House of Commons
Monday 4 April 2011
The House met at half-past Two o’clock
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
Communities and Local Government
The Secretary of State was asked—
Local Government Funding (Services)
We have given councils much greater flexibility and the financial autonomy to manage their budgets. If they share back-office services, join forces to get better value for money, cut excessive chief executive pay, and root out waste and fraud, they can protect key front-line services.
I thank the Secretary of State for his response, but does it not demonstrate that he is miles away from the reality of what is happening in the streets? My local authority, which is one of the most efficient and a four-star authority that has frozen its council tax for four years, is faced with 500 job losses, massive cuts in most of its services and a £28 million loss in spending in its local economy. What is he going to do about that?
I recognise that the hon. Gentleman has many duties in this House, but perhaps he should have spoken to his council leader, Councillor Marie Rimmer, who says:
“most job losses”
“achieved by not filling posts, early retirement and voluntary redundancies”,
which is hardly the position that he paints. It is also telling that Sally Yeoman, the chief executive of Halton and St Helens Voluntary and Community Action, blames the drop in funding on the ending of the working neighbourhoods fund—a fund that the Labour party had decided to end in March.
Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating councils that have protected front-line services through creative and innovative thinking about their budgets, such as Medway council, which has halved its funding to trade unions and given that money to fund library books instead?
I do indeed congratulate them. My hon. Friend points out to those on the Opposition Benches a way in which money can be directed towards the front line. I hope that the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) will send out requests that Labour councils similarly look towards trade unions and reducing their costs.
The Secretary of State has described his cuts as progressive, fair and protecting the most vulnerable. Last Friday, Conservative-led Birmingham city council inflicted the biggest cut in local government history of £212 million. Some 4,000 people face losing their care packages, including some of the most vulnerable, many of whom are in ill health and in the twilight of their years. Is that progressive, fair and protecting the most vulnerable?
Let us be absolutely clear: these are Labour cuts. The Labour party was planning £14 billion-worth of cuts, all of them front-loaded. At least we changed the formula to help the most vulnerable. We find ourselves in a position where we know perfectly well that the Labour party would have inflicted even greater cuts on local government.
New Homes Bonus
Today, I have announced the final allocations to local authorities under the new homes bonus for 2011-12. All parts of England will receive significant funding from the scheme. Kirklees will receive £1.3 million, Rugby £435,000 and Gloucester £782,000. The funding is completely un-ring-fenced and councils will be able to use it according to the wishes of their local communities.
I thank the Minister for that reply. Will he confirm the protection of the green belt and will he consider the suggestion from the Campaign to Protect Rural England perhaps to have an enhanced rate of new homes bonus for brownfield sites to encourage regeneration?
I looked carefully at the new homes bonus and at where there should be an uplift and I came to the conclusion that the only uplift we would give would be to those who built additional affordable homes, and that is a block grant of £350 per home. The green belt is entirely protected; that is in the coalition agreement and we stand by that position.
The local authority in my constituency of Rugby has been quick to recognise the benefits that come with the new homes bonus and it has ambitious proposals for new housing development. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that planning authorities across England recognise the lead of authorities such as Rugby and allocate land for the new homes that are so badly needed?
In many ways, authorities such as Rugby have led the way by being so keen to produce housing. The difference is that now every single one of our constituents gets to benefit from new homes being built. There is £200 million on the table that is being distributed today. I note that the Opposition seem to be against their own authorities receiving the money.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney), may I ask my right hon. Friend whether more could be done, perhaps on the paperwork, in order to attract developers into constituencies such as mine, which are entirely urban and therefore have only brownfield sites to offer?
One of the changes that we have made is to enable local authorities to set their own targets for brownfield sites. I have been to my hon. Friend’s constituency and I know that there are many good sites available. Rather than housing being built on sites where the regional spatial strategy seemed to insist that it went, housing can now go where it is required. Much of that will be on the brownfield land that I went to see. That is one of the features of the Government’s policy, and of the new homes bonus in particular.
Last week the Minister for Housing and Local Government wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck) and claimed that the new homes bonus will not penalise deprived areas to favour more affluent ones. Can he explain to me why his figures differ so widely from those of the National Housing Federation, which estimates that the four northern regions of England will lose £104 million, whereas the five southern regions will gain £342 million?
It may have escaped the attention of Opposition Members that the new homes bonus rewards the authorities that build homes. That is why it is called the new homes bonus. Of the five areas that are building the most homes—the five top councils to receive the new homes bonus—three of them are in the midlands and the north.
The Government’s stated objective is to ensure that more new homes are built than were being built before the recession. I am sure that it is an objective with which we can all agree. However, if the new homes bonus does not incentivise individual authorities sufficiently so that the sum total of all the individual parts does not meet the Government’s objective, what is plan B?
The point about the new homes bonus is that it is just one element in a series of steps that we are taking to ensure that house building goes ahead. The hon. Gentleman is right to mention that it slumped to the lowest level since 1924 under the old top-down targets. The new homes bonus will ensure that £200 million is distributed today, but it does not stop there. We are also proposing build now, pay later. We are slimming down some of the many regulations that prevent house builders from getting homes built faster, and we are encouraging them to renegotiate section 106.
The Ansty technology park is in Rugby and the Government announced on Friday that they would sell it off. That was an important job-creation opportunity brought into existence by the old regional development agency which was scrapped by the Government. Would it not be preposterous if Rugby gained from the new homes bonus through developing such a site for housing?
The new homes bonus is entirely flexible to allow local authorities to decide how the cash that comes in is spent—those hundreds of millions of pounds being distributed today—so that they can take it and use it for their own objectives. There is a conversation to be held locally rather than nationally about how that money is used in Rugby.
Community and Voluntary Sectors
Spending decisions are a matter for local councils, but no council should make disproportionate cuts to the voluntary sector. It is increasingly clear that well run councils are following that principle, but that a few of the worst run are targeting the voluntary sector for disproportionate cuts.
On Friday I met representatives of Westhoughton visiting service who, having lost a third of their budget, do not know where to turn to make sure that their elderly clients get the support they need. That is one of the many voluntary and community sector groups that have contacted me in desperation. I hope that the Minister does not reply by saying that Bolton council should have prepared for the cuts or should protect the voluntary sector, because it did and it has, but the Government have cut £42 million—three times more than Labour would have cut. If the council does not have the money, it cannot give it to groups. What can I say to these groups?
The hon. Lady can start by getting her figures accurate. This is the second time in a row that she has come to the House with bizarre figures. I was at a loss to understand where she got them from, but the source of her information turns out to be a magazine called the Bolton Scene. It is not a paper of record. In between obituaries for fish—“Farewell to popular fish”—it includes all sorts of misinformation about the settlement for her council. If she sources her information accurately, she will discover that the cut to Bolton’s budget is 7% and the council should not be cutting local groups disproportionately.
My right hon. Friend has made great efforts to ensure that local authorities publish their spend above £500. Will he extend that to urge local authorities to publish the amount of their spend that is given to voluntary organisations? I think that that transparency would be very worth while.
I completely agree with my hon. Friend, although there is one council that has failed to publish its spending over £500: Nottingham city council. The right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) squirmed and wriggled rather than urge the council to publish those details. I hope that she will take the opportunity today to say that it should publish them.
Well, here we have Ministers again castigating local councils for cuts affecting voluntary organisations, but the Cabinet Office is cutting grants to many volunteering organisations, Government cuts to legal aid funding will have a serious impact on Citizens Advice and the VAT rise and loss of gift aid transitional relief will cost the sector £250 million. Does the Minister not see just how hypocritical that stance is toward local authorities? When will the Government get their act together on supporting the voluntary sector?
Of course, the hon. Lady never saw a piece of spending that she did not like. The hypocrisy is to complain about the inevitable consequences of the previous Government’s overspending. As she has the opportunity, perhaps she will just nod and agree that no council—for example, a Labour council looking to her for leadership—should cut disproportionately. It is a time for leadership from the Opposition Front-Bench team. If they want to hang around like ghouls, wailing and moaning from the sidelines, they can do so, but they should take a lead and give a message to Labour councils.
Government Funding (Distribution)
The local government settlement is a fair outcome in very difficult circumstances—those circumstances being that we are borrowing £400 million every day to plug the gap left by Labour. We have worked hard to get equity between local authorities, giving proper attention to both their level of dependency on Government support and their local resources. That is why we have transferred the needs-based element from 73% to 83% of the formula grant and introduced the banded floors. As a result, for every pound per resident of formula grant that goes to the least dependent authority in London—Richmond—Lambeth will get £4.86, which is almost five times as much per resident as the least dependent authority.
As far as equity for local taxpayers goes, the council tax freeze will provide £2.4 million to Lambeth this coming year.
Of course, the fact is that the most deprived single-tier local authorities are seeing their spending power reduced by nearly four times the amount of the least deprived local authorities. For example, Lambeth—the Minister omitted this point—is having to make just under £40 million-worth of cuts to services in my area, including to Lambeth senior citizens day centre in Brixton Hill. That centre provides food and a place to go for—[Interruption.]
According to Lambeth council’s own website, it is reducing its front-line service provision by £1 million, but I draw the House’s attention to the fact that it is also increasing its reserves from £83 million last year to £93 million this year. Perhaps the question about equity would be better directed at the council than at us.
Some councils, many of them Labour-controlled, are protecting overpaid bureaucracies and slashing services run by the third sector, while others are embracing social enterprise and charities in new models of social services provision. Will the Minister recognise good behaviour in future allocations to get true equity to the people who need it?
The wheels are well and truly coming off the Government’s explanation for their swingeing cuts to local government—that is pretty clear. Contrary to his assertion that he would protect the most vulnerable by making his cuts “fair and progressive”, the Secretary of State is actually imposing the biggest cuts on the country’s poorest communities and leaving more affluent areas relatively unscathed. Even his own Housing Minister confessed last week that the poorest areas will shoulder the harshest cuts. Will the Minister replying do the decent thing and admit that the Secretary of State’s declaration about fairness and the Chancellor’s assertion that we are all in it together are completely and utterly preposterous?[Official Report, 26 April 2011, Vol. 527, c. 2MC]
The hon. Gentleman has of course used a selective quotation, and that is entirely his prerogative, but it does rather undermine his case. The reality is that no local authority in this country faces a reduction in its real expenditure of more than 7.7%, and offset against that is the new homes bonus that we have announced today, through which Lambeth, for instance, gets £1.9 million.
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and remind him that the Localism Bill, for which he and I served in Committee, contains provisions for the community right to build, which will allow community organisations to bring forward schemes for small-scale development, including housing, without needing to go through the traditional planning route. As he and I know, we hope to achieve Royal Assent for that at the end of the year.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. One of the problems with housing supply is the availability of land, but the Government own vast tracts of land throughout the country, so has his Department given any consideration to bringing forward some public sector land to meet the housing crisis?
I remind my hon. Friend that “The Plan for Growth” published last week by my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Chancellor set out plans for the release of more public land, and this Department is very strongly engaged in making sure that that leads to more housing.
At the Budget, we announced the Firstbuy scheme, which will be co-funded by the Government and house builders, bring £500 million of investment into the sector and build about 15,000 homes throughout the UK. In England, those figures are £200 million and 10,000. In addition, the Government’s commitment to reducing debt is perhaps the most important thing that we can do to create stability, and recently I held a first-time buyers summit to pull together the sector and ensure that progress is made.
My hon. Friend is absolutely spot on, of course, and the scheme will do both those things. The critical difference between it and the schemes that the previous Government ran is that the person purchasing the house has to provide a deposit. In addition, the amount of money going in from the Government will be reduced to make it much better value for money.
Will the Minister ensure that all the initiatives for first-time purchase and for shared ownership are well publicised in every local authority in England, and that the new homes bonus money can be used, where local authorities agree, for the maximum number of property builds and for the maximum number of people acquiring a property—through shared ownership or outright possession—for the first time?
I am very grateful for that question, not least because I am able to congratulate Southwark on today pulling in £2.6 million from the new homes bonus. That money certainly can be used in precisely the way it is required locally, and whatever the principal concerns are for local people. It is the way to incentivise more house building, and we will make sure that it works effectively alongside the Firstbuy scheme.
The Minister referred to the new scheme as relevant to the replacement of HomeBuy Direct, which as he is aware was the much more generous scheme that he scrapped just 10 months ago. Is this not another example of the Government introducing a new policy to make up for the fact that their previous policy has gone wrong?
The hon. Gentleman has got his facts wrong. HomeBuy Direct continues until 2012, so there is no question of its having come to an end. It was a funded scheme for a specific period which will come to an end at that point, so by launching another scheme that overlaps rather than replaces it, we have, I assume, achieved precisely what he would want.
I make my usual declaration of an indirect interest in the entry in the register for my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford).
HomeBuy Direct was a good scheme, and considering that the Minister called it an “expensive flop” I am delighted that the Government have seen fit, albeit somewhat late in the day, to enhance it further and, in many ways, to replicate it. Can he confirm that, as the Financial Times reported, this is nothing more than his admitting that he cannot fix the mortgage market? Has he not, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) said, just wasted a vital 10 months, leaving hundreds of thousands of first-time buyers—not tens of thousands, given the sort of scheme we are describing—with no hope under this Government of securing their own homes?[Official Report, 9 June 2011, Vol. 529, c. 5-6MC.]
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for allowing me to clear up one thing. It is worth knowing that when I said that the HomeBuy Direct scheme had been an expensive flop, it had been launched 10 months earlier and had helped just five people to secure a home. It is true that the scheme has developed over a period of time and has helped people in between, but as I said in my previous answer—I appreciate that it was given after she had written her question, but none the less it is useful to connect the two—the previous scheme does not end until 2012. We are in 2011, and we have already announced a new scheme.
The Government take the problem of unauthorised development seriously. Among other measures, the Localism Bill, which completed its Committee stage in the House of Commons on 10 March, includes provisions aimed at strengthening local planning authorities’ powers to tackle the issue.
Unauthorised developments, particularly illegal Traveller sites, have poisoned relations in our communities. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that he will use to the full the new powers in his Localism Bill to ensure that local councils are given the powers they need to determine these issues on the basis of local need and historic demand, not imposed national quotas?
People in Hightown, Melling and Lydiate in my constituency are concerned at the possible development of the green belt. Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to confirm whether the new legislation will make it harder for developers to build on the green belt, and will he allay the fears of many people that it is a developers’ charter?
No, the way in which we intend to deal with problems of unauthorised developments is to get tougher. We are doing four things. We are going to deal with the question of concealed buildings and those who seek to hide a dwelling behind a construction; we will be increasing the penalties; we are going to ensure that people can appeal either for an enforcement order or a retrospective planning application, not both; and we are going to increase the ability to deal with fly-posting. Our general policy is this: we intend to ensure that the green belt is held solid and absolutely inviolate by this Administration. We are not going to follow the tenets of the former Labour Government by concreting over the green belt.
The security and rights of existing social tenants, including those who are under-occupying, will be protected in the reform of social housing. I have announced a £13 million scheme to help local authorities to offer tenants greater flexibility in their choices.
I thank the Minister for his reply, but does he accept that the allocations policies of some local authorities, including Manchester, result in larger, hard-to-let properties being under-occupied through no fault of the new tenants? Given the one reasonable offer rule, surely some existing tenants will no longer be able to afford to stay in their property, and some potential tenants will not be able to afford to take the one reasonable offer.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that there are problems with the allocation policy at the moment. One thing that we plan to do through the Localism Bill is to provide much greater flexibility to allocations. For example, if somebody is seeking to move home within the sector, they should not have to join the back of the regular queue. In addition, by the end of this year we will have set up a mobility scheme, which will cover 90% of homes in this country.
The coalition Government have moved fast to enable communities to protect their green spaces. Three measures stand out. The first is the end to the perverse classification of gardens as brownfield land, which has led to the destructive practice of garden grabbing. The second is the abolition of density targets so that developers have greater freedom to provide homes with gardens. The third is the introduction of neighbourhood plans, which will allow local people to safeguard green spaces and incorporate them in their vision of their community.
Can the Minister therefore explain to me what on earth the Chancellor of the Exchequer was talking about in his Budget speech? One of the most important parts of the speech was on how he would free up the country to developers. Most people in Huddersfield now know that their green spaces—not green belt, but green spaces—are vulnerable to being built on.
Of course they are not. At the moment, the regional strategies place a threat over communities, as the hon. Gentleman knows. He is a great localist, and he and I agree on this. I commend his blog to those on the Opposition Front Bench, who are chuntering away. There is a very persuasive piece on this matter under the title “The party I love is a party of ideals. That’s why I back David Miliband”. It states:
“I’ve always wanted to be in a party rooted in our diverse communities…nourished and reinvigorated by the ideas and aspirations that stem from our grass roots.”
We are giving the grass roots the right to determine the future of their green spaces, something for which I welcome his support.
Rural buffer zones and other planning designations protect areas such as my constituency from the westward expansion of Swindon. Does the Minister agree that, leaving aside the green belt, we have all kinds of ways in which to protect our countryside from excessive building?
Local Government (Employment)
The Department makes no such centralised estimates for the good reason that it is for individual councils to make their own decisions about how their local work forces are organised and managed to ensure the efficient delivery of services for local taxpayers.
The Tory-led Local Government Association has made the estimate, however, that 140,000 jobs will go as a result of these policies. PricewaterhouseCoopers has said that for every job lost in the public sector, one will go in the private sector. That makes almost 300,000 jobs. How on earth can that help the recovery?
That is because the Government are committed to reducing the deficit to enable a proper and sustainable private sector-led recovery. That is no doubt why the Office for Budget Responsibility has demonstrated that there will be an increase in private sector jobs of 1.3 million over the same period. That is nearly four times the figure quoted by the hon. Gentleman.
Is it not the case that if councils used their reserves more effectively, unlike Manchester city council, and did not keep sending officers out of the door at half a million a pop, like Nottingham city council, so many jobs would not have to be lost?
My hon. Friend is quite right. The Government have made it abundantly clear that significant sums are held by local authorities in reserves, much of which is not allocated. Sensible use of those funds at a time of financial crisis would enable councils to protect their front-line services.
We have received four parliamentary questions and a number of letters that included references to local leisure facilities.
I hope the council did not go to the same suppliers that gave our Department the sofas and the peace pod. I note that Leeds city council has £32 million in its reserves, and I hope that it might consider a use for that money to support facilities in my hon. Friend’s constituency.
Local Authority Executive Pay
Representations have been received from Members of Parliament, leaders of local authorities, trade union branches and members of the public. Although it is a matter for individual councils, we expect restraint and leadership to be shown locally when setting senior pay. We have introduced measures in the Localism Bill to increase local democratic accountability for decisions on senior pay. We have also been consulting on proposed new transparency arrangements for local government, including how public money is used in relation to senior pay.
Forty-three per cent. of chief executives are paid more than the Prime Minister, and their pay has increased by more than 78% in the past five years. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this culture of excessive pay is a direct result of the last Labour Government’s consistent ability to spend more than this country could afford?
I entirely agree. Chief executives’ pay has got completely out of kilter. There are now 800 local government employees in the top 1% of all earners according to Will Hutton’s figures. With regard to the chief executive of Suffolk, that county does many fine things and is an exemplar authority in many ways, but the chief executive’s refusal to take a pay cut has meant that she has detracted from Suffolk’s many fine achievements.
Will the Secretary of State look in particular at the case of Mr Nick Johnson, who for the past four years has supplemented his local government ill health retirement pension by being paid £1,000 a day by Hammersmith and Fulham council, so that when he leaves later this year he will have taken almost £1 million from taxpayers? In doing so, will the Secretary of State ignore the fact that the local Conservative party says that Mr Johnson is good value for money, and that he has advised the Tory party on housing policy?
Average band D council tax for all local authorities in England, including Tamworth, is unchanged between 2010-11 and 2011-12.
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. By sharing back-office services with Lichfield district council and by bearing down on furniture and other equipment costs, Tamworth borough council has managed to keep council tax frozen, reduce its spending and ensure that it is doing a good job. Will my right hon. Friend please commend the Conservative-controlled council, and its retiring value-for-money chief executive David Weatherley, for the work that they have done?
Section 106 Revenue
19. What plans he has for the future of rules governing the use of section 106 moneys collected by local authorities. (50358)
The Government are committed to delivering a simplified, locally driven planning system that supports sustainable economic growth and development. A key part of that is the framework that ensures that local communities benefit directly from development. We intend to retain section 106 agreements in a scaled-back form, alongside the community infrastructure levy, to fund local infrastructure and community facilities.
Given that commitment to empowering local people, is there any intention to provide greater flexibility to parish councils, such as Sherfield English parish council, which desperately want to use accumulated section 106 moneys, but cannot do so under current rules?
The answer is yes. The Localism Bill centres on giving greater discretion to local communities to use the funds that come with developments so that they can invest in infrastructure locally. We know that one of the sources of opposition to development is people’s reasonable fear that they will not get the infrastructure that the development requires. We are changing that through the Bill.
A recent scrutiny report at Wiltshire council revealed that it had failed to claim £16 million of section 106 agreements to date. Given the pressures on councils to spend on and invest in the infrastructure in their communities, does the Minister agree that now would be a good time to make such claims?
It is good to see my hon. Friend in his usual place.
Council tax bills for Harlow, Epping Forest and Essex are unchanged between 2010-11 and 2011-12. That pleases me, too, as my hon. Friend and I are constituency neighbours and share Epping Forest and Essex.
My Department will deliver efficiency savings in the next financial year by driving down our core running costs and through key contracts that have been renegotiated. This is expected to deliver efficiency savings of around £11 million: £4.2 million from information technology, £6.5 million from buildings and £0.6 million from facilities management.
I welcome the steps that the Secretary of State is taking to realise efficiency savings and improve accountability and transparency. Does my right hon. Friend agree that more must be done to create a real value-for-money culture in more local councils in the country, and that that aim should feature more strongly in public servants’ objectives so that it is reflected in their work in the communities and for council tax payers?
My hon. Friend makes a reasonable point. It is particularly important for my Department to take a lead. That is why we have been so keen to reduce the central costs of our budgets and to take a lead in reorganising the Department to recognise its changing role, whereby it no longer dictates to local government, but tries to enable more power to go to local communities.
New Social Housing
We are investing £4.5 billion in new affordable housing over the next four years, with the hope of producing 150,000 new affordable homes.
I thank the Minister for his reply, although I note that he referred just to affordable housing, not to affordable social housing. Given the imminent publication of the Government’s child poverty strategy, what conversations has he had with colleagues in other Departments about the impact of the lack of affordable social housing on achieving our child poverty targets?
The hon. Lady is right to draw the subject to the House’s attention. It is sadly true that there were 45,000 fewer affordable social homes in this country following 13 years of her party’s being in power. I have had extensive conversations with colleagues across Government to ensure that, in the next 13 years—or at least in the next four—a significantly greater number of social, affordable and all types of homes will be built across the social and regular housing sectors because this country needs homes, for which the new homes bonus will provide a significant boost.[Official Report, 8 June 2011, Vol. 529, c. 3MC.]
Does the Minister agree that special measures are likely to be required in areas such as Bradford, which has low market rents, because raising our rents up to the 80% level will yield no additional funds for new social housing starts?
Let us be clear that the existing social housing programme continues—£2.2 billion goes into that. An additional amount will go into affordable rent. Affordable rent does not mean 80% of market rent. The key words are “up to” 80% of the local market rent, meaning that in some areas, the figures will be somewhere in between social rent and the market rent, but not necessarily 80%.
May I draw attention to my entry in the register?
Will the Minister admit that he will not build any social rented homes at all, and that the ones that will be built are all inherited from the previous Government? His policy of so-called affordable rented homes—at 80% of market rents—will not produce any social rent properties, and even worse, it will require the conversion of former social rent properties to so-called affordable rent properties when they become available for re-let. That means no new affordable social rented homes, and more people waiting for a home that they can afford.
It seems obvious to me that if homes are not built today or at least at the time of the election, and we subsequently build them, they will be counted in the homes that we build. The fact that we have decided to continue to put £2.2 billion into the build programme in addition to the affordable rent programme means that we will out-build the previous Labour Government not just over four years, but in comparison to their 13 years, in every single year.
Shared Ownership Schemes
The Government are committed to supporting those who aspire to own their own homes. As announced in the Budget, we are introducing the Firstbuy equity loan scheme, and the Homes and Communities Agency’s affordable housing programme in 2011 to 2015 will include affordable home ownership where appropriate in local circumstances.
I very much welcome that additional flexibility. Some of my constituents have said that they find existing schemes to be a bit over-bureaucratic, particularly as regards the relationship between where people live and where they work. I hope the Minister will look to new schemes to reduce the hurdles that face first-time buyers.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out that the bureaucratic burdens have become a complete nightmare. When the Labour party eventually gets to the point of reflecting on why it was booted out of power, it will realise that one reason was that the level of bureaucracy—the top-down diktats and the impossible paperwork before anyone could do almost anything in this country, particularly build homes—led to fewer homes being built than at any time post-war.
I am sure the whole House would like to place on record its gratitude for the professionalism and commitment of the 60 firefighters who are deployed as part of the UK’s international search and rescue team assisting the victims of Japan’s earthquake and tsunami. With the number of dead and missing growing daily, our thoughts are with the brave Japanese people.
The Budget revealed our plans to help support local enterprise and jobs, including the extension of the business rates holiday for small firms and small shops. The Department is the lead Department for enterprise zones, and we will make further announcements in the coming weeks. Letters detailing the first payments of the new homes bonus go out to local authorities today. The Department has published its plans for a future of local audit and delivery that is better value for money for taxpayers than the failed Audit Commission regime. The new rules to stop unfair competition from municipal newspapers are now in effect. I am sure that local press and the public noticed that Labour MPs voted en bloc to defend town hall Pravdas.
May I associate myself with the Secretary of State’s comments on those brave firefighters, and express sympathy for the people of Japan?
With reference to the review of the statutory duties placed on local authorities, the Secretary of State will be aware that there is a great deal of concern among families with disabled children and young people. Can he give us some clarity on this matter, and confirm that no changes will be made to statutory duties relating to that group without formal consultation and a full impact assessment?
I think I can go further than that and tell my hon. Friend that we will not be making any changes to that duty. I am grateful to her for raising this issue because it comes out of an agreement between the Government parties and the Local Government Association in which we decided to get an audit of statutory duties. That has been established for the first time, but the fact that we have been able to count those numbers does not mean that we are going to make any significant reductions in them—certainly not in relation to the matters to which she has referred.
May I associate the Opposition with the Secretary of State’s comments about the people and firefighters in Japan? There, as in this country, the emergency services go towards danger to save others and our thoughts are with those in Japan at this time.
It seems that with every passing day Ministers are being forced to rethink ill-thought-through policies. One Government policy that councillors and the public do not understand is the decision to front-load cuts to council budgets. Will the Secretary of State tell councillors, communities and Members of the House why it was necessary for the heaviest cuts to local government to fall in this first year?
I am grateful for the right hon. Lady’s remarks about our firefighters. May I respectfully remind her that the Labour party was due to introduce cuts this year and that local government was not protected and therefore would have faced higher cuts under Labour than under the coalition Government?
There is no evidence of that and I assure the right hon. Gentleman that Labour would not have front-loaded the cuts to local government. As on many occasions, the Secretary of State has not answered the question and has left us with no idea why the front-loaded cuts were necessary. As was said earlier, the Housing Minister let slip that the Government knew all along that Labour councils representing the poorest areas of our country were getting the worst of the cuts. Is it fair that while the Secretary of State’s own local council loses just £17 per head this year, councils such as Manchester and Liverpool, which he has criticised, are losing nearly 10 times as much?
My local council has a budget that would have been lost in the sub-committees of Manchester city council. Labour’s Budget in March 2010 admitted there would be cuts to regional development agency regeneration, the working neighbourhoods fund, the local enterprise growth initiative, the housing and planning delivery grant and time-limited community programmes—and that was just the start. The front-loaded cuts from the Labour party would have meant £14 billion-worth of cuts falling in this year. Under Labour cuts, unprotected Departments would have received an average real-terms cut, over the spending review period, greater than those under the coalition’s deficit reduction plan.
T2. Because of mistakes made by Cumbria county council in its single status process, Cumbria’s outstanding teaching assistants face a 30% drop in pay and deprofessionalisation. Will the Minister meet me, representatives of Cumbria’s teaching assistants and the county council to find a solution to this impasse so that Cumbria’s teaching assistants can be fairly rewarded and Cumbria’s children can be properly supported? (50330)
I am always happy to meet my hon. Friend, but I am sure he will understand that the role of central Government in relation to local government pay and work force issues is extremely limited because they are rightly for local councillors to decide in local circumstances.
T4. Parish councils are an important part of the structure of local government, but they often feel that they have to take an unfair and disproportionate regulatory burden, the latest of which is that they will all be obliged to employ their parish clerks, with all that entails, such as making national insurance contributions, although many such clerks get only an honorarium, which they could easily declare in their annual personal tax return. Does my right hon. Friend agree? (50332)
My hon. Friend remarks on an issue of some importance, particularly to smaller parishes. I am a little surprised that some of the professional organisations associated with parish councils have welcomed the move, but I think it would be sensible for my hon. Friend to meet me and a Treasury Minister to see if we can sort this matter out.
In June, east Lancashire was hit hardest by the area-based grant reductions, and in October, it was again hit hardest by the reductions in the support grant and the axing of the housing market renewal programme. Today we find out that east Lancashire authorities feature in the bottom 27 for payouts under the new homes bonus. In fact, my Conservative council is to receive just £62,000—despite being one of the most deprived in the country—out of 350 authorities. It is understandable why—we have 1,300 empty properties and a Conservative council—but does the Secretary of State accept that the new homes bonus is unfair and hitting the deprived hard?
The hon. Gentleman should recognise that we have done what he asked us to do, which is to bring those empty homes into the new homes bonus and turn empty homes into property. He and the House also need to understand that the allocation of the new homes bonus is about building houses or bringing derelict houses back into use. It is not on the basis of permissions; it is about getting things built. My advice to him is to get back to his council and tell it to get building.
T5. In last week’s Budget debate, the Secretary of State told the House that at the heart of his approach to planning was a presumption in favour of sustainable development. What does he understand sustainable development to be? (50333)
It is a very good question. The Brundtland commission captured the classic definition of sustainable development, which is development that does not compromise the needs of future generations in meeting the needs of the present generation.
Ministers will have seen the wealth of evidence showing that increased street lighting leads to lower levels of crime, so do they share my concern that Nottinghamshire county council wants to reduce street lighting and will they join me in urging it to think again?
My own local authority is considering similar measures, and providing that that is done at a reasonable time, in the early hours of the morning, it is a sensible move towards greening our provision. However, in places where there are difficulties with crime, I would expect local consultation to take place.
T6. Can the Minister give an update on the expected timing of a further announcement on the proposed eco-town at Bordon, and does he agree that there should be a local referendum before any large-scale development there takes place? (50334)
Just to be clear, my hon. Friend raises an important subject, because eco-towns were being pushed on to areas without local communities having any say about them. Indeed, there was even a separate planning policy statement about eco-homes under the previous Government. We are not in the game of pushing communities into building homes in ways that are not compatible or sustainable locally. I am absolutely certain that my hon. Friend’s local authority will want to take notice of all local opinions and balance that against things such as the new homes bonus benefits, which it will get from building new homes.
The hon. Gentleman raises a point about the abolition of the Audit Commission, which I see is still going out to promote its cause in the weekend newspapers. The reality is that we need local audit that is efficient and brings competition into the marketplace. We see no reason whatever to have the country’s fifth biggest auditor owned by this Government.
T7. I was shocked to hear in the media that disabled people under-occupying homes will have their housing benefit cut. Can the Minister either dispel that rumour, or at least tell the House what estimate he has made of the cost of rehousing those disabled people and then carrying out the necessary adaptations in their new homes? (50335)
Of the changes that we are making in affordable housing and social housing allocations, the most important thing is protecting the most vulnerable people. The whole House will agree that when resources are tight, paying for spare rooms—rather than paying for people to live in the homes that are available—does not make sense. In those changes, however, we will ensure that disabled people are protected in the best possible way.
The last Labour Government oversaw the greatest renaissance of our cities since the Victorian age. Central to that was the densification of development on brownfield sites. Why have the Government junked that policy for more sprawl, the destruction of the countryside and the gutting of our cities?
Dover and Deal are fortunate indeed to have a representative who is as passionate a localist as my hon. Friend. I know that he is crusading to have the port of Dover retained in the hands of the local community. As Members know, the Localism Bill provides an opportunity for local communities to make a bid for assets of community value—and I dare say this might provide such an opportunity.
Given the Secretary of State’s well-publicised comments about “Pravda on the rates” and his desire to stop unnecessary council publications, what message does he have for Liberal Democrat-controlled Stockport council, which continues to publish the “Civic Review”, promoting only Liberal Democrat councillors just weeks before the local elections?
T9. My constituents support the Localism Bill and the empowerment it will bring to local communities, particularly in the world of planning, but can the Minister reassure my constituents that the announcements about growth and planning applications in last week’s Budget will not be contradicted? (50337)
My hon. Friend is right. I can certainly give that assurance. He will know that in our election manifesto and in the coalition agreement, we said that we would bring in neighbourhood planning and a presumption in favour of sustainable development. We are doing that.
Residents of Wideopen in North Tyneside have for a number of years defended a green open space from development. They won one appeal, but the latest planning application has resulted in a public inquiry. Will the Secretary of State commend the residents on their commitment to save the open space and please agree to meet me about this matter?
T10. Does the Minister agree that shared services are the way forward in local government? The chief executive of Redditch and Bromsgrove councils, Kevin Dicks, has already managed to save hundreds of thousands of pounds by uniting services between the two councils. Is this not the way to cut costs while improving services? (50338)
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I am pleased to see that local authorities up and down the land—regardless of whether they be county, district or metropolitan—are increasingly looking towards joining together to get better value and protect the front line. I am truly sorry that that enthusiasm is not shared by Opposition Members.
Armed Forces Redundancies
Today, the Army and the Royal Navy will announce details of their tranche 1 redundancy fields, setting out the specialisations, branches and ranks from which we are seeking volunteers for redundancy. This was a planned, publicised and expected announcement, following that already completed for the Royal Air Force on 1 March this year to deliver the necessary reductions in the size of our armed forces as required by the strategic defence and security review.
We had wanted to lay a written ministerial statement at 4 o’clock this afternoon—a time chosen by the services to allow sufficient time for them to brief service personnel ahead of their hearing about it from a third party. Indeed, many will have read a story on armed forces redundancy published in The Daily Telegraph on Saturday. It was extremely disappointing that any details were leaked and equally appalling that the press would publish a story that will in no way change the difficult decisions we have to make, but adds a further concern to service personnel and their families—a position we have striven to avoid. Indeed, it was to allow all personnel to be briefed that we passed details to the chain of command on Friday.
As has been made clear in this House on several occasions, we would prefer not to make anyone redundant, but we have to do this to make the very real required savings in defence costs to take control of the deficit. As has been emphasised, this Government will not, for political expediency, shy away from announcing details when they are expected; our armed forces deserve this honesty.
The redundancy programme will not impact adversely on the current operations in Afghanistan or in Libya, where our armed forces are fighting so bravely on this country’s behalf. This was a key assumption in the strategic defence and security review. We will inform all those individuals selected for redundancy in this, the first of up to four tranches, in September 2011—specifically, 1 September for the Army and RAF and 30 September for the Royal Navy. Those voluntarily leaving the armed forces will do so within six months; non-volunteers will do so within a year. For all those leaving the armed forces as a result of these changes, every effort will be made to assist in what can often be a difficult transition. We will continue to work hard in this area. Our people deserve nothing less.
For the third time in just seven weeks, Ministers have had to be summoned to the House of Commons to speak about the treatment of our armed forces. I should have thought that after the sacking of warrant officers by e-mail and the sacking of trainee RAF pilots by media press release, Ministers would be banging on your door, Mr Speaker, demanding the right to come here to make a statement rather than being summoned to appear before the House. Let us hope that this is the last occasion on which Ministers will be dragged here to explain their Department’s actions. On previous occasions the Secretary of State has simply shouted some political slogans across the Chamber, and I hope that the change of Minister today signals a change in tone, because armed forces families are expecting a different tone.
Labour Members are committed to a bipartisan approach to policy on both Afghanistan and Libya. The Secretary of State originally gave a commitment that none of those currently serving in Afghanistan would be sacked on their return, but has since had to admit that he cannot honour that commitment, and that personnel will be sacked after their post-operational leave. Can the Minister confirm that those serving in and around Libya at this very moment will also be liable for compulsory redundancy in September?
As for the sacking of RAF trainee pilots, the Secretary of State said—quite fairly, I thought—
“It would make common sense to ensure that those closest to the end of their course could be allowed to continue, if possible.”—[Official Report, 15 February 2011; Vol. 523, c. 820.]
How much common sense has prevailed? How many trainee pilots have been sacked within just 10 hours of earning their RAF wings?
We all know that no one can stop all redundancies in the Ministry of Defence. However, the first time this was mishandled, Ministers said that it had been an accident. The second time, they said that it had been a mistake. In the opinion of Labour Members, the third time is simply inexcusable. It is time for this shabby treatment of our armed forces to end, and it must end soon.
This is no accident. On 1 March, the Secretary of State said in response to a question from the right hon. Gentleman that there would be an announcement today on redundancies as they were planned. [Interruption.] It was in the House of Commons. As Opposition Front Benchers know full well, it was planned for a written ministerial statement to be issued at 4 pm, and indeed I was going to conduct a briefing for Members of Parliament in all parties to explain the situation. Instead, the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy), has decided that a Minister should come to the House of Commons. What we are announcing is not new; this is political expediency on the part of the Labour party. The right hon. Gentleman was told on 1 March that the written ministerial statement would be issued.
The right hon. Gentleman raised three points in particular. First, he mentioned redundancies following post-operational leave. Of course those who have served in Afghanistan may have to be considered for redundancy, because 55% of the Army [Interruption]—which, as Opposition Members have spotted, amounts to 11 out of 20—will have served in Afghanistan.
Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman raised the issue of people on operations in Libya. We do not yet know what operations will be current in September, when people will receive their redundancy notices. We are considering the matter carefully, and we would certainly not wish to make anyone who is serving on combat operations redundant.
Finally, the right hon. Gentleman asked about redundancies of RAF pilots who had only had 10 hours of training to go. I am afraid I cannot comment on that, but I shall write to the right hon. Gentleman and let him know the answer.
Will the Minister remind the House how many uniformed armed services personnel will need to leave the service over the next two years under the current plans, and will he tell us why this cannot be done by means of natural wastage rather than redundancies?
As far as possible, it is being done by means of natural wastage, and indeed by reducing recruiting, but, as my right hon. Friend will understand, we must continue to recruit because otherwise there will be an imbalance in the armed forces. The number that we are looking at, off the top of my head—in fact I have it here, if my right hon. Friend will wait one second—is 11,000.
The Minister says these cuts will have no impact on either Afghanistan or Libya, but can he confirm that, despite the leading role we have played in the Libya operation, we are providing only about 8% of the aircraft being used in the no-fly zone and the Chief of the Air Staff has today said that the Royal Air Force is stretched to breaking point? How does the Minister square the following three points: the stretch, the fact that we are providing only 8% of those aircraft, and his insistence that the cuts are having no effect on operations?
I know that the right hon. Gentleman played a very honourable part in the last Government explaining to the then Prime Minister how he was trying to increase operational capacity without increasing spending, and I know that he pointed out to the last Prime Minister that there was not enough money for our operational requirements. On the Royal Air Force in particular, as the Prime Minister said in October, and as the Chief of the Air Staff has confirmed and explicitly stated in his article, we wish to see an uplift in real-terms defence spending from 2015. The Prime Minister has said that.
Will my right hon. Friend outline the extent to which the rules on regular reserve liability will affect those being made redundant, and confirm that those who do have that liability will be kept close, up to date and informed, as they form a very valuable potential contingency in the event of a declining international situation?
May I point out to the Minister that the armed forces do not have any trade union or federation representing them, and it is up to everyone in this House to look after their interests? What is the Minister doing to ensure that, for those who might be affected by these cuts, there are after-care services in place so they have assistance in looking for jobs and families are not moved out their homes? What are we as a Parliament going to do to ensure that we look after the people who protect this country?
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: we have a responsibility to make sure our armed forces personnel and their families are properly looked after, and that is what I do. I should say that in September when individuals are issued with redundancy notices, volunteers for compulsory redundancy—that is the way it is put—will have six months of notice to work, while those who are compulsory non-volunteers will have 12 months of notice to work. They have full resettlement courses, which are extremely valuable, and I should say to both the House and the people outside that the personnel who serve in the armed forces are first rate and almost invariably find that outside employers wish to take them on because of their qualities.
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the strategic defence and security review has factored in operations such as the one we are undertaking in Libya, and that we will retain the personnel to be able to respond to such events again?
All 11,000 redundancies are termed compulsory. We are hoping that we will receive volunteers for as many posts as possible, but we are not just going to accept volunteers because some of them will be people we wish to keep, so we will not want them to enter the redundancy programme.
We all very much regret every single compulsory redundancy under this deficit-driven SDSR, but we none the less accept they have to happen. Does the Minister agree that it is terribly important that those involved are given the most generous possible conditions of redundancy, whether voluntary or compulsory, in keeping, of course, with their normal terms of service?
For the sake of clarity, will the Minister confirm that the reductions in manpower announced today are not in addition to anything announced in the strategic defence and security review? Were all the reductions planned, and had the Minister always planned on coming to the House today to announce them?
Indeed, we announced to the House on 1 March that the redundancy programme would be announced on 4 April. That is exactly what was planned in the SDSR and there is nothing in addition. I am sorry that some people have wished to make political capital of the matter.
I have known the hon. Gentleman for a long time and know that he takes a particular interest in these issues, but I do not think his facts are correct on this occasion. There were issues in the past but—and here I will be rather consensual—equipment procurement got a lot better during the final years of the previous Administration. Equipment procurement is now much better, particularly in operational areas.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have no doubt about the ability of our armed forces to fulfil the tasks given to them, but I have some worries about morale. Will the Minister join me in appealing to the media to take a responsible attitude to the way they report these facts, and to have respect for the chain of command?
I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend because, like him, I have served in the armed forces and I find the political posturing and use of the media in these cases deeply regrettable. All that does is create an atmosphere in which people are uncertain and concerned about their futures.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the UK manufacturing industry’s profound disquiet at the continued reduction in the capacity of the armed forces? Has he discussed such matters with the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, or only with the Treasury?
In his initial comments, the Minister deplored the fact that these details had been leaked to the media, yet he said to my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) that he would not hold an investigation into the matter, and that he would not be looking into Ministers’ offices. That is despite the fact that there have been regular briefings that clearly cannot have come from anywhere other than the Ministers’ offices. He cannot have it both ways; he must stop briefing and ensure that newspapers do not get these stories unfairly.
I find it a strange accusation that I have been briefing the media on redundancies in the armed forces. It is not a pleasant subject and has not given the Government tremendously good publicity—I think we can agree about that. On past occasions, the Secretary of State has indeed instituted investigations into leaks, but I assure the House that this leak did not come from Ministers.
Africa and the Middle East
Mr Speaker, with permission, I will update the House on recent developments in Africa and the middle east. Before I do, I know that hon. Members on both sides will wish to join me in expressing sadness and outrage at the killing of seven international UN workers in Afghanistan this weekend. They put themselves in harm’s way to support a better life for the Afghan people. I pay tribute to those who died and call for their killers to be brought to justice.
The House will also share our concern about the heavy loss of life in Côte d’Ivoire. The UN has confirmed at least 462 deaths and up to 1 million people have been displaced. I discussed the situation this morning with Jean Ping, who chairs the African Union Commission. The African Union has led mediation efforts. We are also in close contact with the rightful President, Mr Ouattara. The Security Council will meet tomorrow to discuss its response. We call for an end to the violence, for defeated former President Gbagbo to step down, for all human rights abuses to be investigated and for the International Criminal Court to investigate the crimes that appear to have taken place.
We also remain in close contact with the small British community in Côte d’Ivoire. Since December, our advice to British nationals has been to leave the country. France is leading on plans to evacuate nationals of EU nations if it becomes necessary. We have sent a rapid deployment team to Paris, ready to be part of any evacuation, and consular officers in the region are on standby.
Britain continues to play its part in the implementation of UN Security Council resolution 1973 to protect civilians in Libya, and 34 nations are now providing a range of assistance. NATO has assumed full operating capability over all military operations, and since Thursday, a total of 701 sorties and 276 strike sorties have been conducted. The coalition has all but eliminated the regime’s air defence capability and stopped it bombarding Libyan cities from the air. We are destroying key regime military assets, including main battle tanks and mobile artillery. The arms embargo is being enforced. We have prevented a huge loss of life and a humanitarian catastrophe.
However, the regime is still able to inflict considerable damage on Libya’s civilian population using ground forces, and indeed is deliberately inflicting such harm, particularly in the towns of Brega, Misrata and Zintan, where the heaviest fighting is taking place. So long as the regime continues to attack areas of civilian population, the coalition will continue military action to implement the UN Security Council resolution. We take every precaution to minimise the risk of causing civilian death and are seeking verification of incidents where this nevertheless may have happened.
We are one of more than 30 nations contributing to the humanitarian effort in Libya. Food distribution is taking place at six locations in opposition-held areas in the east of the country. The World Food Programme has more than 10,000 tonnes of food positioned inside Libya and neighbouring countries, and hopes to reach 85,000 people. The Department for International Development is flying tents for more than 10,000 displaced people from its stocks in Dubai to be distributed by the Red Crescent. Several consignments of medical supplies have been successfully delivered to Misrata and, yesterday, a Turkish hospital ship was able to evacuate 230 wounded people.
A further British diplomatic mission has travelled to Benghazi, led by Christopher Prentice. As I explained to the House last week, we are not engaged in arming the opposition forces. We are prepared to supply non-lethal equipment that will help with the protection of civilian lives and the delivery of humanitarian aid. Given the urgent need of the interim transitional national council for telecommunications equipment, the National Security Council has decided this morning to supply it with such equipment.
On Wednesday, Libya’s Foreign Minister, Musa Kusa, joined other prominent Libyan figures who have resigned their positions. He flew to the UK from Tunisia of his own volition, having notified our authorities shortly before his departure of his intention to travel here. In accordance with the EU travel ban, he was refused formal leave to enter the UK but was granted temporary admission and met by officials. Musa Kusa is not being offered any immunity from British or international justice. He is not detained by us and has taken part in discussions with officials, since his arrival, of his own free will. Today, my officials are meeting representatives of the Crown Office and Dumfries and Galloway police to discuss their request to interview him in connection with the Lockerbie bombing. We will encourage Musa Kusa to co-operate fully with all requests for interviews with law enforcement and investigation authorities, in relation to Lockerbie as well as other issues stemming from Libya’s past sponsorship of terrorism, and to seek legal representation where appropriate. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made clear, these investigations are entirely independent of Government; they should follow the evidence wherever it leads them, and the Government will assist them in any way possible.
Musa Kusa’s departure weakens the regime and exposes its utter lack of legitimacy, even in the eyes of those most closely associated with it in the past. It confirms that there is no future for Libya with Gaddafi in power. It is right that, in these circumstances, when the Foreign Minister of a regime that is committing atrocities against its own people wishes to leave that country and to take no part in what is happening, we should assist in that process. We will treat those abandoning the Gaddafi regime in the following way. Any who travel to the UK to speak to us will be treated with respect and in accordance with our laws. Any immigration issues will be considered on their merits as with any other case. If our law enforcement authorities wish to speak to them about crimes committed by the regime, Her Majesty’s Government will in no way prevent them from doing so.
In the case of anyone currently sanctioned by the EU and UN who breaks definitively with the regime, we will discuss with our partners the merits of removing the restrictions that apply to them while being clear that that does not constitute any form of immunity whatsoever. We will begin such discussions at the EU this week in the case of Musa Kusa. Sanctions are designed to change behaviour and it is therefore right that they are adjusted when new circumstances arise. We continue to offer our full support to the investigations of the International Criminal Court.
The Libyan regime is under pressure. What is required from it is clear: a genuine ceasefire as set out by President Obama and others including our Prime Minister last month, an end to all attacks against civilians, the withdrawal of armed forces from contested cities and full access for humanitarian assistance. When those requirements of the UN are fulfilled, air strikes to protect civilians can stop. The world is united in believing that the Gaddafi regime has lost all legitimacy and that he must go, allowing the Libyan people to determine their own future.
We continue to pursue tough sanctions at the EU. Additional sanctions on five Libyan companies and two individuals are being discussed at the EU today and if agreed will be in place on 12 April. We also continue to pursue additional sanctions with our international partners at the UN and we hope to achieve agreement soon. The first meeting of the contact group on Libya that was agreed at the London conference last week will take place next week in Doha, and I will attend. It will take forward the work agreed at the London conference, maintain international unity and bring together a wide range of nations in support of a better future for Libya.
Elsewhere in the region, we remain very concerned about the political situation in Bahrain. It is vital for the future stability of the country that the Government and leaders from all communities work together to reduce sectarian tension and to create the conditions in which a national dialogue can lead to real political reform. In Yemen, attempts at agreeing a political transition have repeatedly stalled or failed. There is an urgent need for steps to meet the legitimate demands of the Yemeni people and we call on President Saleh to engage with the opposition and with the protesters in a way that meets these aspirations and avoids violence.
We are deeply concerned by further deaths and violence in Syria. We call on the Syrian Government to respect the rights to free speech and peaceful protest. We call for restraint from the Syrian security forces and for the Syrian authorities to investigate the deaths of protestors and bring those responsible to account through a fair and transparent process. We note the announcement of certain reforms and believe that meaningful reforms that address the legitimate demands of the Syrian people are necessary and right.
The United Kingdom believes that the people of all these countries must be able to determine their own futures and that the international community must be bold and ambitious in supporting those countries that are on the path to greater political and economic freedom. That is why across the region we stand for reform not repression, and why in Libya, supported by the full authority of the United Nations, we are acting to save many lives threatened by one of the most repressive regimes of them all.
I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and for allowing me advance sight of it this afternoon. May I also join him in expressing revulsion on behalf of the Opposition at the murders of the seven UN workers in Afghanistan this weekend? He is right—and speaks for the whole House in this—generously to commend their work and unequivocally to condemn their killers.
May I also associate myself with the Foreign Secretary’s comments about the gravely worrying situation in Côte d’Ivoire? I welcome news that he has held discussions this morning with the chair of the African Union Commission, Jean Ping, and that contingency plans are in place for any evacuation deemed necessary. I join the Foreign Secretary in stating clearly and categorically that Laurent Gbagbo must step down immediately. If he does not stand down, there is clearly a risk of a repeat of the situation we had in Angola in 1992 when a disputed election led to a protracted civil war. Given that risk, will the Foreign Secretary share with the House his assessment, in the light of those conversations with the African Union, of Nigeria’s willingness to contemplate supporting any west African-led intervention force in Côte d’Ivoire? Given the prior opposition to such a move by Ghana and Gambia, what assessment has he made of the possibility that the Economic Community of West African States might be able to agree to an intervention force in the event of the conflict continuing in the days, weeks and months ahead? What assessment has he made of the number of Governments in the African Union that still support Mr Gbagbo?
On Syria, on Friday thousands of Syrians took to the streets of Douma after prayers and were reported by the BBC to have been chanting, “We want freedom.” Yesterday it was reported that again thousands of people had taken to the streets there, this time to bury at least eight people who died during Friday’s protests. The legitimate demands of these protestors should be met, as the Foreign Secretary said, by reform and not by repression. What assessment has he made of the likely impact on the reform process of the appointment of the new Prime Minister, Adel Safar?
Let me associate myself and the Opposition with the position set out by the Foreign Secretary on both Yemen and Bahrain.
The situation in Libya has, of course, dominated debate within and beyond the House in recent weeks. The Foreign Secretary at the weekend was optimistic that we have not yet reached a stage of stalemate, but beyond protecting civilians from the air, UN resolution 1973 provided a range of diplomatic powers intended to deepen the isolation and increase the pressure on the Gaddafi regime. These included an expansion of asset freezes, enforcing the arms embargo and measures to prevent mercenaries from flying into Libya. Will the Foreign Secretary provide an update specifically on the implementation of these non-military diplomatic aspects of resolution 1973?
I welcome the fact that Christopher Prentice’s team is in Benghazi assessing the situation and entering into dialogue with the interim national council. The Foreign Secretary has just told the House that “we are not engaged in arming the opposition forces. We are prepared to supply non-lethal equipment that will help with the protection of civilian lives and the delivery of humanitarian aid.” He went on to say that he had decided this morning with his colleagues on the National Security Council to supply the transitional national council with telecommunications equipment. Will he therefore inform the House whether opposition military forces have been in receipt of any support from British military personnel in maintaining or upgrading the military equipment that they already possess?
Turning to the case of Musa Kusa, his defection should be taken as a welcome sign of the disillusionment and disunity within the Gaddafi regime. Following that defection, can the Foreign Secretary give us his latest assessment of the situation within the Gaddafi regime? In particular, how seriously should the House treat the discussions between Musa Kusa’s successor and the Greek Foreign Minister in trying to find a way of resolving the conflict? Clearly, our first priority has to be the urgent operational need to ascertain information from Musa Kusa with respect to the present conflict in Libya. UN Security Council resolution 1973 must be enforced, and if he can help in any way to bring that about, all sides of the House must surely welcome it.
However, many in the House will want to know that Musa Kusa is not and should not be above British or international law. Last week I supported calls saying that the appropriate authorities including, of course, the police should in time be able to ask him all the necessary questions about Libya’s violent history, not least here on British soil. The murder of a police officer in Northern Ireland on Saturday, on which Ministers are due to give a statement later today, will no doubt remind the House of the links between the Libyan regime in the past and decades of terrorism on British soil.
I welcome the news, therefore, that the Scottish Crown Office and Dumfries and Galloway constabulary are now in discussions with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office about how to pursue their investigations. Will the Foreign Secretary tell the House whether any other authorities in the United Kingdom or in other countries at the international level have been in contact with the Foreign Office over the arrival of Musa Kusa as part of their investigations into Libyan terrorism or crimes against humanity perpetrated in Libya?
In conclusion, both sides of the House supported the decision to enforce UN Security Council resolution 1973. The members of our armed forces, of course, have the continuing support of the House, and the Government have our continued support in using diplomatic means to maintain pressure on, and deepen the isolation of, the Gaddafi regime.
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what continues to be strong bipartisan support for the operations that are taking place in Libya. He mentioned his revulsion at the events in Afghanistan—the murders of the UN workers. That will be felt across the House and the whole international community.
On Côte d’Ivoire, the right hon. Gentleman asked how many African Union nations there are now that do not believe Mr Gbagbo should stand down. I think the number is down to zero. The whole of the African Union is clear about that. The African Union did try to mediate a solution. It is Mr Gbagbo’s persistence in trying to sit where he is, having clearly lost the election and despite the views of his own countrymen and the efforts of the African Union, that has precipitated the violence we now see.
It is not the belief of west African countries that they will need to provide an intervention force of the kind the right hon. Gentleman describes, but that will be discussed at the UN Security Council tomorrow, as I mentioned in my statement. We will strongly support greater action by the UN and French forces that are in Côte d'Ivoire to help ensure civilian protection in Abidjan and elsewhere. We will also discuss the international response to the mounting civilian casualty list and reports of atrocities in the country. We will urge the swift investigation by the UN-mandated commission of inquiry into reports of horrific human rights abuses in Côte d'Ivoire, which are not necessarily all on one side. All abuses must be investigated. However, I do not think that Nigeria and other west African countries are contemplating an intervention force on top of the fighting that is happening there now.
In Syria, as the right hon. Gentleman says, a new Prime Minister has been appointed. As in all these cases, we will have to judge by actions, rather than words. The Syrian President has committed himself to certain reforms, but it is clear that many in Syria would like those to be much more far reaching. We in the United Kingdom recommend reforms that meet the legitimate aspirations of the Syrian people. I think that the new Prime Minister, and indeed the President, will be judged by that.
On Libya, the overall implementation of the sanctions set out in UN resolutions 1970 and 1973 is particularly good by the standards of these things because there is very strong international agreement on them. The vast majority of nations in the world are fully behind the sanctions. That has led to freezes on tens of billions of dollars of the regime’s assets. The conflict has led to oil not being lifted from Libya, so the principal income of the regime has also been very seriously affected. The right hon. Gentleman asked about opposition forces and whether British forces had been involved in any way in upgrading, improving or maintaining the equipment. I am not aware of any such efforts, so the answer to that question is no.
I discussed with the Greek Foreign Minister this morning the efforts and discussions that took place late last night in Athens between the Deputy Foreign Minister of Libya and the Greek leaders. The Libyans again put forward, as they have in various discussions over the past three weeks, their intention to have a ceasefire, but of course the Gaddafi regime has three times announced a ceasefire and yet continued its attacks, particularly the attacks on the people of Misrata, who have been placed in a desperate situation. I believe that my colleague, the Greek Foreign Minister, conveyed the message that we would want him to convey, which is that a ceasefire will be judged by actions, not words, and that we wish to see the Gaddafi regime observing the requirements that the international community has placed on it. I think that these attempts to have discussions with other countries are a sign of the pressure that the regime is under, but the solution is in their hands to adopt a genuine ceasefire and then, in the interests of their country, make it clear that Colonel Gaddafi will go.
I hope that my statement answered satisfactorily all the questions that the right hon. Gentleman raised about Musa Kusa. Musa Kusa has come to a society that is based on law, and the way in which we treat people who come to this country will be based on law. They will not be given immunity from prosecution from British or international authorities. Equally, we cannot put them under a restraint that is not justified by evidence against them. If they are not under arrest, they are of course free to move around. Our response in every way will be based on law, just as our international response, our implementation of UN Security Council resolution 1973, is based on international law. We stick to the implementation of that resolution—nothing more and nothing less—in the military action we are undertaking, and that gives us our strong moral, legal and diplomatic position.
I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement. Does he agree that removing Colonel Gaddafi must be the focus of our attention? There are many around him still propping up his regime, however, so can he confirm that there is no viable future for those still loyal to Colonel Gaddafi as long as they continue to keep him in power?
Yes, there is no viable future for the country as long as Colonel Gaddafi is in power, and my hon. Friend is absolutely right that Gaddafi should go. Virtually the whole world thinks that Gaddafi should go, although let me be clear that our military objectives and activities will be strictly in accordance with the United Nations resolution—let no one be in any doubt about that. But, of course, what is required for any viable future for Libya is for Gaddafi to leave, and of course we recommend to other figures in his regime that it would be right to follow the example of Musa Kusa and desert a regime that has done such violence and damage to the Libyan people.
However much we despise Gaddafi and everything that he represents, does the Foreign Secretary understand that there is no wish for Britain to become actively involved in a civil war, and that resolution 1973 should not be interpreted in any way as Britain being involved in any way whatever in what is, after all, a civil war, although we know which side we would like to see win?
The hon. Gentleman is getting involved there and taking sides, but I hesitate to call it a civil war. It is an uprising by people who started with peaceful demonstrations against a despotic regime that then waged war, using heavy equipment, artillery and air power, against them, even at the stage when all they were trying to do was to demonstrate and to ask for the rights that we take for granted in so many other parts of the world. I hesitate to call that a civil war; it is a Government waging war on their own people. Nevertheless, I think I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he looks for: we will implement the UN Security Council resolution, and that is what we are there to do. If it had not been for that resolution and the legal authority that it provides, we would not be engaged in what we are doing in Libya. We rest on that resolution, but we will continue to implement it.
In view of the emerging possibility of further prosecutions in relation to the Lockerbie bombing, does my right hon. Friend agree that any such prosecutions should be conducted through the regular court system in Scotland, and that we should avoid the previous incongruity of having to establish a special court at Camp Zeist in Holland, as happened in the case of Mr Megrahi and his co-accused?
I had better leave any legal deliberations to those better qualified in the Government. Certainly, whatever appropriate method is necessary should be followed in any future prosecutions. I understand that at the moment there is insufficient evidence to produce further prosecutions, but that may change, so I will let my right hon. and learned Friend raise the matter with the Law Officers, rather than try to give a definite ruling on it.
May I welcome the work of the Foreign Office and its agents in bringing Musa Kusa to the United Kingdom, even if he brings with him a lot of legal, diplomatic and ethical problems? If he was responsible for giving Semtex to the IRA in the 1970s and ’80s, the people who used it to kill and main British citizens are now all out of prison and, in some cases, our partners in devolved Administrations. If people want to quit their regimes, whether in Zimbabwe, Burma or anywhere, and come to the UK, saying that they should go straight to clink and straight away face prosecution is not going to encourage them to defect.
The right hon. Gentleman makes his point clearly. We are not putting anybody straight into clink. Musa Kusa is not detained; he is not under arrest. As I say, this is a society based on law, and if he is not under arrest, he is free to do as he wishes. Equally, as a society based on law, we do not give immunity from prosecution by the British authorities or international authorities.
Does my right hon. Friend accept that while of course we must observe the rule of law in this country, it may nevertheless, from time to time, reach a point where it is in the wider interest, if it is going to mean saving a lot of lives, to do deals with people whom we may find deeply unattractive, and that there are a number of precedents for exactly that?
There are precedents for doing deals with people one has previously found unattractive—there is no doubt about that—in all walks of life and all stages of public life. Nevertheless, while I take my hon. Friend’s point, that has not arisen in this case. In the case of Musa Kusa, there is no deal. Any press reports of a deal—of sanctuary or asylum in return for information—are wrong. That is not how we are conducting this. It is being conducted in a much more straightforward way, and that has not arisen so far.
In the second world war, Rudolf Hess landed in this country and was locked up. Why is it that this Musa Kusa wanders into Britain, is treated in the way that he is, and it is not yet even thought to hand him over to the Scottish authorities? Never mind what my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander) said: just think of the revulsion out there in the country about this man being treated like he is.
As I say, our response to this and other situations will be entirely based on the law of our land. If the hon. Gentleman can find any way in which we are treating Musa Kusa, or anybody else who has come from Libya, without respect to the laws of our country and without full co-operation with policing authorities or judicial prosecuting authorities, then he must tell me about it. In no way are we treating him in any way differently from accordance with our laws.
Yes, absolutely. We have treated this with urgency all along. It was back in December that we called for Gbagbo to go. We have delivered a great deal of humanitarian assistance, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has put in place, not only for Côte d’Ivoire but for Liberia, since this has created a very difficult humanitarian situation in Liberia as well. All the time we have tried to respond to events and put in place the help that is necessary, and we will add to that urgency at the UN Security Council tomorrow.
The Foreign Secretary will know that over the past two days 1,600 people have been injured in Taiz and Al Hudaydah in Yemen. Although of course we appreciate the efforts that he has made on the diplomatic front to bring sides together, is not now the time for an envoy to be sent from the United Nations or the European Union to bring the President and people around a table so that a smooth transition can be exercised?