware of the scheme. Will the Minister tell me what plans he has to raise the level of awareness and improve the quality and accessibility of information about free early years education?

When parents were asked where they got their information about child care, the most frequently mentioned source was word of mouth, 41%; followed by school, 18%; local authority was mentioned by 10%; and families’ information services by 8%. Parents also mentioned local advertising, 8%; and health visitors, 6%. Lower income families are more likely than higher income families to mention health visitors or doctors’ surgeries as their sources of information. That suggests that health services may be a particularly good way to provide these groups with information about child care and early years education. Will the Minister, therefore, consider specific plans to use health services to provide disadvantaged groups with early years information?

The 2008 child care and early years survey of parents revealed that families living in deprived areas were less positive about the quality of child care provision than those in affluent areas. That is interesting as, according to the latest 2009 Ofsted report, the quality of early years provision is lower in areas of higher deprivation: the more deprived the area, the lower the number of good and outstanding providers. That raises the possibility that parental perceptions may reflect real geographical variations in quality. Of course, only settings assessed by Ofsted as “good” or “outstanding” were allowed to be used in the pilots for two-year-olds. I hope that in future, standards of settings will still be important criteria. It is vital that the quality of early years education is as good in deprived areas as it is in others.

In some instances, local authorities can also deliver the free entitlement through child minders, who have to be part of a child-minding network and accredited. For example, if a child has specialist needs and requires a higher level of one-to-one care, or a family needs flexible hours to fit in with a particular situation such as shift work, helping to match those families’ needs to a particular type of child care may help to improve the take-up of the free entitlement.

As I said, the clear message from the Stockport pilot was the success of the amount of support work with families. Offering places is not enough. I suggest to the Minister that perhaps one way forward is for the Government’s pupil premium, which recognises disadvantage, to be introduced earlier for three and four-year-olds, enabling that work to be done with disadvantaged families. That would enable local authorities to intervene earlier and work with families at the earliest possible stage. Although it would cost money now, it would save money in the long run. It would also help to target those children who are not classed as the 15% most deprived, and so would not have benefited from the offer regarding two-year-olds, but who are still disadvantaged and are not taking up places for three-year-olds.

The report by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead, endorsed by the Prime Minister, said that we must ensure that today’s poor children do not become tomorrow’s poor adults. He said:

“Later interventions to help poorly performing children can be effective but, in general, the most effective and cost-effective way to help and support young families is in the earliest years of a child’s life."

I agree: we must not allow cycles of deprivation and failure to be handed on from one generation to another. The only way to prevent that is to ensure that those children, who, through no fault of their own, are born into disadvantaged homes, are helped. One intervention that we can make is to ensure that all children who are entitled to these very important early years education places are given the opportunity to take them up.

I look forward to hearing the Minister’s proposals and ideas to ensure that all disadvantaged three and four-year-old children, who do not currently take up their free early years entitlement, are actively encouraged to do so.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) on securing the time for this important debate. I agree with the vast majority of everything she has said. As she knows, I had the opportunity to go to Stockport in October when I spent a week as a social worker on the front line. I also visited some schools in a child protection context. I saw the excellent services and dedicated professionals that she has in her authority. I applaud the trailblazing in many areas dealing with children in Stockport, to which she alluded.

The hon. Lady raised a couple of specific questions to which I will respond, and made one point about extending the pupil premium. I am delighted that she has embraced the pupil premium so early. It is very early days to say how we might extend or adapt it, given that the details were announced only yesterday. I will take that on board, but I do not think we will be adapting it straight away. She makes a fair point: to ensure that it is useful as early as possible for all the reasons she mentioned.

The provision of free early education is an area where we have broad cross-party agreement, perhaps because the case for investing in the early years has never been more compelling. This debate is timely: yesterday we announced details of the new early intervention grant that brings together funding for universal as well as specialist services, and will be worth £2.212 billion in 2011-12 and £2.297 billion in 2012-13.

Local authorities have built up considerable expertise and experience in the early years. They understand the impact that Sure Start children’s centres have on communities, and they have shown considerable commitment to raising the quality of early years settings. It is that experience that gives me confidence that local authorities are best placed to decide what is best for the families in their communities. The early intervention grant will give local authorities the freedom and flexibility to do that.

Early education is at the heart of our vision to support disadvantaged families. We know, as the hon. Lady says, that it improves children’s school readiness and longer-term cognitive and social development, which can especially benefit the most disadvantaged, helping to improve social mobility and break out of inter-generational cycles of poverty. The recent review on poverty and life chances published by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), mentioned by the hon. Lady, underlined the importance of investing in the early years, and ensuring young children are not disadvantaged from birth. The review by the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) into how early intervention programmes can improve the lives of vulnerable children is continuing and doing valuable work.

Although more five-year-olds are achieving well, there is still a 14% achievement gap between those in the most disadvantaged areas and the rest. We need to close that gap. While 95% of children are benefiting from free early education, as the hon. Lady mentioned, among the 5% not currently taking up free places are children from lower income families, those whose mothers do not work, and children from families experiencing multiple disadvantage. The hon. Lady also mentioned families from BME backgrounds and others. She is absolutely right to ask how we can raise the level of awareness and promote the information. Having given a commitment to that 15-hour offer for three and four-year-olds, and having now brought in that additional offer for the most disadvantaged families for two-year-olds as well, it is key that we make it work and ensure that we access the families at which it is most targeted.

Local authorities have a statutory duty to provide information to parents about early education, and we must ensure that they are living up to that. I also believe there is a greater role for Sure Start children’s centres to promote and reach out, particularly to support disadvantaged families more effectively. The hon. Lady also mentioned health visitors. We propose increasing the number of health visitors working out of Sure Start children’s centres by 4,200. They will be going across the threshold before birth, and intensively after birth. They will work particularly with new parents, to check on their parenting skills, to give them support in those early days and to make them aware of what other services are available. That will include the free entitlement. The hon. Lady is right to say that we need to promote it more.

As an example—I have discussed this with the hon. Lady—I visited a family in Stockport. They were in desperate circumstances, living in a run-down house with hardly any furniture and no carpets, and literally no food. There were four sons under the age of 12, from three fathers, and a loving but rather inadequate mother. I visited the house with a very good social worker, who had been working intensively with the family. The social worker and various other professionals had been in and out of that house, but still things were not right. I asked why those children had not been taken into care, although doing so would raise all sorts of other problems. However inadequate, that mother doted on her four young boys. However inadequate, those four young boys doted on their mother; they relied on her and needed to stay with her. If they had gone into care, I fear that the family would have been split up, with all sorts of ramifications.

What struck me more than anything is that the mother needed almost to be taken by the arm and marched down to the children’s centre to be told about good parenting skills—let alone, if it had been earlier, about the free entitlement to ensure that her kids were getting good quality care in the nursery—and marched down to the supermarket to be told what sort of food she should be buying for her children. There is scope for social workers working with such families, with health visitors becoming involved earlier and with children’s centres helping to promote the scheme. The hon. Lady was right to mention it. Our aim is to intervene early in order to close the gaps that I have mentioned and to ensure that every child has a fair chance of succeeding. We want to focus particular support on those disadvantaged families that can benefit most. There are a number of ways in which we propose doing so.

First, all families value choice and flexibility, yet we know that disadvantaged families have less choice of provider and are more likely to cite lack of availability of free places as a reason for not taking up their entitlement. We are working with providers to explore ways of reducing the administrative burden and making it easier to establish business, particularly in disadvantaged areas. We will consolidate and substantially reduce the 200 pages of early-education guidance to local authorities, to help free up local early years markets.

Local authorities will be able to encourage new forms of provision. The Localism Bill, which was published yesterday, will give people new rights to bid to run local services. We seek to identify a national organisation that will be able to equip providers with the skills needed to run their businesses more effectively. The national implementation of the early years single funding formula will ensure that local funding decisions are more transparent. We will use the forthcoming education Bill to clarify the position of maintained nursery schools and other nurseries in schools in being able to charge for additional nursery education beyond the free 15 hours, to help increase choice for parents.

Secondly, despite an extremely difficult fiscal position, we have fulfilled the commitment that we made to early education in our programme for government, by retaining a universal entitlement to 15 hours of free education a week for all three and four-year-olds, as I mentioned earlier. We did so not only because it was the right thing to do but because evidence shows that nursery education that is free at the point of delivery is the best way to ensure that disadvantaged families do not face barriers when trying to access it. Indeed, the experience of the pathfinder local authorities shows that the increased time and the increased flexibilities that come with it have been successful in attracting more families. On average, 2% more three-year-olds accessed their free place for the first time; and those families who previously did not take full advantage of it increased the number of hours that they took by 1.8%.

From April, we will ensure through regulation that all local authorities include a deprivation supplement in their early years single funding formula, which will mean that all disadvantaged children will attract a higher level of funding. As a result, money will be provided for those children who need it most, as well as incentivising providers to offer free places to those families. When children start school, the pupil premium will follow them from reception year onwards, and as I said earlier we will consider whether it should be extended to nursery education over time.

Thirdly, all the evidence shows that only quality provision can have a real impact for young people. We want to work with local authorities and providers in supporting it, and we will focus relentlessly on ensuring that all children are able to access their free provision in a quality setting. Central to a quality setting is a quality work force. We are committed by March to announcing a strategy to improve the quality of the early years work force and the development of a new generation of leaders for that sector. Local authorities such as Stockport are experienced in offering free places for two, three and four-year-olds, and they understand well the connection between quality and the outcome for children. I anticipate that they will want to draw on this expertise when making decisions about places.

Finally, despite the extremely challenging fiscal position, we have been able to commit ourselves to extending free nursery education to all disadvantaged two-year-olds by 2013. By getting this support earlier to those families that will benefit most from it, we are confident that it will help to increase participation at the ages of three and four. Local authorities like Stockport have shown that starting even earlier can have a significant and positive impact on language ability and on the parent-child relationship. The expansion will start quickly. Subject to the approval of Parliament, measures in the education Bill will enable Ministers to introduce an entitlement to 15 hours of free provision a week for all disadvantaged two-year-olds.

In response to the hon. Lady’s concern about funding, I am happy to confirm that we will provide £64 million next year to enable local authorities to continue funding places for two-year-olds. In addition, the Department has set aside £4 million for 2011-12 to trial new approaches to delivering the entitlement. Although funding for the early intervention grant is not ring-fenced, and although decisions will be made locally, there will be a statutory entitlement for two-year-olds to access this education from 2013. Extending entitlement to disadvantaged two-year-olds is a key strategy for increasing take-up at the age of three. Total funding will rise to £223 million in 2012-13 to enable local authorities to build towards that entitlement. Funding will rise further, with an additional £300 million by 2014-15.

The lessons learned from the two-year-old pilot will be central to that expansion. Outreach will be critical. As shown in Stockport, the most disadvantaged families are far less likely to pick up the phone and ask, or to turn up at children’s centres. The pilots showed that the most effective way to engage families was to go out and find them, knock on their doors and then support them into a setting. We want Sure Start children’s centres to play a prominent role in this work, helping to ensure that the most challenged families take advantage of the free entitlements, alongside other family support. Taken together, we know that they can make a huge difference to children’s outcomes.

Our reforms place early education squarely at the centre of the Government’s efforts to combat child poverty and increase social mobility. This week’s announcement on the early intervention grant will have started the process of spending reviews in local authorities across the country. The strength and growing maturity of the sector means that it is well placed for the next stage. Early years professionals will be able to take part in these reviews confident in the knowledge that they have the full backing of the Government; confident that, in local authority members and officers, they have an audience that recognises their achievements and is proud of them; and confident, above all, that what they do really works.

I am enormously grateful for the support that the hon. Lady has given to this agenda today. She has raised some important concerns, and I hope that she is happy that the Government echo them. The steps that we have taken underline the importance of early education in getting the most disadvantaged members of society to gain access to early years education for their children. The Government have made a substantial financial commitment. We wish to ensure that it is taken up and that it works, because it is the right thing to do.

Sentencing (Green Paper)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Leigh. I thank Mr Speaker for being kind enough to grant me a debate on the Green Paper entitled “Breaking the cycle: effective punishment, rehabilitation and sentencing of offenders”.

Crime and the punishment of criminals is important for my constituents. Although I appreciate the Government’s good intentions, I am not sure that the Green Paper hits the appropriate nails on the head. Importantly, it says some constructive and helpful things. For example, it says that prisons should become places of hard work and industry and that community sentences should punish offenders and make them pay back to society and the taxpayer. It wants offenders to make a greater financial reparation to victims and the taxpayer, and victims to engage with the criminal justice system on their own terms. It would also like offenders to get off drugs for good and to pay their way in prison, and to prevent young people from offending.

Although the Green Paper contains laudable aims, the mood music behind it does not hit the right notes for my constituents, who believe that there is a proper place in society for prison and that prison works. Prison did not work as effectively as it might under the previous Government, largely because far too many prisoners lived in overcrowded conditions and far too many sentences were too short. Basically, my constituents are of the view that prison works when it is managed properly.

I welcome this opportunity to say what my constituents think, which is, of course, that they want law and order. They recognise that the prison system is there to deal with the worst offenders. Surely it is right that we tackle reoffending, which is one of the key thrusts of the Green Paper. Does my hon. Friend not agree that the Secretary of State for Justice has outlined a strategy that is consistent with that objective?

No, I do not agree with my hon. Friend. Yes, it is right that reoffending rates are far too high and that we face a real problem in tackling them. None the less, when prison works effectively, it reduces reoffending rates, and I shall come back to that later.

We have twice as many people in prison as the French. Do you think that we are twice as naughty or that our system is not quite good enough?

I am grateful for that intervention. I have some statistics that I shall use later about how we do not have enough people in prison in this country, which relates to the point that my hon. Friend has just made.

Does my hon. Friend not agree that we have to look at overall sentencing in three respects—punishment, rehabilitation and deterrence? Given what the previous 13 years have left us, I completely agree with him—criminals have had it far too easy in prison. The Government’s payback proposals will ensure that prisoners go out and work. When a compensation order is passed in court, they will no longer be able to say, “We haven’t got the money; we are on welfare.” The Secretary of State’s proposal will ensure that they have to work, earn their keep and pay back the money. That must be a good thing.

My hon. Friend is right about that, but prisoners need to work more in prison. On page 9 of the Green Paper, I am pleased to see the coalition Government say:

“Prisoners will increasingly face the tough discipline of regular working hours. This has been lacking in prison regimes for too long.”

I say, “Hear, hear” to that.

The Secretary of State for Justice has indicated that that is one of his intentions. I have also taken him to Stroud where we looked at a payback scheme, which was highly effective. He spoke to people there and he got the impression, as we all did, that the scheme was definitely working. Does my hon. Friend agree that that type of scheme should be pursued?

It should be pursued, yes, but not for persistent and prolific offenders. Far too many nasty people commit all sorts of horrible crimes and never find themselves in prison. On page 6 of the Green Paper, the coalition Government say:

“Recent evidence suggests there is a group of around 16,000 active offenders at any one time, who each have over 75 previous convictions”.

The document goes on:

“On average they have been to prison 14 times, usually for less than 12 months, with nine community sentences and 10 fines.”

Prison works but only when people are sent to prison for an appropriate amount of time. It is clear to all of us that short prison sentences do not work. My solution is to send these very nasty 16,000 people to prison for longer so that they can be rehabilitated before being let out into the community.

With regard to short sentences, is it not the case that a prisoner who is on six months will do three months and be transferred from one prison to another and then another? Therefore, there is no effective rehabilitation within the system. If the prisoner stays in one prison, he will have management and structure rather than being pushed from one prison to another. Does my hon. Friend not agree that that must be changed?

Does my hon. Friend not agree that there is a danger in just looking at statistics, in that we do not know or understand the level of criminality that lies behind them? If we look at the figures and then the length of sentences, we can see that they refer to prolific, but low-level offenders. The Green Paper seeks to address the situation of those criminals who are not the serious criminals—serious criminals will continue to be sent to prison for a long time. This is about short-term sentences of under 18 months. That is why I commend the Green Paper—or I will do in due course—to the House and to my hon. Friend.

I disagree with my hon. Friend. I understand that we are not talking about serious offences. None the less, it is very serious to my constituents that someone can be convicted 75 times. That person is very nasty and is committing lots of very low-level crimes and they deserve to spend a long time in prison.

Let us take that example. That could be someone who is, for example, committing shop thefts on a regular basis. The maximum sentence for something such as that would be around 12 months at the most, or 18 months if they were very unfortunate. This is a persistent but very low-level offender. Clearly, in the example that my hon. Friend puts forward, prison is not working, because the person keeps on committing crimes and keeps on going back to prison. It is to end that revolving door that we are doing the things that have been laid out in the Green Paper. That person is not necessarily a nasty person; they are not violent otherwise they would go away for a lot longer. Those who steal from shops are exactly the sort of people we are addressing.

I am sorry, but that person is a nasty person. Just because someone is not violent does not mean that they are not nasty. I contend that the reason that they are reoffending is that they never serve their sentence in full. Even if someone is sentenced to 18 months for shoplifting, no one in this country will ever serve such a sentence. They might be sentenced to that, but the chances are that they will be out reoffending within six months. My contention is that such people need to be in jail for at least a year to enable proper rehabilitation to take place.

My hon. Friend is spot on in terms of what went on from April 2007 to April 2010 when some 80,000 prisoners were let out on early release. That was absolutely shocking. When a sentence is passed, we must ensure that it is fully complied with.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The previous Government made an almighty mess of this. Even though I disagree with the main thrust of this Green Paper, I commend the coalition Government for taking an organised and proactive interest in trying to address this issue sensibly, which the previous Government did not do.

My hon. Friend has been extremely generous in giving way. The fact that four Members have already contributed to this debate from the Back Benches shows how important the issue is. Prison officers came to my surgery and said, “What we need, Mr Bone, is not these short sentences of a year. We put them on community service for a couple of occasions, but when they come back the third time, we should put them away for five years so that they can get the proper training and education that they need in prison.” What would my hon. Friend say to that?

I would say that my hon. Friend is spot on. He has provided me with a helpful link to the next part of my speech which is about the length of sentences. In 2006, the Home Office report “Re-offending of adults” concluded that

“re-offending rates are lower among offenders discharged from a custodial sentence of at least a year (49 per cent.) than among those discharged from a shorter custodial sentence (70 per cent.)...This suggests that custodial sentences of at least a year are more effective in reducing re-offending.”

It is worth repeating those figures; prisoners with sentences of up to one year had a reoffending rate of 70%, while in the case of prisoners with sentences of more than two years the reoffending rate dropped to 49%. The report also showed that for people who had spent more than four years in prison, the reoffending rate was merely 35%. Looking at those figures, my constituents would say, “Well, that says to us that we need to put these nasty people behind bars for longer, so that they can be rehabilitated properly before being released and being at large again”.

I also want to address this myth that we have too many people in prison in this country. In terms of absolute numbers, yes, we have a relatively high prison population, but we are a relatively highly populated country. If we look at the number of prisoners that we have for every 100,000 people, we are nearer the average but still quite high. However, the only meaningful measure of the size of the prison population is how many prisoners there are in relation to the number of crimes committed. On that measure, I would suggest that the evidence is startling—we do not have the highest prison population in the western world, but the lowest. Compared with the US, Canada, Australia and the EU as a whole, the UK has the lowest prison population of all. For every 1,000 crimes committed in the UK, we have approximately 13 prisoners, compared with approximately 15 in Canada and Australia, well over 20 for the EU as a whole and a whopping 166 in the US.

Does my hon. Friend agree that sentencing and the number of people in prison should be determined by the sentences rather than the ability of the Government to house those prisoners, and that it is the responsibility of Government to ensure that suitable premises are available if sentences are passed?

I very much agree with my hon. Friend. Frankly, it is a national scandal that we do not have enough prison capacity. When we have troops living in tents in theatre in Afghanistan receiving money per meal that is less than the money per meal provided for a prisoner in a UK jail, it is a disgrace that we are not making better use of the redundant military facilities that we have in this country to house a bigger prison population. With a bit of imagination and, frankly, some political backbone, we could achieve a lot more.

That is the very point that I wanted to address today. My constituency neighbours my hon. Friend’s and it contains Her Majesty’s Prison Wellingborough, which now appears to be under threat of closure. HMP Wellingborough is under market testing. However, the market testing has been abandoned or put back. HMP Wellingborough has gone from being a rather poor prison to being the best category C prison in the east midlands. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should not be considering closing that type of prison?

I agree with my hon. Friend. However, prison conditions are far too luxurious. I think that it is 1,500 prisoners who have Sky TV in their cells. I have lots of constituents in Kettering who cannot afford Sky TV. It is a scandal that prisoners receive a bigger allowance for their daily meals than our troops in Afghanistan. In many cases, prison accommodation is too comfortable.

On the other hand, I accept that when a prison is overcrowded it makes rehabilitation more difficult and it is appropriate that we have the right number of cells for the prisoners whom we need to house. However, there must be a limit on the quality of the accommodation on which we are currently spending lots of money.

The other point that I wanted to draw to the House’s attention is the fact that the country with the lowest prison rate—the UK—has the highest crime rate. Is that a coincidence? I do not think so. We have more than 10,000 crimes for every 100,000 people. The country with the highest prison rate, which is the US, has the lowest crime rate; it has about 4,500 crimes for every 100,000 people. Canada, which is the country with the second lowest prison rate, has the second highest crime rate. The EU has the second highest prison rate and the second lowest crime rate. That is not a coincidence. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) has done a lot of very good work in this House in highlighting these statistics, which I think blow apart this namby-pamby approach to having soft community sentences to tackle the behaviour of some very nasty people.

I wanted to make a point with regard to community penalties. I have been at the criminal Bar and prosecuted and defended many cases. Is it not the case that the Green Paper should be welcomed, because community penalties will be tied in with greater use of curfew orders? We should give offenders hard work during the day, make sure that it is done and that it is hard work, but we must also ensure that their liberty on Friday and Saturday nights is completely curtailed, so that rather than have them committing crimes, going out until the early hours and making a nuisance of themselves, we should make greater use of curfew orders, which is what this Green Paper is all about.

I agree with my hon. Friend that if we must have these community penalties, they need to be tough and unpleasant. Frankly, the gangs that I have seen taking part in these sort of activities have not been that disciplined, were not working that hard and I very much doubt the utility of the work that they were doing.

Does my hon. Friend not recognise that the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice has said that there is a place for prison, people should go to prison and that, if they have committed a serious crime, they should go to prison for a long time? We need to get this issue into perspective, because we are actually talking about reducing the prison population by 3,000 and not, as my hon. Friend suggested, about simply having a namby-pamby approach to prisons.

Yes, but my contention is that there are some unpleasant people out there who will commit crime unless they are prevented from doing so by being put in prison. When half the crimes committed in this country are being committed by 10% of the offenders, those 10% of offenders do not need to be out there doing good works on the street; they need to be behind bars so that they cannot reoffend.

The concluding part of my remarks is that although I recognise the good intentions of the Ministry of Justice in trying to reduce reoffending—I do not doubt the Ministry’s efforts in that regard—the obvious thing to do to reduce prison numbers is sort out the 11,500 foreign national prisoners in our jails. The number of such prisoners doubled under the previous Government.

I have raised this issue time and time again on the Floor of the House and frankly we are not getting very far. One of the countries that has a high number of its nationals as prisoners in our country is Nigeria. When I last looked at the figures, I saw that there were something like 752 Nigerian nationals in prison in our country. Effectively, we are paying £30 million a year for incarcerating those individuals. The Nigerian National Assembly has been looking at this issue since 2007. Why are we not hauling in the Nigerian ambassador or speaking to the Nigerian President to get this arrangement sorted out, because sending 752 Nigerians back to Nigeria would go a long way to freeing up the 3,000 prison places that my hon. Friend the Minister wants to find?

I fully endorse what my hon. Friend has said with regard to foreign nationals. Linked to that point, what must change is the procedure that is applied to removal orders and the time that it takes for somebody to be removed from this country. At the moment, there is a disjointed approach and that must change, so that once someone has been through the courts, their removal must be swift.

As usual, my hon. Friend is quite right. However, now we have the Prime Minister launching a campaign on the front page of the Daily Mail to say that repatriating foreign national prisoners is one of his top priorities. Please can we have a joined-up approach across this Government—across the Ministry of Justice, the Foreign Office and the Home Office—to ensure that we actually get these people back to their own countries? Then we will create the space in prison that we need to rehabilitate people properly, reduce the overall prison population if need be and stop people reoffending.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) on securing this debate on the Government’s Green Paper “Breaking the Cycle: Effective Punishment, Rehabilitation and Sentencing of Offenders”, which my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice laid before Parliament last week.

Given the brevity of this debate, the many and varied contributions that we have had from hon. Members have all been very helpful and show the complexity of some of the issues that we are dealing with. The Green Paper’s proposals are the initial conclusions of the wide-ranging assessment of rehabilitation and sentencing that we announced in our programme for government back in May. We are now consulting widely on the proposals set out in the Green Paper and this debate is a welcome opportunity to discuss some of those proposals.

I shall start with the point about foreign nationals that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering, and about which he has long been concerned. I can confirm that as we take forward the Green Paper proposals, we will consider what more we can do to reduce the number of foreign national offenders.

Foreign national prisoners make up 13% of the prison population, and the figure has doubled over the past 10 years. That is not an effective use of expensive prison places if foreign nationals could be removed from the country. There is, however, a balance to be struck. Foreign nationals who commit serious offences should be punished by prison sentences; victims of crime would expect nothing less. But when foreign national offenders do not need to be in prison, or when they could spend some of their prison terms in prisons in their own countries, we should do everything we can to ensure that they are not a burden on our prisons.

With that objective in mind, we are looking to expand prisoner transfer agreements with other countries, so that a prisoner can serve some of their sentence in their home country whenever possible. We are also looking to divert some foreign nationals—for example, those who commit immigration document offences—away from the criminal justice system altogether, if they agree to be removed from the United Kingdom. We are considering other options, and would very much welcome further ideas in response to the Green Paper.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor made it clear last week that the current criminal justice system does not deliver what really matters. Society has a right to expect the system to protect it. We all expect offenders to be punished effectively, but we should also expect criminals to be reformed, so that when they finish their sentences they do not simply return to their life of crime and create more misery for victims.

Despite record spending, the criminal justice system falls short, in that about half of released offenders go on to reoffend within a year—and the reoffending rates for young people are even worse, with three quarters of offenders sentenced to youth custody reoffending within a year. Those high rates are unacceptable to this Government. If we do not prevent people, especially young people, from offending, they will become the prolific offenders of the next decade.

The Green Paper sets out how we propose to break that destructive cycle of crime and to ensure that offenders make amends to victims and communities for the harm that they have caused. That requires a radically different approach—a system that protects the public by punishing the guilty and reducing reoffending, makes offenders face up to their responsibilities and pay back to victims and society, and makes punishment hard work, both in prison and in the community.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kettering referred to the mood music of the Green Paper, so let me make it clear that prison is the right place for serious and dangerous offenders, and that we will ensure that sufficient prison places are always available. I shall come to the detail in due course, but we do not propose in the Green Paper to reduce the ability of any sentencer to send a serious offender to prison, nor do we propose to introduce, as the previous Government did, any new early-release schemes.

We want offenders to be suitably punished for their crimes. Through both the tough discipline of regular working hours in prison, and more strenuous and demanding work in the community, we aim to ensure that offenders work hard and that there is greater use of tough curfew requirements.

We want prisons to be places where offenders learn about the life of work and about the routine of getting up in the morning and doing a full day’s meaningful work. Too many offenders lead chaotic lives, and too many of them have never done a day’s work. By giving offenders the experience of work, we can put order into their lives, better prepare them for life outside prison, increase their job prospects and reduce the likelihood of their reoffending.

We also want offenders to pay back to their victims. The Green Paper includes proposals for increased reparation to victims through a greater use of restorative justice, under which an offender can make good the wrong he has imposed on others. We want restorative justice to be victim-led and not offender-led. Restorative justice can benefit both parties. It can provide reparation to victims and help offenders face up to the realities of their crime and its impact on victims—and, as a result, prevent them from offending in future.

We also want to implement the Prisoners’ Earnings Act 1996 to ensure that more offenders directly compensate the victims of crime through deductions in prisoners’ wages. For lower-level offences, we want to increase the use of fines and compensation orders, so that offenders make greater financial reparation to both victims and the taxpayer. An increased use of compensation orders would mean that more victims would receive financial compensation directly from the offender.

We also want to take a new approach to offender rehabilitation, getting more offenders off benefits and into honest work. That is partly about the routine of work, but crucially it is about taking action to get offenders off drugs so as to break the cycle of offending to feed a drug habit. The Government are committed to rehabilitating offenders from drug dependency to drug-free lives. We want prisons to be places where offenders tackle their drug misuse, not places where their problems get worse, and we are therefore working on preventing drugs from getting into prisons. We are also working with the Department of Health to reshape drug treatment. Within prisons, we will pilot recovery wings, which will link more effectively with community services, and we will focus more on supporting offenders to be drug free.

We also want to look at the number of offenders in prison who suffer from a mental illness. For some people with mental health issues, prison is simply not an appropriate place. In some cases, better outcomes can be achieved by diverting low-level offenders into intensive treatment for mental health problems in the community. We are working with both the Department of Health and the Home Office to ensure that front-line services identify such people. We have proposals to create a more effective and robust community sentence, with greater flexibility for the provisions of mental health requirements. If we can get treatment right, we can help to reduce offending.

The Green Paper signals a transformation in rehabilitation financing and delivery. Significant amounts of public money have been spent on trying to rehabilitate offenders, without properly holding services to account for their results. We will reward independent providers for achieving a reduction in reoffending, and will pay for that with the savings that they generate within the criminal justice system. We will introduce more competition across offender management services, to drive up standards and deliver value for money for the taxpayer. We will increase the freedom for public service providers and front-line professionals to innovate in their work with offenders. The payment-by-results system will be trialled in at least six new projects over the next two years, and the principles will be fully rolled out by 2015.

I turn now to sentencing, which is an issue that my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering mentioned. We know that a sentencing framework must provide courts with a range of options for punishing and rehabilitating offenders and protecting the public. The problem is that the current framework has been developed in an ad hoc fashion over the past 10 years, leaving it overly complex and difficult to administer. We should not underestimate how complex the law has become. The Court of Appeal spends a significant amount of time on cases in which sentencing law is unclear. If the law is often difficult for judges to understand, it is not surprising that the public have considerable difficulties.

Does the Minister agree that it is completely and utterly wrong that in the past 13 years we should have had more legislation than in the past 100 years? Does he also agree that we should make legislation only when it is necessary, rather than for the sake of it?

I do. The figure of more than 3,000 new offences comes to mind. We had the situation in which a new offence was being created before the previous one had commenced.

We want to simplify the sentencing framework and make it more comprehensible for the public. We also want to enhance judicial discretion, to allow the judges and magistrates who hear the cases to make the most appropriate decisions on sentencing within the legal framework set by Parliament.

I accept that some people, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering, want to see longer sentences, but we need to be proportionate. We could not accommodate the much longer sentences that he suggests without raising taxes to build more prisons.

Sentences have, however, got longer and longer over the past couple of decades, and for many years offenders have not spent their sentence in custody. We do not propose to make fundamental changes to determinate sentences. At present, offenders serving a determinate sentence spend half of their sentence in custody and half on licence in the community. If an offender breaches the condition of their licence, they may be returned to prison. We recognise—

School Sports (Colchester)

Although school sport partnerships are nationwide, I wish to concentrate on just one partnership in my constituency as an example to highlight how important they are for every school and every child in the country. I will first set out the national scene. The Government want to save £162 million by scrapping the highly successful school sport partnerships. That is a significant sum, but in the context of the nation’s total public spending it is not, and cutting it would be a false saving.

The sum is equivalent to about half the combined wage bills for the two premiership football clubs that played last night—Manchester United and Arsenal. The total wage bill for all the premiership clubs, boosted by the vast sums they receive from television, comes to more than £1.3 billion, according to research conducted by Deloitte and kindly provided to me by the House of Commons Library. Are we seriously saying that the well-being of around 8 million school children in their developing years and, perhaps more importantly, their prospects for better health in adulthood, are considered to have such a low priority that cutting that money from the education budget is acceptable?

I propose that, in the spirit of joined-up government, the Government should get a grip on the mismanagement of football in this country. Professional football is awash with money, but it is being squandered on grotesque salaries and on the huge amounts of money that are lost from the game and find their way to parasitic agents who contribute nothing to football and instead bleed it.

I urge the coalition Government to introduce a football school sports fund—FSSF—by placing a 10% levy on the turnover of premiership football clubs. That would comfortably cover the £162 million needed to fund the school sport partnerships. After all, many of the young participants will be wearing replica shirts of clubs such as Manchester United and Arsenal. In that way, at least some of the huge sums of money sloshing around the premiership would be put to more beneficial purposes than lining the pockets of the few. It would fund the future fitness, health and sport prospects of every child in the country. It would support the many, rather than being kept by the very few.

I urge the Minister to take forward my suggestion as a means of saving the school sport partnerships at nil cost to the public purse. I am confident that my proposed FSSF would be widely welcomed by our schools and by those responsible for the nation’s health and sports development. Cross-departmental determination involving the Department for Education, the Department of Health, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Treasury could quickly bring that to fruition by the time the £162 million is due to be cut from the education budget. I shall personally bring the proposal to the attention of the Prime Minister.

Before speaking about the Colchester academy sports hub and the seven primary schools it covers, I will conclude the national overview by quoting in full an excellent article by the award-winning journalist Mr Patrick Collins, chief sports writer for The Mail on Sunday, who wrote in his column two days ago:

“When I left for Australia three weeks ago, Education Secretary Michael Gove was being furiously assaulted by just about everybody who understands the purpose and value of sport in schools. From Olympic champions to head teachers to concerned parents, they lined up to attack Gove’s crass and myopic decision to scrap direct funding for school sports partnerships.

There are 450 such partnerships across England, and these alliances of sports colleges, primary, secondary and special schools have broadened choices and increased opportunities for young people to take part in sport. The scheme has been stunningly successful in achieving its bold objectives. Yet now, at a time when the nation is seeking to establish an enduring legacy from the 2012 Olympics, Gove has decided to imperil all its gain with a piece of knee-jerk, doctrinaire cost-cutting.

In common with far too many members of this Cabinet, Gove seems to regard sport as the sweaty pastime of tiresome oiks. The fact that it promotes a healthy lifestyle, reduces juvenile crime, combats dependence on drugs and expands educational aspirations seems not to have crossed his radar. So he swings his little axe in a pathetic attempt to appear decisive.

Three weeks on, and with ignorance no longer an excuse, the wretched Gove is busily trying to present abject retreat as generous compromise—”

Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that he should not refer to the Secretary of State by name. He should refer to him as Secretary of State or by his constituency.

Mr Chairman, I am fully aware of that, but I am quoting from a newspaper article, so those are not my words. They are the words of wisdom of Mr Patrick Collins, who continued:

“Yet the assault continues. I doubt it will be halted this side of the first Cabinet reshuffle.”

Other than giving the Secretary of State the courtesy of putting the title “Mr” before his name, I agree with every word of what Mr Collins said. I disapprove of the manner in which the Secretary of State was addressed in the article, Sir, but I was quoting from it.

It is also worth noting how the proposals to axe school sports funding are viewed by Wenda Donaldson, the director of community sport at the Australian Sports Commission, who observed:

“I am absolutely devastated to hear of the cuts to the School Sport Partnership models. I am astounded that such an amazing and world-leading initiative has been lost to the communities they serviced.”

Well, they have not yet been lost; hopefully, today’s debate will help to save them.

From the world stage, let me now concentrate at a truly grass-roots local level. There are 12 sport hubs in the area covered by the Colchester-Blackwater school partnership, involving 86 schools, the majority of them in my constituency of Colchester. I will concentrate on just one sport hub, the one centred on the Colchester academy under the inspirational leadership of school sport co-ordinator Zoe Ford, and the seven primary schools that it serves. They are: from the Greenstead estate, St Andrew’s Infants school and St Andrew’s Junior school, and Hazelmere Infants school and Hazelmere Junior school; from the St Anne’s estate, Willow Brook primary, a fresh-start school formerly known as St Anne’s primary; Parsons Heath primary; and Roach Vale primary.

Last month, I visited Roach Vale primary to meet some of those involved in the school sport programme and witnessed the wonderful sight of youngsters playing football after school with two sports coaches, assisted by volunteers. I sensed that I was watching the big society in action. What I saw clearly showed the success of school sport partnerships.

From Mrs Ford, Mr Tom Evans, who is the assistant partnership development manager of the Colchester-Blackwater school sport partnership, and Mr Barry Hersom, principal of Colchester academy, established in September this year from the former Sir Charles Lucas arts college, I have been provided with the following information: it is a record of success, success, success, and of achievement, achievement, achievement. It would be extreme folly—an own goal, no less—for the coalition Government to end funding for school sport partnerships.

Four years ago, the average time spent on high-quality physical education in the Colchester academy family of schools was 118 minutes, but it is now 147 minutes. Mrs Ford, as is the case with school sport co-ordinators working for the other sport hubs, has worked alongside teachers in primary schools to increase their subject knowledge and confidence in teaching sport and physical education. That is of great importance when looking at the holistic approach to education.

I am advised that, as a direct result of the higher quality of sport on offer and more time spent on PE, there have been large improvements in the quality of teaching; that pupils’ attainment has increased and the quality of their learning has improved; that they are more physically active; and that they are adopting healthier lifestyles. Those are four positive points.

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this timely and prescient debate. What he has described is, as he said at the beginning of his speech, a microcosm that reflects the macrocosm of what is happening across the country. I can speak from personal experience because in Scunthorpe I appointed a further education sports co-ordinator who was part of the network of school sports co-ordination that helped to move things forward. I applaud the hon. Gentleman for the way he is bringing the matter forward.

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, because he had personal experience of the issue before entering the House. He can see how the partnerships have been a great success story—not only in his constituency and mine, but across the country. They have brought the education family of different schools and different age groups together in a way that I have not witnessed previously.

Clearly, the point I made before the intervention has significance for the NHS. Could the Minister state what discussions were held with the Secretary of State for Health before it was announced that school sport funding was to be axed, and what discussions were held with the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport?

In addition to what happens in schools, the leadership shown by school sport co-ordinators has led to improved links with local clubs. This follows on from the point made by the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin). Coaches have been invited to provide taster sessions for pupils, and that has led to two-way improvement for the pupils and the clubs.

The notion that schools are not taking part in team games or inter-school competitions is wrong. The figures show that, four years ago, 56% of pupils in the Colchester academy family participated in inter-school competitions; the figure is now 100%, with 67% competing in at least three or more competitions each year.

The number of competitions and festivals has increased from six in 2005-06 to 18 in the current academic year. Every pupil in the Colchester academy family will attend the academy at least once for a tournament or festival in the course of the year. A virtual multi-skills athletics competition—that is how it was described to me—has been developed which allows schools and individual pupils to compete with each other without leaving their own school site, and with relatively little equipment. It has proved popular with all school years, from 1 to 6.

I am assured that greater competition has increased confidence and enjoyment in physical activity. Festivals have provided pupils with a broader and extended curriculum through the introduction of new sporting activities. I am further told that the extra competition has helped pupils develop their spiritual, moral, social and cultural development. I know that the Secretary of State for Education and the Prime Minister would approve of that.

With the 2012 Olympics less than 20 months away, the sports hub has enabled all schools to link their curriculum to that major world event. There are further statistics to prove the value, in every meaning of the word, of this school sport partnership—I am sure that this is true across the country. A big bonus has been the increase in the number of pupils in each year group who have participated in one or more community sports, dance or multi-skills clubs with links to the particular school. For the Colchester academy family, in 2006-07, it was 21% of pupils; last year, it was 51% of pupils. That would never have happened without the school sport partnership.

It is also significant that non-sporty pupils, to coin a phrase, have become involved in an activity that they enjoy. There are greater links with community clubs, therefore helping to promote community cohesion—a further example of the big society in action. Another astonishing statistic—a direct result of the Colchester academy school sport partnership—is that currently 97% of pupils are actively involved in sports volunteering and leadership; five years ago, the figure was 28%.

My concluding observations, which were put to me in advance of today’s debate by the Colchester academy school sport partnership, are contained in the document, “Colchester Blackwater School Sport Partnership”. Pupils feel greater self-worth and make a positive contribution to the school and wider community. Classes are more cohesive as pupils work together as a motivational team. I am tempted to say that perhaps all political parties in the House of Commons might want to engage such services.

The leaders’ programme helps with the transition between infants and junior schools, as leaders provide excellent role models for younger children. There is better social cohesion as young pupils mix with old, pupil-organised activities result in improved behaviour at lunch time and pupils’ moral and social development improves.

Abandoning school sport partnerships would be a huge mistake and would affect today’s young people, including my two grandsons who are currently at primary school and my granddaughter who will be starting school in the year of the Olympics. I recognise the state of the nation’s economy, but I would argue that we should find ways of ensuring that we do not lose the highly successful school sport partnerships.

I opened this debate with a suggestion as to how funding could be provided in future years, and I urge the Minister to discuss that with colleagues across the Government.

It is a pleasure to serve for the second time today under your chairmanship, Mr Leigh. This debate is very different from the earlier one.

I ought to start by saying to the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) that we must stop meeting like this. This is the second time in the past couple of months that I have responded to an Adjournment debate that he has instigated. I congratulate him on securing this important debate. He opened it and kept the flow going with his usual colourful language. Never let it be said that he is a man who only brings problems to this House, because he started his speech with an interesting solution that would involve the football premiership in the cost of school sport partnerships. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport and the Olympics will read that practical suggestion in the record, and I am happy to ensure that it is brought to his attention.

The hon. Gentleman’s speech was also quite original. Not only was he described as being timely and prescient—I believe that that was how the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) described him—but he was also an unashamed plagiarist, in that he used a large part of his speech to quote from yesterday’s Daily Mail. If only making speeches were that easy.

I am grateful for that. We would not want the good burghers of The Mail on Sunday not to get credit for the piece.

I know that the hon. Gentleman is a committed campaigner in his constituency and in this House, and it is clear from his speech that he believes passionately in the work of the Colchester-Blackwater school sport partnership, which is also known as the Thurstable school sport partnership. Among other flowery references that he quoted from the article in The Mail on Sunday, he quoted a phrase that suggested that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education considers sport to be

“the sweaty pastime of tiresome oiks.”

May I make it clear again today, as I did in a debate last week on school sport, and as the Secretary of State himself made clear, that he and I and this Government are absolutely committed to the promotion of sport among the population in general and among our school-age citizens in particular? We want them to be involved with sport, particularly high-quality competitive sport, as early and as intensively as possible, and, most importantly, we want that involvement to be sustained through the school years and into adulthood. Too often, the experience in school drops off a cliff when children leave school. We must engender the ethos of the good of sport in children of all ages, and that must be carried forward into adulthood.

As the hon. Gentleman said, sport is good not only for physical health but for mental agility, its socialising benefits, the community engagement that it brings about, teamwork experiences and the personal development of children. It is not a question of being in any way against sport or in any way trying to undermine it. We want more sport, better quality sport and more sustained sport in schools. It is a question of how, not if, and it is important to make that absolutely clear. That underlies the changes that we are looking to make in how sport is delivered.

We are aware of the good work being done in many school sport partnerships, which have played an important part in helping to re-establish physical education and sport as a central part of school life. The Thurstable/Colchester-Blackwater partnership is a good example of that.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and I pay tribute to the work of Adam Finch, partnership development manager at the Thurstable/Colchester-Blackwater partnership, and his team for the excellent work that they have done improving the standards of PE and sport for their young people. I was especially pleased that an impressive number of young people are taking part in intra-school sporting competitions. However, although that partnership is performing well in a number of areas, in some year groups it is still not delivering inter-school competition at a level that the Government would like to see and the numbers taking part in competitive sport, which we would like to be better promoted, have fallen slightly below the national average in years 6, 7 and 8.

Did I understand the Minister correctly? Do those figures relate to what was happening within what we call the Colchester-Blackwater school sport partnership? If what he has said is correct, does he accept that those figures are still vastly better than they were four or five years ago, before the partnerships started, and that removing the partnerships will do considerable damage to the figures that he has just quoted?

In terms of the participation and rates and where the information has come from, the hon. Gentleman gave those figures. One does not deny that. I am saying that the experience and the figures are patchy in different parts of the country and in his constituency. Some partnerships appear to be achieving a great deal more than others. I am not trying to take away from where progress has been made. We question the level of competitive sport, the quality of the sport and its sustainability and whether partnerships are changing the ethos of sport in schools, which is what we need to do.

Let us remember that when the school sports partnership scheme was first funded from 2003, it was never intended to be a permanent arrangement; it was all about promoting sport from a low level and, hopefully, being able to set schools free to be able to carry that work forward. Seven years and £2.4 billion on, we cannot afford to continue that level of funding. We are questioning whether we are getting best value for money and whether we can get better bang for our buck, looking at alternative ways of providing sport in schools. That is what this is all about: not if, but how.

From figures on sports where participation has fallen and those relating to the number of schools offering particular sports, it is an indisputable fact that, after the commitment of £2.4 billion, the number of schools providing gymnastics, rounders, netball, hockey and rugby union has fallen. The number of schools offering swimming has not changed: it was 84% in 2003-04, before £2.4 billion was spent, and it is 84% now, still. There has been no increase in participation in a significant number of sports.

The taxpayer is entitled to better for the not inconsiderable sum that has been spent in the past seven years. That is why we feel that a new approach with a renewed focus on competition is needed to make an impact. To do this, the Government want to build on the good work already being done by schools to encourage more pupils to play competitive sport in their own school and against other schools.

Although school sport partnerships have helped schools to increase participation rates in a range of areas targeted by the previous Government, they have also locked schools into a rigid network while forcing them to achieve a series of targets that this Government feel impedes schools’ ability to promote sport. The Government are concerned that, despite this heavy focus on targets, the proportion of pupils playing competitive sport regularly has remained disappointingly low. Only some two in every five pupils play competitive sport regularly in their own school and only one in five plays regularly against other schools. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has concluded that the existing network of school sport partnerships is neither good enough value for money, nor likely to be the best way to help schools achieve their potential in improving provision for competitive sport.

The hon. Gentleman asked what discussions have taken place with colleagues in other Departments, particularly with the Secretaries of State for Health and for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education has had a number of meetings with those two Cabinet colleagues, particularly the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, as have I. I sit on the interdepartmental steering group on the schools olympics, which is one proposal being advanced by this Government. There has been considerable engagement between officials in all three Departments. I had responsibility for children’s health in the shadow Health team, under the now Secretary of State for Health, where we had extensive discussion on this matter. We need to tackle not only what goes in but what comes out, in terms of the obesity problem and the activity underachievement. We need to take a two-pronged approach.

In lifting the many requirements placed on them by the previous Government’s PE and sport strategy, the Government believe that schools will be able to use their new freedoms to enable more pupils to play competitive sport. I understand that this decision has not been popular in some quarters. I recently met a group of exceedingly impressive young ambassadors who voiced their concerns eloquently when delivering a petition last week. However, I am convinced that this decision is the right one to ensure that the next generation of young people enjoys and benefits from sport as never before, while laying the foundations for a lasting sporting legacy from 2012.

I have offered to meet a wider group of young sports ambassadors, after we announce our alternative proposals, to try to engage them fully in the way ahead.

The Minister’s response will not be recognised by the people in the Colchester academy family, whom I have met and on whose behalf I called the debate. Would he accept an invitation to meet people and see what happens on the ground? I think that he might be pleasantly surprised.

I am always grateful for invitations and the Secretary of State for Education is always keen to devolve invitations to his ministerial team. I have had a number of similar offers from many colleagues, not surprisingly, among the many letters that I have received on this subject. I have visited schools and engaged in physical activities in those schools. The hon. Gentleman is good at issuing invitations to Ministers to visit his constituency; he was good at issuing them to the previous Government and the previous Secretary of State for Education was good at passing them on to the Minister with responsibility for schools, who spent most of his time heading towards East Anglia. If I can make a diversion to take in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, I will endeavour to do so at some stage in future. In principle, yes; in practice, we will see how the diary pans out or I will never get any work done in this place and I will not be able to answer his frequent debates in the House.

The Secretaries of State for Education and for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, in consultation with experts in sport and alongside officials from both Departments, are considering how to take things forward in the best interests of schools and the pupils and parents they serve. One way of doing that will be launching a national Olympic and Paralympic-style sports event that I have already mentioned, which will form the pinnacle of a pyramid of school sport competitions. Other layers will include intra-school, inter-school, local authority or county level competitions. Every school, including mainstream and special schools, will be given the opportunity to get involved. I am keen to ensure that pupils with disabilities are fully engaged in the process. I am particularly keen to meet representatives from Paralympics and disability sports organisations. We intend to use £10 million of lottery funding, distributed by Sport England, to establish this competition for young people.

While I am on the subject, let me dispel the myth that competitive sport is elitist. Competitive sport inspires people to be the best that they can be and should be a vibrant part of school life for all pupils. Sport should be for everyone. That is why we want schools to set up sports teams that cater for players of all abilities. Anyone, from the most serious football player to the pupil who enjoys a kick-about for fun, should be given the opportunity to learn the values of competitive sport and to enjoy and benefit from that experience. We want schools to have not just first teams, but second, third and fourth teams, as there were when I was at school. Indeed, in 10 schools 100% of pupils were playing regular competitive sports against other schools and in 320 schools all the pupils are regularly taking part in intra-school competitions. That does not sound like elitism to me.

We want to see a sharp reduction in the bureaucratic burden on schools, leaving them free to focus on doing what is right for their students. The previous Administration’s school sport programme was about telling schools what to do. First, it specified how many hours of sport were to be made available to pupils, by schools, each week, starting with 75% doing two hours by 2006, then 85% doing two hours by 2008, rising to all children doing four hours by 2010, reaching the ever-more prescriptive heights of five hours of sport for all five to 16-year-olds by 2011. A pupil who joined a secondary school in September 2004 would be expected to do two hours of PE and sport a week by 2006, four hours by 2010 and five hours by 2011. How can schools be expected to make decisions about the best needs of their pupils while trying to deal with the straitjacket of such central control?

Secondly, it created a new hierarchy of people to run the programme for schools, including competition managers and senior competition managers—a new hierarchy of people telling other people what to do. Every one of those people was committed to improving local school sport, but I fear that, at best, they enabled schools to leave sport to someone else and, at worst, they stifled schools’ ability to provide an offer that was best for the needs of their schools and their pupils. That neither enables innovation—

Sitting adjourned without Question put (Standing Order No. 10(11)).