House of Commons
Thursday 29 March 2007
The House met at half-past Ten o’clock
Prayers
[Mr. Speaker in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
Treasury
The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—
Taxes
A single-earner household on male average earnings with two children will pay 20.5 per cent. of their gross income in tax in 2007-08. That is 0.7 per cent. lower than it was in 1997-98. As a result of the Budget, that will fall a further half a percentage point to 20 per cent. in 2009-10—far lower than in 1997.
Will the Chancellor briefly explain how many people will be left worse off as a result of the Budget’s changes to income tax and national insurance?
The vast majority of people will be better off—[Interruption.] more than 20 million households will be better off as a result of the Budget. I read the hon. Gentleman’s comments in the Budget debate. He wants tax cuts of £8.4 billion per annum. At the same time he wants more police officers, more money for hospitals, more money for schools and more money for transport. Will he now tell us whether he supports our public spending plans?
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
No; I cannot take a point of order. [Interruption.] I know that that is possible, but it prevents everyone else from asking a supplementary question. The hon. Gentleman should know that he should not tell his granny how to suck eggs.
A significant part of the big rise in taxation in recent years has been rises in council tax. This year, Hammersmith and Fulham residents are set to be the only people in Britain to get lower council tax bills. Does the Chancellor support the new Conservative council, which has delivered a real tax cut, rather than the tax con delivered by him?
The Labour Government’s funding of councils is what is keeping council tax lower. The hon. Gentleman is a member of the No Turning Back group and the Cornerstone group. They want £40 billion in tax cuts. Will he therefore tell us how he can meet his proposals for more schools, more youth centres and more sports facilities? Does he support our spending plans?
Average earnings in my constituency have increased because of the dramatic transformation in employment. As a former schoolteacher in my early days, I was dismayed to discover that pupils whom I had taught were still on the dole five or six years, or even longer, after they had left school. Now that that situation has been transformed, will the Chancellor ensure that opportunities are given to people so that we can be sure that they find employment, and so that average earnings in my constituency keep on going up?
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. He chairs the Treasury Committee, which I am looking forward to appearing before this morning. In the Budget, we announced a proposal that, linking up with the retail industry, will create 100,000 jobs over the next few years for people who are inactive or unemployed. Therefore, the incomes of people who were previously unemployed will rise. In addition to the introduction of the minimum wage and the working tax credit, we are doing more than any previous Government to help the low paid in this country—and the Opposition party should remember that it opposed the minimum wage.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should ask the following question: if the 2p cut in income tax that he announced a few days ago was such a bad idea, why did the blood drain out of the cheeks of the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) when he announced it?
My hon. Friend is right. First, the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), welcomed our tax cut, and the hon. Member for Tatton, the shadow Chancellor, overruled him a few minutes later. The real problem is that the Conservatives want tax cuts, but they cannot answer this question: do they support our public spending plans? Perhaps the shadow Chancellor will tell us.
To what extent are the current squeeze in real weekly disposable earnings and the fact that the savings rate has collapsed to the lowest level since the early 1960s interlinked?
The savings ratio is rising. The lowest savings ratio that this country has had occurred under a Conservative Government in the 1980s. In terms of real disposable incomes, since 1997 the living standards of our people have improved, and they have improved for one reason: we have had economic stability, whereas the Conservatives used to have recessions.
Is it not the case that the burden of taxation on families in this country compares extremely well with the burden on families in our international counterpart countries? Is that not a true and objective test of the measure of the success of the Chancellor, and should we not continue to aim for such achievements in future?
The proportion of tax taken from national income is lower than in the euro area—lower than in France, Germany and other countries. A single earner on male average earnings with two children will pay 20 per cent. of their income in tax in 2009-10. That is a far lower percentage than when we came to power, and the reasons for that are that we have cut the basic rate of income tax twice and made people better off by pursuing policies that give us economic stability.
As the Chancellor prides himself on being socially progressive, can he explain why the biggest beneficiaries of his tax changes are extremely rich pensioners and the biggest losers are households of single men or women, or childless couples, on very low incomes? Does that suggest that as he becomes Prime Minister, he will abandon the progressive consensus in favour of the Blair-Cameron alternative?
If the Liberals had joined us in supporting the minimum wage, they might have had more things to say. According to the Institute for Fiscal Study’s response to the Budget—[Hon. Members: “Read all of it.”] I am very happy to do so. According to it, in terms of direct tax the lowest decile is 0.8 per cent. better off, the second lowest decile is 1 per cent. better off, and the richest decile is 0.5 per cent. better off, so most of the gains are going disproportionately to the poorest and bottom deciles in our community. Without any help from the Liberal party or the Conservatives, since 1997 the position of the poorest decile has improved by 12.4 per cent., and of the second lowest decile by 11.8 per cent. That shows that this Government are on the side of hard-working families.
My right hon. Friend announced in last week’s Budget an increase in tax credits worth £4 billion. The Liberal Democrats want instead to raise tax thresholds. What would the impact have been on the poorest families with children if the money had been spent in that way?
I said in my Budget statement that the same amount of money—£1 billion—spent on raising personal tax allowances would have made that low-paid worker 70p a week better off, but that as a result of what we have done, that worker is £7 a week better off. I hope that at some point the Liberals, who perhaps take a greater interest in these issues than the Conservatives, will come around to our view that the best way to help those in the lowest income groups in our society is through child and working tax credits. That is the way that we are taking people out of poverty.
Yesterday, the Chancellor’s Treasury civil servants told the Treasury Select Committee that more than 5 million people—the lowest paid in the country—will be losers as a result of his Budget. Does he agree with his civil servants? Yes or no will do.
Twenty million people are better off, unlike under Conservative Budgets in the early 1990s, when everybody was worse off. The Conservatives want more tax cuts. Is it not time that they told us whether they support the public spending plans that we announced? The shadow Chancellor said on the “Today” programme on 1 March:
“If you could tell me what Labour is going to be spending, I’ll tell you what the Conservative party’s spending plans are, as well.”
Will he tell us the truth—are they supporting our spending plans, or not?
Let me answer—
Order. The hon. Gentleman does not have to answer. He has a supplementary question and he is entitled to ask it. He does not answer questions at this stage.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This week, we discover that the disposable income of the poorest is falling, that child poverty is now rising, and that more than 5 million of the lowest paid will be hit by the Chancellor’s tax con. The hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson), who used to be the Chancellor’s Minister, said during the Budget debate that the Budget will be “hurting many people” and urged him to think again. We know that the Chancellor has complete contempt for all his colleagues—does that really include the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West?
Child poverty trebled under the previous Conservative Government; this Government have brought it down, and it is about time that the Conservatives acknowledged that. The shadow Chancellor said that he would tell us what his spending plans are, and if he really wants to help the poor he should be in a position to do so. He said that spending has risen to 42 per cent. of GDP, and that they will bring that share down. Does he hold to that, or not? People will conclude that he is going to cut spending on vital services.
The average earnings in my constituency would fall if Vauxhall Motors were to close. My right hon. Friend may have seen press reports today of the Trade and Industry Committee’s informative report on the future of the motor industry. Will he assure me that he will continue to do everything possible to ensure that future investment from General Motors comes to the UK?
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who takes a big interest in these matters. I visited the GM plant, where the workers have made enormous advances in productivity. One of the reasons why we can say that we can help both the plant and the region is the investment that we are making in education and training. That is one reason why we will spend £674 billion in 2010 on public services. It is up to all the parties now to tell us whether they support our spending plans or not.
Olympic Budget
My right hon. Friend and I had several discussions prior to her announcement on 15 March of a fully funded budget for the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic games. That places the games on a secure financial footing, and does so earlier than any recent Olympics. May I also draw the attention of the House to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor’s recent statement announcing that Her Majesty the Queen has approved his recommendations on coins to be issued in 2008, including a £2 coin to mark the 100th anniversary of the London Olympic games of 1908.
Upminster residents already have an Olympic levy on their council tax. The talk of cost overruns has concerned them that there might be a subsequent Olympic levy. Can the Minister confirm that this is the final budget?
It is a very firm budget—[Interruption.]
Order. Let the Minister answer.
There is a degree of uncertainty about the policing costs, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport made clear in her statement. At the moment, there is an allowance of £600 million for the policing costs, but—given developments—that figure will need to be reviewed. Subject to that, however, it is a firm budget and a firm basis on which the games can proceed. I hope that, like me, the hon. Lady is proud of the fact that the Olympic games are coming to east London. I am sure that her constituents are excited about it and I hope that all of us can look forward to a fantastic games in five years’ time.
The Olympics is already bringing huge benefits to my constituency, with investment in transport links, cleaning up the environment and cleaning up waterways. Much of that would have happened anyway, but it is happening faster because of the Olympics, although it is not coming directly out of the Olympics budget. Can my right hon. Friend tell me whether that investment would have been possible had he adopted a third fiscal rule?
The answer is almost certainly no. The renewal that we have seen in public services over the past decade would have been impossible if there had been a third fiscal rule in place. My hon. Friend is right that changes are happening in east London, with regeneration gains that would not have happened on the time scale that is now possible. I am pleased that she is also looking forward to the games.
In the context of a very firm budget, does the Chief Secretary accept that without a long-term regeneration legacy in the lower Lea valley, the 2012 Olympics should be considered to be a failure?
I did not entirely catch the point that the hon. Gentleman made. I certainly do not envisage any failures on any aspect of the Olympics. There will be very big, long-term regeneration gains and the games themselves will be a success. I would have thought that everybody, including the hon. Gentleman, would want to be confident about the prospects for the games and the value of the investment. I am sure that his constituents are also looking forward to fantastic celebrations over the period of the games.
What is certain and completely firm about the Olympics is the opportunities that will be offered to young people. More young people than ever have been participating in voluntary work and in positive activities. All the youth services say that positive activities are one way to get young people out of crime and off the streets. Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what other opportunities this Government have afforded to young people?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am sure that it is her experience, as it is mine while visiting schools in my constituency, that young people are excited at the prospect of the Olympic games. The budget for the games that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport announced contains provision for further training opportunities for athletes. My hon. Friend is right, too, that the Government have done an enormous amount to improve opportunities for young people, to boost the funding and support for sport in schools and to improve youth provision more generally. We are determined that those opportunities should continue to improve because they are so important for the future. If, by contrast, a third fiscal rule were in place, I am afraid that those opportunities would shrink. Because the Tory party has signally declined—
Order. I call the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs. Villiers).
The Minister for Sport told the House in July 2005:
“I shall never forget the person who said, ‘Do not underestimate the budget. If you go higher, it will be seen as a failure so make sure that your calculations are realistic.”—[Official Report, 21 July 2005; Vol. 436, c.1505.]
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport told the House in November that year:
“we believe that our budget is sound.”—[Official Report, 21 November 2005; Vol. 439, c. 1224.]
A month later the Chancellor confirmed that the Olympics was
“working to an agreed public sector funding package.”
Why, then, has he allowed the budget almost to treble since then?
I hope that the hon. Lady is as proud of winning the Olympics as I am. It is right that as soon as we won the bid we thoroughly reassessed the costs. Now we have a secure financial basis on which to proceed. The International Olympic Committee said of the preparations earlier this month that it was assured and impressed across the board. That is a good position to be in and I hope that the hon. Lady will acknowledge that.
The Olympics have been welcomed by everybody in the country, but there is concern that the budget will mean that projects, such as the restoration of the Newbridge Memo in my constituency, may be starved of vital lottery cash. In his discussions with our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, will the Minister ensure that such projects across the country will not be put in direct competition with the Olympics for lottery funding?
A good deal of care has been taken to ensure that the voluntary sector is protected. The voluntary and community sector will continue to receive the promised £2 billion lottery funding from the Big Lottery Fund between now and 2012. Both existing programmes and future resources for the voluntary sector are protected. I hope that that reassures my right hon. Friend. The lottery contribution to the Olympics is of a similar amount and over a similar period to the lottery contribution to the millennium celebrations. That is about right for what we should expect the lottery to contribute to the games.
Smith Institute
No. 11 Downing street is used for official meetings, engagements with external representatives and charity events. The Smith Institute applied for permission to use it on a monthly basis in 1997, and sometimes more regularly. That has been the basis of its usage since then.
We heard last month how the Smith Institute was up into the wee small hours trying to enliven the Budget and brighten up the image of the Chancellor, who is now frowning. He has forgotten how to smile. Yet, following the Budget, the population know that it was a con and the Labour party has dropped one point. Is No. 11 now going to evict it?
The basis on which the Smith Institute uses No. 11 is exactly the same as for everybody else. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will press his colleagues on the Front Bench to tell the House whether they will support the public spending projections that we published in our Red Book. That is what people will want to know. Will the Tories fund public services adequately, as we are committed to doing in future, or not? That is the critical question, and we are waiting for an answer from his Front-Bench colleagues.
Does the Chief Secretary agree that publications such as those on social enterprise, diversity in Britishness, and restorative justice produced by charities and voluntary organisations, including the Smith Institute, help to produce more intelligent government, and that we should listen to those organisations?
I do agree with that, and it has been valuable to open up No. 11 Downing street to use by charities—well over 60 of them—over the past 10 years. They have all contributed to improved policy in that period.
I agree with the Chief Secretary on that point. Would it not be a good idea to have a seminar on tax at No. 11 Downing street in the near future, so that the Government could explain more clearly why they were right to introduce a 10p tax rate in 1999, and right to abolish it in 2007?
I can tell the hon. Gentleman very clearly why that happened: it is because we introduced the 10p rate before the tax credit system was in place. Now that it is in place, it is doing the job that needed to be done.
The Chief Secretary’s first answer was extremely helpful, so let us try another question on him. How many of the monthly events to which he referred did the Chancellor attend? We do not need the details; we just want to know how many he attended.
I do not know the answer, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that it is very few.
Immunisation
The UK contributed £1.3 billion over 20 years to the international finance facility for immunisation. I can announce today that South Africa has become the seventh country to join the facility, which will vaccinate over 500 million children throughout the world, and will save nearly 10 million lives.
I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, and I congratulate him on his great commitment to a global challenge. In the Democratic Republic of Congo, one in four children dies before their fifth birthday. That is a human catastrophe on an almost unimaginable scale. On the administration of the fund, do countries have to sign up, or will the money be distributed through aid budgets? When the fund is administered, will we ensure that the vulnerable children in the most conflict-ridden and fragile states receive the vaccinations that they so desperately need?
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The aim is to vaccinate all those children who, at the moment, are denied the chance of vaccination. That means that the countries where least is done will be the countries where most is done in future. The fund will be distributed through the GAVI Alliance. The fund operates in every continent and it operates as a charity. Much of the money comes from the Gates Foundation and from Governments, and the fund has a record of success that is perhaps second to none in the development field. I hope that there will be all-party support for that new facility.
I spend a considerable amount of time visiting and working with churches in my constituency. They are tremendously proud of the progress made since 1998, when 70,000 people protested peacefully outside the G8 summit in Birmingham to try to put the issue of debt higher up the agenda. There has been a doubling of aid, the cancelling of debt and the front-loading of aid. Bearing in mind the link between international poverty and international security, will my right hon. Friend make sure that those items are higher up the agenda when the UK takes over presidency of the United Nations Security Council next week?
That will indeed happen, and I can also say that the subject is on the agenda of the G7 Finance Ministers meeting in Washington in April, and there will be a further meeting in June in Germany. We will do what we can to raise the issue to a higher level on the international agenda.
Next Thursday at Gleneagles, there will be a conference that has been put together by the churches to discuss the progress that has been made since Gleneagles. I hope to be able to speak at that conference, and I am pleased that the former Secretary-General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, is to address the group. The conference will hear that international aid has grown, that the finance facility has been created, and that the facility for education for all, which will mean that every child has the chance of education, is moving forwards. That will lead to a conference that will be held in Brussels on 2 May so that we can secure proper funding for education, as well as vaccination.
If the striking success of the measles initiative is matched by the output of the immunisation facility, what estimate has the Chancellor made of how much earlier the millennium development goal to reduce child and infant mortality will be reached by comparison with what would otherwise be the case?
I wish that I could tell the hon. Gentleman, who takes an interest in these matters, that the world was on track to meet the millennium development goal on child poverty, but there is a great deal more to do. The immunisation facility will help, because one in five African children dies before the age of five, but we also need a trade deal so that there is economic development in those areas; we need action on education, so that we tackle illiteracy; and we need the infrastructure programmes that are necessary not only to bring industry to those areas, but to enable them to trade with the rest of the world. All those things must come together if we are to be able to meet all the millennium development goals, particularly those for young people.
I am sure that the Chancellor is aware that the lack of insulin availability in sub-Saharan Africa kills more people—more children—than tuberculosis, malaria or AIDS. Following the passing of the UN resolution last December, will the Chancellor seek to ensure that insulin availability in Africa is included in that important programme to reduce that killer disease globally?
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that, and I will endeavour to put the issue on the agenda. One of the great problems of health care in Africa and the developing countries is not simply the absence of medicines or of doctors and nurses, but the absence of health care systems with the capacity to deliver what is available, even when it is available. I am pleased that the international facility that we have created and the GAVI Alliance are now taking seriously the next stage, which is to try to build capacity in health care systems. If the hon. Gentleman goes around Africa, he will find that the number of midwives in many countries runs only into hundreds and the number of nurses in many countries is lucky if it runs into thousands. That is an issue of health care capacity that we must address, as we address, too, the supply of particular drugs.
It used to be said that this kind of measure had very little electoral support. I joined the Labour party 36 years ago, because I believed that a Labour Government would be responsible for such initiatives and global leadership. I am delighted that it is happening, and a great many of my constituents believe that it is one of the most important things that the Government are doing.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who takes a very big interest in those matters and communicates regularly with his constituents on those and on other issues, particularly in support of the Budget, as does the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field), who gave an extraordinary speech from the Conservative Benches in favour of the Budget only a few days ago. On Make Poverty History, the figures are now available, and one in three teenagers wore a Make Poverty History armband during the campaign. The idea that we were talking only to a minority—[Interruption.] Well, the Conservatives may laugh at people being involved in international development issues, but the idea that hundreds of thousands of young people took an interest fills me with hope for the future, and they will therefore reject a Conservative party that cannot even tell us whether it will match our international development spending.
Wealth/Income Inequality
The gap between the incomes of the richest 10 per cent. of our population and the poorest 10 per cent. has narrowed since 1997 from a ratio of 4.1 to 4—a measure of overall inequality that rose sharply between 1979 and 1997 from a ratio of 3 to 4.1. The measure of wealth inequality has also declined modestly.
I am grateful to the Minister for his answer, but he will know that the households below average income survey, which was published on Tuesday, shows that on the internationally recognised measure of income inequality—the Gini coefficient—Britain is now more unequal than it was 10 years ago. Rising taxes for the lowest earners announced in the Budget will make matters worse. Is he proud that Britain has become a more unequal society under his Government—in fact, one of the most unequal in the developed world—and what hope for greater fairness can he offer in future?
I am proud that the latest figures this week show that the gap between the richest 10 per cent. and the poorest 10 per cent. has narrowed. Indeed, the Budget took 200,000 more families out of poverty because of investment in tax credits, which the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends opposed.
Does the Minister accept that the introduction of the minimum wage, which some Opposition Members opposed, has made a huge contribution to improving the position of the worst paid in our society?
My hon. Friend is right. The campaigning by him and other Labour Members was responsible for the introduction of the minimum wage, which has addressed poverty pay and created 2.5 million jobs. It is a pity that my hon. Friend’s compatriots from the Welsh nationalist party are not present to hear his proud record of campaigning.
The Chancellor just now flatly refused to answer a simple question from my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne). Will the Economic Secretary say whether Mr. Mark Neale, a senior civil servant who gave evidence to the Treasury Committee yesterday, was right or wrong when he said that 5.3 million people will be worse off as a result of the Budget—yes or no?
Mr. Neale is right to point out that there are more than 20 million winners from the Budget and 200,000 more children taken out of poverty—
Yes or no?
The hon. Gentleman should compare our record since 1997—[Interruption.]
Order. Mr. Paterson, you must behave. It is a habit of yours to shout down the Minister answering the question. You should not do that.
As I was saying, since 1997 we have taken 200 children out of poverty every day. Under the Tories 200 more children went into poverty every day. That is the difference between the parties.
Will my hon. Friend accept my thanks and take credit for being a member of the first Government to break the link between old age and poverty, and for taking 2 million pensioners out of poverty? Will he consider what can be done to redouble the battle against child poverty, as we have taken 2 million children out of poverty and need to do more to reach our target of halving child poverty by 2010?
My hon. Friend is right. When we came into government, we had unacceptably high levels of pensioner poverty, which we have addressed through the winter allowance, pension credit and rises in the basic pension. We also had the highest level of child poverty of any European country. Because of the measures that we have taken, which Opposition Members opposed consistently, we have had the fastest fall in child poverty of any European country since 1997. We on the Labour Benches are proud of that record.
Is a childless adult earning less than £18,000 a year better or worse off as a result of the Labour Budget?
Such adults are substantially better off as a result of the changes that we have introduced since 1997 on tax and the working tax credit and measures to get people into work. People with and without children were much worse off under the Conservatives because there were 3 million unemployed and interest rates that were high and crippling. We have addressed that through the new deal and the working tax credit, which Conservative Members have consistently opposed. If they want to match our record, they must match our policies on tax credits, the minimum wage and public spending. Until we get an answer from the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne), he has no credibility at all as a shadow Chancellor.
Does my hon. Friend believe that a nurse and a fireman living together are rich and can pay the estimated £550 extra a year that would result from the introduction of local income tax?
The family that my hon. Friend describes will be substantially better off as a result of the Budget and the 2p cut in income tax. If the Scottish National party came to power in Scotland, the family would be substantially worse off because of a 3p rise in income tax. It is a great disappointment that no Member from the SNP is in the House to take part in this discussion, which shows their contempt for democracy and for these matters.
In my constituency inequality is being worsened by the fact that, as South West Water customers, my constituents are paying the highest water bills in the country. Because regulatory change is needed to tackle the issue, and because the Government will not hit their own child poverty targets unless it is tackled, will the Minister agree to meet to discuss constructively how to deal with this very difficult issue for my constituents?
The hon. Lady’s constituents are better off because of the Budget and the measures that we have introduced for families. In a revealing comment, the Institute for Fiscal Studies makes it clear that—[Interruption.]
“the tax and benefit reforms introduced by the Labour government”—
since 1997
“have been strongly redistributive, favouring lower-income families”
in the hon. Lady’s constituency—again, reforms that she has—[Interruption.]
Order. The Minister must be heard. Hon. Members must allow the Minister to speak.
I was pointing out that on income the hon. Lady opposes tax credits, and on wealth she opposes the child trust fund. If she would support me and this Government in our efforts to reduce child poverty, she would have more credibility on such matters.
School Funding
As a result of the public spending plans announced in the Budget for the Department for Education and Skills, per pupil funding in England will rise from an average of more than £5,500 this year to more than £6,600 in 2010. Local authority allocations will be announced in due course.
All schools in my constituency are pleased to see education at the forefront of Labour’s 11th successful Budget. May I put down a marker for my hon. Friend and any of his Treasury colleagues who might be moving on to new jobs in the future? An important review of the school funding formula is taking place, so will the very generous holders of the purse strings listen carefully to the arguments of Staffordshire and the F40 group of local authorities to make sure that the huge increase in education spending is shared evenly and fairly across the country?
The settlement in the Budget continues the top priority that this Government give to investment in education and skills. My hon. Friend is right that we are currently consulting, which will continue until May, on reforming the school funding system. I urge him, his local authority in Staffordshire and the F40 group of local authorities to contribute. He is right that this is a very good settlement for education. He will be aware that an inflexible and ideological third fiscal rule would mean less funding for schools and services in Staffordshire.
In what form will schools in Newcastle-under-Lyme be told that the rate of growth in education spending will be halved over the next three years and will now flatline as a percentage of GDP?
The figures are very clear in the Budget. There will be a 20 per cent. rise in per pupil funding across the country, and Staffordshire, like the rest of the country, will share in that. The education settlement was part of confirming a total increase in public spending plans to £674 billion by 2010. The hon. Gentleman’s party cannot and will not match that, because of the third fiscal rule. They will have to cut spending. The question for the shadow Chancellor is—
Does my hon. Friend agree that in Newcastle-under-Lyme, as elsewhere in the education system, people will be celebrating, because this Budget has reasserted the priority of education for this Government, which is a good news story? Does he agree that we need to nail down the fact that the money will be there for the wonderful building schools for the future programme over the next 15 years?
As the distinguished Chairman of the Education and Skills Committee, my hon. Friend will recognise that the Department for Education and Skills is taking a greater share of the increased cash in this spending review than it did in the last one. He is right that there is a powerful and deep commitment on this side of the House to seeing pupils in the state system get the same opportunities as those in the private system, and the investment in capital and the increase in revenue spending per pupil will help us do that. The building schools for the future programme will play an important part in many local authority areas in bringing our schools up to the 21st-century level in which children deserve to learn and teachers deserve to teach.
Budget (Small Businesses)
Treasury Ministers regularly visit all parts of the country. We are always ready to discuss with local business the beneficial impacts of reforms in the business taxation system. Having checked my diary this morning, I confirm that I currently have no plans to visit Kettering.
I am afraid that it was not the Minister who was invited, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
People in Kettering, particularly members of the East Northamptonshire branch of the Federation of Small Businesses and my constituent Mr. Steven Bellamy, who has written to me about this matter, would like the Chancellor to tell them in person about the bad effect that the rise in the small business corporation tax rate will have on their small service sector businesses over the next three years. If the Chancellor and the Minister will not come to Kettering, may I bring a small delegation of business men from Kettering to see them at Westminster to talk about this?
The hon. Gentleman’s constituent will be one of those who has benefited from the cut in the jobless rate by more than a quarter in the past 10 years, and his business might well be one of the more than 800 new businesses in Kettering since 1997. If he studies the Budget, he can tell his constituent that the revenues from increasing the small companies rate are entirely recycled to small businesses. I urge him not to make the mistake that the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) made yesterday by saying that 3.4 million of 4.3 million small businesses are not limited companies. They will benefit from the capital allowances and the new annual investment allowance, as well as from the cut in personal income tax made in the Budget.
If my hon. Friend does not have time to visit Kettering, perhaps he will go a little further north and visit Burnley to reassure small businesses in my constituency that the Government will not at any point in the future pursue a double whammy of cutting taxes while at the same time attempting to raise expenditure, thereby threatening our macroeconomic stability.
I do not think that a visit to Burnley is currently in my diary, but I dare say that I might be able to find a space for it. My hon. Friend is right. It is all very well for the Conservatives to call for more support for small businesses, but they voted against the small companies rate and against moves to take action against managed service companies. That leaves a hole of more than £1 billion a year in the finances, so the question for the hon. Member for Tatton is where he would make the cuts.
Tax Credits
From April 2006 to February 2007 there have been 343,000 disputed overpayments.
Given the unavoidable absence of the Paymaster General, one or two of us had thought that the Chancellor of the Exchequer might have answered this question himself. It is interesting to note that the policy of leading from behind still prevails.
The Minister refers to 343,000 cases of personal misery directly caused by the failure of Revenue and Customs, which is trying to blame its errors on our constituents by saying that they should have known that they have made a mistake. When, please, may we have a wholly independent tribunal system so that these cases can be dealt with fairly and properly, not by a supine adjudicator or ombudsman?
I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman’s description. I remind him that tax credits are providing support to almost 20 million people, including thousands of families in his constituency. The current position is that Revenue and Customs sends out a one-page checklist of items to check on the tax credits award notice. If all the information about the claimant—for example, how many children they have, their bank account, and the money going into their account—is as on the notice, any overpayment will not be recoverable. That is a straightforward position. A new procedure is being piloted shortly for an independent review involving the adjudicator of disputed overpayments, and that might be helpful as well.
Families that have money reclaimed can be put in serious financial difficulty, and I ask the Chief Secretary to examine the way in which money is reclaimed from some families on low incomes. Notwithstanding that, will my right hon. Friend reflect on the success of the working tax credit system in not only taking families out of poverty but removing the block to moving from benefits to employment? Many of us remember the position that we inherited when we came into government—the Conservative party created it as a matter of policy and we have ended it.
My hon. Friend is right. He knows that restrictions have been placed on the amount of overpayment that can be taken from families on low incomes. He is right that many families have been lifted out of poverty thanks to the tax credit system. That includes 600,000 children, and another 200,000 thanks to last week’s Budget. The tax credit system has also contributed to an increase of 2.6 million jobs in the economy since 1997 because so many more people find it worth their while to be in a job.
Does the Chancellor’s human shield believe that the overpayment scandal and shambles is the cause of the relatively low take-up of tax credits, which means that the abolition of the 10 per cent. rate of tax harms so many low paid people in this country?
I do not know about low take-up: 6,900 families, including 12,000 children, in the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency benefit from tax credits. For households on incomes of under £10,000 a year that are entitled to child tax credit, take-up is approximately 97 per cent. Those who benefit the most from the tax credit system receive the money that they need. They benefit greatly from it and it is now worth while for them to be in work.
Of course, I welcome the tax credit schemes. However, in some cases, fresh information is presented after the conclusion of an appeal that casts doubt on the original facts that were before the person conducting it. What is the Treasury’s approach when new facts emerge after the appeal process is over? Is the approach to a mistake of fact different from that to a mistake of law?
The approach of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is that all information should be taken into account when reaching a determination. If my right hon. Friend is aware of a specific case in which he is worried about the handling of new information, I would be happy to examine it.
If the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not answer questions on his system, at least he can listen to them. Is not it clear that the return of overpayments causes untold misery to many families, that the take-up of some categories of working tax credit is only 25 per cent. and that, in several cases, the computer cannot handle the situation? Indeed, the system is bust. Is not it time that a different person reviewed the whole system?
I remind the hon. Gentleman that 6 million families today receive tax credits. Ten million children benefit and take-up is higher than for any previous form of family income support. We have done much better. The incomes of low paid people have been substantially increased and that has helped dramatically to reduce child poverty and the tax burden on families on lower incomes. I would have thought that he welcomed those achievements.
Yet another tax credit question, yet again the Chancellor takes the vow of omerta instead of responding in person. Let me ask his Chief Secretary a question in lieu of him. As the effect of last week’s Budget, especially the abolition of the 10p starting rate is to push ever more people into a highly complex tax credit system, in which more than half the payments are incorrect, has he ruled out, under any circumstances, a return to a fixed-term system of tax credits, were it to be reformed?
I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation of the system. The system is doing a great job—[Interruption.] Yes, it is. One of the great strengths of the present system is its flexibility. It can respond very quickly when a household’s income falls and extra help is needed. That would be lost if we were to change to a system that was based on the previous year’s incomes. We will of course keep the matter under review, but the hon. Gentleman’s solution does not look attractive to me.
Comprehensive Spending Review
As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in his Budget speech, the comprehensive spending review will be published in the autumn.
Am I correct in thinking that last week’s Budget made it clear that the Department of Health will be £900 million worse off in the financial year 2006-07 than was predicted by the Treasury at the start of the financial year; that the figures for the NHS announced in the Budget were recycled re-announcements of the figures from the previous comprehensive spending review; and that with the NHS breaking even this year only because of fairly severe cuts in centrally held budgets, the immediate prospects for the finances of the NHS—
No, the hon. Gentleman is not correct about that. My right hon. Friend made it clear in his Budget speech that the NHS in England will receive an increase next year in excess of £8 billion, which is the largest cash increase in the history of the NHS. It will build on the large increases that have led to a transformation in the health service in recent years and to great improvements in the services received by people up and down the country. The hon. Gentleman should, however, be worried about the failure of his hon. Friend on the Front Bench—
Order. Other Members want to speak. I must call Back Benchers.
Over the past few years, two new health centres, each costing more than £7 million, have been built in my constituency. In June this year, a new district general hospital is to be built at a cost of more than £111 million, with additional doctors and nurses to staff the facilities. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the next comprehensive spending review builds on the success of this one?
I certainly will. I can confirm that there are now 33,000 more doctors and 85,000 more nurses, and that we have undertaken the biggest hospital building programme in the history of the NHS, involving 157 major new hospital schemes since 1997. There are now 80 NHS walk-in centres, compared with none in 1997. We are absolutely determined to build on that further. I know that my hon. Friend will pass on to his constituents the fact that, if the Conservatives were able to—
Order. That is unacceptable.
G8 Summit
Yes. At the G8, we will continue to urge progress on the Doha development round and delivery of an aid-for-trade package for the developing countries. We will push for the universal education objectives of the millennium development goals and, ahead of the meetings, we are today publishing the UK’s annual report on the International Monetary Fund.
I am grateful that the Chancellor at least feels able to answer questions on his personal diary in person.
Chancellor Merkel has said that tackling global poverty is to be a key priority of the G8 summit, and I welcome that. Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer tell us what initiatives he expects to be announced at the summit to tackle the rising level of absolute poverty in the United Kingdom?
This is absolutely typical of the Opposition parties. We will be discussing international development, trade and the general state of the world economy. I will answer the hon. Gentleman’s question, however. Absolute poverty in Britain has fallen as a result of the Labour Government. Poverty will continue to fall as a result of the Labour Government. What would prevent poverty from falling in the UK is the return of a Conservative Government, because they would not be able to match our spending plans, which guarantee that we are taking action to improve our public services. It is about time that the hon. Gentleman pressed his shadow Chancellor to make it clear what spending the Opposition are now committed to.
Tax Credits
I refer the hon. Gentleman to my answer of a few moments ago.
One of the 343,000 is Mrs. Anne Dalipi, who came to see me about such a demand 12 months ago and still has not received a satisfactory explanation of why she has to repay an overpayment. She does not know which payment is covered, and the bill does not state why there is an overpayment, or why she must pay it back. Given that her experience is typical, when will the Chief Secretary come to the House and explain that, unless the reasons that a repayment is required are detailed, the repayment will not be pressed?
The rule is pretty straightforward: an overpayment will be written off if it is due to departmental error, and if it is reasonable for the recipient to think that the award is correct. There is a process by which people can query and challenge decisions, through the adjudicator and even the ombudsman. A good process is in place, and if there is a particular issue in the case of the constituent to which the hon. Gentleman refers, I would be happy to examine that.
The number of my constituents suffering hardship as a result of having to repay overpayments shows no sign of diminishing. I have been seeking meetings with HMRC to discuss and resolve a number of particularly intractable cases since August last year. I contacted it in August, September, October and November, and in desperation wrote in December to the Paymaster General, who at least acknowledged the letter, but I have heard nothing from her since. When can I expect a reply?
I will be happy to look into what has happened to the hon. Gentleman’s correspondence.
Home Office Restructuring
(Urgent Question): To ask the Home Secretary to make a statement on the reorganisation of the Home Office and the Department for Constitutional Affairs.
In the past few years, the world and the challenges to which the Government and the Home Office have had to respond have changed dramatically. This morning, we have refocused the Home Office towards the realities of today’s world and the priorities of today’s people. Managing migration and immigration, fighting crime and countering terrorism are now of the highest concern to people in this country.
Since the end of the cold war, we have faced a torrent of new challenges: in particular, mass migration, international crime and international terrorism. It is my responsibility as Home Secretary to ensure a response to those challenges that measures up to their extent, scale and character. That is why I have pursued challenging reform programmes across almost all aspects of the Home Office.
The House will be aware of measures introduced to improve the National Offender Management Service, to acquire 8,000 more prison places, to rebalance the criminal justice system in favour of the victim, to roll out neighbourhood and community policing, to develop the Respect agenda and to tackle antisocial behaviour. In addition, I have introduced measures to ensure the fair and more effective management of immigration, and the movement of the immigration and nationality directorate towards agency status. All those reforms will continue.
In addition, however, in the wake of last August’s alleged terrorist plot, the Prime Minister asked me to conduct a review of counter-terrorism, involving the appropriate Ministers and Departments, as well as the police and security agencies. Arising out of that review, the Prime Minister has today decided to make changes to the machinery of government. The House will be aware of his written statement laid earlier today. The changes outlined there are aimed at producing a step change in our approach to managing the terrorist threat to the United Kingdom and to winning the central battle, which is the struggle for values and ideas.
Among other changes—which I will not outline in detail, as they have already been outlined in the written ministerial statement—we will create a more coherent ministerial committee system for oversight, establish strategic capacity for the longer term, integrate better our joint effort, and establish the capacity to engage in the struggle for ideas and values. We will do that partly by establishing a new unit, the office for security and counter-terrorism, in my Department.
I should make it plain that no portfolios—no responsibilities—will be taken from existing Departments. There will be no change in the lead Department responsibility for any of the agencies. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will of course continue to lead on all aspects of foreign affairs. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State at the Department for Communities and Local Government similarly will retain her responsibilities in the prevent strand of the CONTEST framework and community engagement. Obviously, my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary will lead on matters relating to the armed forces and wider defence operations.
However, the changes outlined today will add capacity to that which is already engaged in the formulation and carrying through of our security and counter-terrorism policy. It will develop a more strategic, inclusive, integrated and capable response to the current threat. Along with the fight against crime and antisocial behaviour, the Home Office will be refocused towards the challenges of today’s world and will focus on the priorities of today’s people.
As a result of those refocused and extended capabilities, and the extended attention of ministerial oversight of those exponentially growing challenges, the Home Office, as is appropriate, should shed some responsibilities. Those will be merged with the Department for Constitutional Affairs in a coherent way to form a balanced reformulation of the machinery of government by creating a ministry of justice. The Lord Chancellor will be giving more details of that in another place.
As I said, we are refocusing the Home Office, not for the first time in its history, towards the realities of today’s world and the priorities of today’s people. I commend those changes to the House.
Let me start by thanking you, Mr. Speaker, for granting this urgent question. It should not have been necessary. The breaking up of one of the great Departments of State, with massive implications for crime, immigration, justice and terrorism, should have been brought before the House for proper debate, not disgracefully smuggled out in a written statement on the last Thursday before the Easter recess.
Let me turn to the substance of the Government’s plan. On counter-terrorism—the thing on which the Home Secretary majored—some of the measures with respect to co-ordinating anti-terrorism are sensible and overdue. However, he has failed to secure a new Cabinet post for national security and will not be given control of the overall secret intelligence budget. Therefore, he will not be able to drive the counter-terrorism effort every hour of the day in the way that it clearly needs a Cabinet Minister to do.
As for the split of the Home Office, the logic presumably is that the job is too difficult for this Home Secretary to do. It has been well run in the past by Home Secretaries of all parties when it was much bigger and faced equally sizeable responsibilities. Indeed, it still had responsibility for licensing, gambling, broadcasting, fire, civil defence, human rights, equal opportunities and charities. Breaking it up will solve none of the Home Office’s problems; it may well just create a whole new raft of problems.
After all, the Home Secretary got his job as a direct result of the scandal of foreign prisoners being released on to our streets because of poor communication between the prisons department and the immigration department. How will that poor communication be improved by splitting the prisons and immigration departments into separate Departments of State?
At the moment, this country faces the threat of terrorism—the Home Secretary made that point—a criminal justice system that is in disarray, prisons that are overflowing and immigration that is out of control. Now he proposes to distract the senior staff of the Home Office by a massive reorganisation. Where are the resources going to come from to carry that out? Out of the frozen Home Office budget, at the expense of criminal justice, policing and immigration control? How much will it cost and where will it come from?
As for the new department of justice—an extremely important Department according to the Home Secretary’s new definition—it already has massive problems, second only to those of the Home Office. Are we to have a Cabinet-rank Minister for this Department in this House, or is the House of Commons only to have second best in terms of criminal justice policy and critical issues of criminal justice?
This proposal has been described as “batty” by one of the Home Secretary’s predecessors and as “balkanisation” by the one before that, and was dismissed by this Home Secretary only last year in evidence to the Home Affairs Committee. Because of the way in which it has been carried out, this ill-thought-through exercise to create a department of justice and a department of security will actually leave public security undermined and a justice system overwhelmed.
Normally I would begin by welcoming the right hon. Gentleman’s positive contribution. I think I can save time today by missing that out.
I believe that the right hon. Gentleman is mistaken. I was intending in any event to invite him, and will still invite him—along with the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Clegg), his Liberal Democrat opposite number—to go through the details of the proposal with me. I believe that he is making a dreadfully wrong strategic judgment, for reasons to which I will return, as indeed he is on identity management. I believe that he is on the side of the past rather than on that of the future. I believe that his mistake is strategic, and I am happy to discuss it with him, because I believe that wherever possible national security should be a matter of national consensus. However, I will deal with his points about process in some detail, because they are legitimate.
It was not and has never been the normal practice of Administrations to make oral statements on the machinery of government. It certainly was not the practice of the last Conservative Government. Indeed, proposals were often announced by way of press release from Downing street. Examples of major changes that were not announced by means of oral statements include the formation of the Employment Service in 1987, the splitting of the Department of Health and Social Security into the Department of Health and the Department of Social Security in 1988, the formation of the Central Statistical Office in 1989—during a recess, incidentally—the formation of the Department of Energy in 1992—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman asked about process; I am answering his question.
Further examples are the formation of the Department of National Heritage in 1992 and, in 1995, the merging of the Departments of Employment and Education to become the Department for Education and Skills. And then there is the daddy of them all. In 1995, the Financial Times reported
“The decision to scrap the Department of Employment came as a shock to its ministers and officials, none of whom were consulted.”
So I do not think that we need take lessons in process from the right hon. Gentleman.
The illogicalities and non sequiturs in the right hon. Gentleman’s contribution leap out at me. On the one hand he speaks of a great office of state abandoning its responsibilities; on the other, he refers to all the responsibilities that have been abandoned over the years precisely to enable the Home Office to refocus on today’s challenges: constitutional affairs, the fire service, royal matters, rape, faith and cohesion, communities, and the voluntary and charitable sector—and that is only since 2001. There were many before that. Indeed, originally there were only two Departments apart from the Exchequer, those responsible for foreign affairs and for home affairs. While I stand in admiration of Conservatives who wish to retain the status quo however the world has changed, it is not very useful to refuse to change one’s opinions and institutions even though the world has changed.
Let me now deal with co-ordination. This is of course a matter of judgment, but there was another great non sequitur in the right hon. Gentleman’s contribution. He cited foreign-national prisoners as an example of the way in which co-ordination is improved by matters being dealt with by the same Department. It was, in fact, a classic example of why that does not, of itself, ensure co-ordination.
The one thing that does ensure good co-ordination is the National Criminal Justice Board, which runs like a weld under elements of the present Home Office and elements of the present Department for Constitutional Affairs. It will remain. It is chaired jointly by the Lord Chancellor and myself, and that will continue. It involves the police, the judges, the agencies and the probation and other services, as well as Ministers. That will continue as well. The co-ordinating elements are there. Of course it is a matter of judgment, but it is not self-evident that being in the same department helps or ensures co ordination.
Will the ministry of justice always remain the responsibility of the House of Lords? I do not think so. During the transitional period up to 8 May, and perhaps for some time beyond it, my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, who presides over the Department of Constitutional Affairs, will be the best repository and the best person to develop the ministry. But it is perfectly possible, and perhaps perfectly appropriate, that after the transitional period, we could move responsibility for a ministry of justice to the House of Commons, allowing it to hold the Minister accountable.
Finally, on a homeland security Minister, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden does not seem to realise that we already have a counter-terrorism Minister, the Minister for Policing, Security and Community Safety, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty). He already exists. The sum total—[Interruption.] I wish that hon. Members who are interested in national security would listen to their policy to counter today’s threats; it is to take the same Minister who, at present, is in the chain of command from the Prime Minister through the Secretary of State to the terrorism Minister and to put him into the Cabinet. It will not add one iota of capacity to the fight against terrorism. It will do nothing to integrate or to give strategic capacity. It will build nothing in terms of numbers or character. It will do nothing at all to meet the seamless challenge with a seamless response.
All the proposal would do is to make two Cabinet Ministers responsible for the same subject to the same Cabinet and the same Prime Minister. In other words, it would create the elementary fault that anyone who knows anything about security would avoid; total confusion of command, control and communication. That is what the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden is offering us. No wonder that after four weeks of not having a shadow homeland security Minister, he still has not appointed one.
Does my right hon. Friend accept that this irresponsible decision further delays the reforms that are critically necessary throughout the criminal justice system? Does he further accept that, particularly in relation to prisons, probation and the National Offender Management Service, where reform is desperately needed, the shift in responsibility will delay the changes that need to take place? Finally, does he accept that the coherence and co-ordination of the criminal justice system that is so important to its success will be damaged seriously by these proposals?
I disagree with my right hon. Friend on every point. I respect his judgments. I do not think they have always been right in the past—[Interruption.] But I have no doubt that I will make mistakes as well. There are differences in judgment on that and we just have to differ.
If the manner in which the announcement has been made is any guide to the manner in which it will be implemented, we are headed for further organisational chaos at the heart of government. On 21 June last year, the Prime Minister told my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) that he saw no case whatever for the creation of a ministry of justice. A few weeks or months later, we were told through leaks to the press that, after all, that is on the agenda. Last night, we were told that the Home Secretary would make an announcement to this House. We were told a few hours later that it might be the Prime Minister, and then that there would be a written statement. We now see the Home Secretary on his feet, but only in response to an urgent question from the Opposition. This is a shoddy, shambolic and cynical way of treating this House and the British public on an issue of such grave importance.
How would the Home Secretary feel if he were a civil servant in the Home Office—vilified month in, month out by his political masters—and he learned about such an uncertain future through such contradictory leaks and counter-leaks in the press?
When the Home Secretary responded to my suggestion that there should be a public inquiry into the events surrounding the 7 July bombings, he claimed that my request was out of order, inappropriate and not possible because of the demands that it would make on official resources. How can he maintain that view when this change alone will consume far more official resources—certainly if it is to be implemented at the breakneck speed that he proposes—than a public inquiry?
Can the Home Secretary explain what role will be left for the Cabinet Office? The Cabinet Office plays a crucial role in co-ordinating information concerning our anti-terror strategy. The British public rightly expect the Prime Minister, not an aggrandised Home Secretary, to take the lead in setting our anti-terror strategy. Can he explain why the Cabinet Office appears at least to have been marginalised in the approach that he has set out this morning?
Can the Home Secretary explain how we can have any other interpretation but a political one of the timetable for changes, which will fall neatly on 9 May, the date on which, we are all led to believe, there will be a transition of power from one Prime Minister to the next? Does not he accept that, as long as that timetable is considered to be politically determined—
I notice that the hon. Gentleman managed to avoid saying that this is something for which he has been asking for some considerable time. I heard him this morning make an extraordinary statement, saying, “It is the right thing to do, but we do not like his reasons for doing it. This is the way to fight terrorism, but it is all to do with personal ambition.” I will leave the psychoanalyst role to him.
Let me give the hon. Gentleman a few facts. I do not think that he could have been more profoundly wrong on every single particular that he mentioned. First, on the civil servants, his constant running down of certain aspects—I do not mind acknowledging faults—and his refusal to accord any credit where improvements are made, is what depresses people. For several months, civil servants have been involved in discussing the matter, from the permanent secretary down.
Secondly, during that time, there have not been any leaks from the Home Office. There has been one newspaper article, which I wrote and briefed around. There have been 10 other leaks. None has come from the Home Office and all have criticised and misrepresented the plans. Thirdly, unfortunately, it is those misrepresentations on which he has based his analysis. Not for the first time, an hon. Gentleman has spent a lot of time decrying those who apparently chase headlines, and spent the rest of his time chasing the headlines, making the headlines or basing his story on the headlines. The Prime Minister will still oversee the strategic national security elements. He will chair the new integrated committee. The Cabinet Office will service that committee. He will still have a national security adviser. It will not be the Home Secretary who chairs that.
It is simple facts such as those that are the first step towards a rational discussion. If the hon. Gentleman wants to learn the facts, I will invite him in, but I ask him please not to base his arguments on spurious and misrepresentative reports in the press.
Finally, if the hon. Gentleman thinks that it is a good idea to have a ministry of justice, by definition, that would leave the Home Office refocused on those elements that are not part of the ministry of justice. That is precisely the position that I have arrived at. I know he finds it difficult, but there is an old rule: do not ask for something unless you consider the fact that you might get it. He has just got it. He might welcome it.
I welcome what my right hon. Friend has said about co-ordination of terrorism policy. Does he accept that today’s decision leaves criminal justice spread across two Government Departments? I hope that he will come to the Select Committee at an early opportunity to discuss how that will work in practice, but for today can he tell the House which Department—the Home Office or the ministry of justice—will take responsibility for introducing criminal justice Acts? Which Department will take responsibility for the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984? How will we ensure that organisations such as the police know who it is they have to deal with and do not have to run around Whitehall trying to find the right civil servant to lobby?
I agree entirely with the points made by my right hon. Friend. It is important that we co-ordinate. I have said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), the former Secretary of State, that we have different judgments on the matter. I do not regard all my judgments to be right, or all his to be wrong. It is perfectly possible for those of us who have the responsibility of government—[Interruption.] Of course, if one does not have the responsibility of government, it is possible always to be right because all one has to do is criticise everyone else. For those of us who are interested in actually governing the country, it is possible for two men of equal weight and sincerity to make different judgments on a set of facts. Those are important judgments.
I do bear the burden of the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) is making, which is that there has to be an understanding that the Home Office will be responsible not just for counter-terrorism and security. There will also be the responsibility for antisocial behaviour. We intend that neighbourhood policing and the British style of policing will stay the British style of policing. Immigration will also be a responsibility. Those responsiblities will be co-ordinated throughout that Department. In response to his second point, the National Criminal Justice Board will also act on co-ordination across the criminal justice system.
In answer to my right hon. Friend’s third point, of course I will come and explain these matters to his Select Committee at the earliest date. He asked about who will bring forward legislation in relation to the operations of the executive agencies inside the Home Office, the answer to that is the Home Office.
Answer the actual question.
I have now answered all my right hon. Friend’s points. All the legislation relating to the executive functions of those agencies, including the police, that operate inside the Home Office will be brought forward by the Home Office. The Bill teams will act out of the Home Office.
We know that we will still have all the problems there, but we are not confident from what the Home Secretary has said that we will have the proper solutions. Does not he remember how, on one busy afternoon, the Prime Minister created the Department for Constitutional Affairs on the back of an envelope and sought to get rid of the Lord Chancellor? He then found that what he was proposing was entirely unworkable and unrealistic. What confidence can we now have that the new ministry of justice, created without proper consultation with Parliament, is going to be up to the job? Why on earth did not the Prime Minister have the respect for Parliament to come here today and explain in detail what he has in mind?
On the process point, I have already explained the matter. In fact, at the risk of boring the hon. Gentleman, there were 10 occasions on which the previous Administration did not even deign to come to Parliament with an oral statement. On some occasions they did not even issue a written ministerial statement. They changed the machinery of government by a press release from Downing street.
The Prime Minister made a written ministerial statement this morning. I have come here in response to the urgent question. I am more than happy to go through all the elements with hon. Members in a search for consensus. Of course with any of these things there are judgments to be made. Of course there is controversy, but the idea that, by preserving the present structure, we have some benign recipe for perfect co-ordination and operations within the Home Office does not strike me as self-evidently true on the basis of history. It may have been true, but as I have said, each of the units of the Home Office already has a plan for reform. I have introduced three of them, and several were introduced by my predecessor. They are being worked through, including the National Offender Management System. All those elements will continue. This reconfiguration is not a substitute for improving the quality of each of the constituent elements. It will not involve the expense that the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Clegg), expects. It will be accomplished within the existing budgets of the Home Office and the DCA. The change will not require the expenditure of time, energy or resources that is anticipated. If hon. Gentlemen will give us time to go through that, I am more than open to discussing that continually with them.
rose—
Order. If I am going to be able to call some Back Benchers, I must have one supplementary question and a brief response.
Splitting the Home Office may make sense, but as a former police Minister I am worried about the message to the police of some of the detail in my right hon. Friend's reply today. Will not the changes appear to downgrade the Government's successful focus on cutting crime and disorder and antisocial behaviour, on police community support work and on crime reduction partnerships? Having a department of homeland security may make sense, but it appears to downgrade the emphasis on local policing. Can he reassure us on that?
On the first point, let me offer a correction: it will not be a Department for homeland security. That, by definition, would fragment our counter-terrorist and security effort because of the misapprehension that we can neatly segregate the current threat into foreign affairs, defence affairs and domestic affairs. One of the reasons why we need not only a longer term strategic response but a better integrated one is that the threat is now seamless. It is a seamless threat that runs through foreign and defence affairs and affairs at home. That is another reason why the Opposition’s recommendation does nothing to address the current threat.
I can give an assurance that neighbourhood policing—the British style of policing, which has been rolled out through the country—will not only remain in the Home Office but will be a very high priority, as will antisocial behaviour. While some elements of legislation—such as police and criminal evidence legislation—will remain with the Home Office, other elements, such as criminal justice Bills, will pass to the ministry for justice. Therefore there will be a partnership approach.
I worked in the Home Office for three years, and I say to the Secretary of State that there was nothing inherently dysfunctional about it at that time, and that splitting Departments will not address the problems that exist, which are essentially ones of leadership.
Let me also say that having Ministers with responsibility for justice in the other place rather than in this House is profoundly unacceptable. It is not right that the two Ministers of justice—the Attorney-General and the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs—will be in the other place. That must be rectified.
I understand the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s point, and I think that that will probably be rectified after the transitional period, although that will be a matter for the Prime Minister—whoever might be the next Prime Minister.
As a former shadow Home Secretary—I was also shadow almost everything else without achieving the substance, as the current shadow Home Secretary will find out over long years of opposition—may I make the point to my right hon. Friend that the effectiveness of the machinery of Government depends on whether it works? It has been found in the past—for example, when the Conservative Government took broadcasting away from the Home Office—that the machinery of Government must work. Also, as a former Conservative Home Secretary found, prisons policy can be a mess if it is not properly administered. Does my right hon. Friend therefore agree that the key issue is not the boundaries of Government, but whether the structure works?
I agree 100 per cent. One of the reasons why I have come to the conclusion that I have is that it seems to me that although we can improve the constituent elements of work within the Home Office, because of the magnitude of the challenge of three or four elements, the work on them cannot be carried out properly unless we concentrate and refocus on them and shift the other elements to a different dimension or Department. This change is being made because of practical reasons to do with responding to the current challenges of mass immigration, international crime and counter-terrorism, as well as to the policing and antisocial behaviour problems that we have. I say that with sincerity as both the current Secretary of State at the Home Office and in the past as Secretary of State for almost everything else.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) asked the Home Secretary what the cost of the restructuring was, and the Home Secretary failed to answer. He must know the figure. Will he share it with the House?
No, what I was asked about was the additional cost of this change. I said that that cost will be met from within the existing budgets of the Home Office and the Department for Constitutional Affairs. That is possible because the magnitude of the change is hugely exaggerated. All that is happening is that the National Offender Management Service element and criminal justice system element of the Home Office will now be the responsibility of another Minister.
Is not the truth of the matter that the Home Office has caused endless embarrassment to successive Governments—I can recall Henry Brooke’s career being destroyed when he was Home Secretary in the 1960s—and that the Department is currently far too large to be properly organised and maintained either by the permanent secretary or, even more importantly, by the Home Secretary of the moment? Therefore the reforms and changes are welcome.
I am glad that the reforms are welcomed by my hon. Friend. I pay tribute to the permanent secretary and all the staff who have been working on this proposal and on the improvement and reform plans of each of the constituent elements. I am the last person in the world to deny that we have had the odd problem in the Home Office; I have probably been more open in acknowledging problems to do with my own Department than any other Cabinet Minister. However, I assure Members that that is not the driving force behind these changes. The driving force behind them is the magnitude of the challenges of mass migration, international crime and countering international terrorism. That is why this has been done. It has been done not to avoid embarrassment, nor as a job creation scheme for a Cabinet Minister, nor for elongating anyone’s career. It has been done in the national interest, not in any departmental or person interest.
What discussions has the Secretary of State had with Scottish Ministers and relevant agencies and bodies in Scotland about how their key functions will fit in with this new structure? Can he assure me that crucial work in Scotland on immigration, counter-terrorism and international crime will not be compromised by what is proposed?
Most of the material and the structures and functions that will be affected are reserved areas. Obviously, the Scots have control over their policing and legal system through the Scottish Executive, but the other areas—counter-terrorism, mass migration, immigration—are dealt with on a reserved basis. We will consult, of course; I will consult Cathy Jamieson on this, as I do on other issues, to make sure that our response in all the areas involved is as seamless and integrated as possible, given the autonomy in many areas of the Scottish Executive.
Will prostitution policy be a matter for the Home Office or for the new department of justice? Will there be a Cabinet Minister in this House or the other House?
In either case, there will in due course be a Cabinet Minister in this House, I think. I think that the Minister of justice will probably return here, although I cannot guarantee that because it will be a matter for the Prime Minister of the time.
In the 200th anniversary year of the abolition of slavery, will the Home Secretary confirm that the restructuring of the Home Office will allow for there to be centrally prepared data on, for example, the number of children trafficked into the United Kingdom? Also, what will happen to the children who are not granted asylum, and what will happen to children who disappear while in the care of a local authority?
Before I answer those questions, let me say in response to the previous one that I would have thought that prostitution as a policy area will come under the ministry of justice, although the policing of any such matters will of course come under the Home Office.
The co-ordination and partnership that will apply to any areas, including the compilation of statistics, will not change in functional terms from what is the current position. Statistics will be compiled by the Home Office or the ministry of justice as appropriate, and the relationship or partnership with local government will continue. Obligations that we have signed up to—such as the European convention on human trafficking—will be carried forward by the Government.
It is regrettable that there will be no detailed parliamentary scrutiny of the changes to the machinery of Government. Those changes have, according to my friend, gone off at half-cock, and that was the case when the Conservative Government were in power as well as under this Government. We have had four transport Departments since 1997, and we had a Department for Productivity, Energy and Industry which lasted five minutes.
May I take my friend back to the central issue of costs? The Cabinet Secretary told me three or four weeks ago in an evidence session to the Public Administration Committee that the costs of the change would be met from within the departmental budget. My question is simple: can we have the figures here and now?
I have already made it absolutely plain that the costs will be borne from inside the budget, alongside other ongoing efficiency savings. The cost will be small. There is no need to build new buildings, and no need for a massive reallocation, for a massive restructuring of departmental organisations, or for consultancy fees. This is a merger of an existing, coherent unit—NOMS and the criminal justice section—with the Department for Constitutional Affairs, so the costs are in no way prohibitive and will be met inside our budgets as a normal, routine managerial expense.
The Home Secretary will recognise the importance of effective border controls. Will today’s changes enable his Department to close the Brussels-Lille loophole whereby, if a Eurostar passenger at Brussels buys a ticket only for Lille, they are not subject to juxtaposed and other controls and merely stay on the train at Lille, arriving at Waterloo without any documents?
I am not going to respond here to the question of the detailed travel arrangements of this hypothetical passenger, but I will look into this issue and write to the hon. Gentleman. He will know that this week, the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Byrne), proposed yet another step change in our immigration and enforcement policy. Through exporting our borders, by the end of next year the people of more than 100 countries will require visas to come here; and the introduction of biometrics, fingerprint and identity management will enable us to track people in and out of the country. I ask Opposition Members to reconsider their opposition to identity management. Without it, we will never be able to counter fraud and terrorism or to track immigration. The hon. Gentleman is on the wrong side of this argument.
I welcome the long overdue proposal to create a new ministry of justice, and I commend the Home Secretary on dealing with what must have been very difficult negotiations. However, what are the implications for the role of the Attorney-General, who is the third part of the criminal justice system? It is important that a statement be made to the House about this matter—especially as the Select Committee is looking at the Attorney-General’s role—and that a Minister from that department also be on the Front Bench. Could we please have an urgent debate on this issue?
The short answer to my right hon. Friend’s question is that there is no significant change to the Attorney-General’s role that I am aware of. The trilateral arrangements will still pertain, and the Attorney-General will certainly still be on the National Criminal Justice Board, on which we all sit in an attempt to co-ordinate matters across the criminal justice system. So I think that there is no significant change.
Does the Home Secretary know which items will have to be cut from the Home Office in order to make this change, and will he share that information with us?
I am not quite sure what the hon. Gentleman means.
The financial cuts.
What the hon. Gentleman does not seem to realise is that a massive efficiency, improvement and reform plan is under way in almost every area. For instance, a staff reduction of 1,600 in NOMS alone is envisaged over the coming period, so compared with the reductions, improvements and efficiency measures taking place, the cost of this change is, as I said, very small. There will be no cuts, but a reallocation and a refocus toward immigration, international crime and international terrorism. The British people’s three priorities, according to every single opinion poll of the last three years, are fair and effective control of immigration, countering crime and countering terrorism. These are responses not only to changes in the world, but to what people in our communities want us to focus on.
What the Home Secretary has just said is incoherent. The money has to come from somewhere, so why will he not list the programmes that will inevitably be reduced to pay for this change?
Because there aren’t any.
The Home Secretary said today that the Prime Minister decided only today on the change, yet BBC television reported it last night, saying that there would be a statement today. Why are the Government briefing the BBC before Members of this House?
The answer is: we are not.
The BBC reported it last night.
The hon. Gentleman is talking about leaks and reports. The Financial Times reported it 10 weeks ago; it was a misreport and misrepresentation. The Evening Standard reported that one of my Cabinet colleagues was opposed to this; it was not true. There have been constant leaks, as happens in government; that does not mean that we are doing these things. This issue has been discussed for a considerable time across government, and the civil servants and officials working on it have done so with huge discretion and integrity. It is in some ways amazing that the accurate details did not come out until two or three hours ago, when the written ministerial statement was issued; other details have been placed in the Library of the House. I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that all the reports of the past 10 weeks have not been at all authoritative; indeed, for the most part, they have been misleading and wrong.
My constituents want to know that, as a result of this reorganisation, the roll-out of the safer community teams in Kettering and the surrounding area will not be affected. They would also like to know the answer to this question: when does the Home Secretary expect to update the House on progress?
I can assure the hon. Gentleman’s constituents that visible, accessible and responsive neighbourhood policing, which is obviously one of their priorities, is one of our high priorities, too. If he asks them, he will find that managing fair and effective immigration, reducing crime, and countering fraud, international crime and terrorism are their three highest priorities, as they are for the rest of the British people. That is what the evidence constantly tells us, and they are precisely the areas on which we have refocused this great Department of state.
Business of the House
May I ask the Leader of the House to give us the business for future weeks?
The business for the week commencing 16 April will be:
Monday 16 April—Second Reading of the Mental Health Bill [Lords].
Tuesday 17 April—Opposition day [8th allotted day]. There will be a debate or debates on an Opposition motion, subjects to be announced.
Wednesday 18 April—Remaining stages of the Pensions Bill.
Thursday 19 April—Motion to take note of the outstanding reports of the Public Accounts Committee to which the Government have replied—details will be given in the Official Report—followed by a debate on marine environment on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Friday 20 April—Private Members’ Bills.
The provisional business for the week commencing 23 April will include:
Monday 23 April—Second Reading of the Finance Bill.
Tuesday 24 April—Opposition day [9th allotted day]. There will be a debate or debates on an Opposition motion, subjects to be announced.
Wednesday 25 April—A motion relating to the Crossrail Bill, followed by opposed private business that the Chairman of Ways and Means has named for consideration.
Thursday 26 April—A debate on defence in the UK on a motion for the Adjournment of the House. To be confirmed.
Friday 27 April—Private Members’ Bills.
I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the future business, and for working with the Foreign Secretary to ensure that we had yesterday’s statement on Iran. Since then, of course, the Iranian Government have—quite disgracefully—paraded the captured British sailors on television. Given that the House rises today, what consideration has the Leader of the House given to ways of informing it of further developments?
The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee says that the Rural Payments Agency fiasco will cost the taxpayer £500 million, including a fine of £305 million payable to Brussels for incompetence. The Committee said:
“A culture where ministers and senior officials can preside over failure of this magnitude and not be held personally accountable creates a serious risk of further failures.”
Will the Environment Secretary come to the House to make a further statement on the Rural Payments Agency?
We have just had the Home Secretary’s response to an urgent question on the restructuring of the Home Office. Sadly, the Home Secretary had to be forced to come to the House to give those details. He said that details of changes to the Department for Constitutional Affairs would be given by the Lord Chancellor in the other place. When will a statement on those changes be made in this House? Many of the replies that the Home Secretary gave were completely unsatisfactory. It appeared that he simply did not know the answers to many of the questions that were correctly put to him. Indeed, at one stage, the Leader of the House had to brief the Home Secretary on the answer. Perhaps the Leader of the House, as the Chancellor’s campaign manager, knows more about the future than the Home Secretary does. May we have a debate therefore on the restructuring of the Home Office, because that debate would give hon. Members —including the right hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke) and the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart)—an opportunity to express their clear concerns about the proposals?
I was talking of the Home Office, and the Leader of the House once said that he hoped that the Home Secretary would run for the Labour leadership. Now, of course, the Leader of the House is running the Chancellor’s campaign and he has written to Labour MPs saying:
“There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Gordon is the right person”.
That is some U-turn. May we have a debate on junk mail?
In last week’s Budget, the Chancellor did not mention his Lyons review once. But under him, money raised from council tax has doubled, from £11 billion to £23.5 billion. That is the equivalent of putting 4p on income tax. The Lyons review now proposes taxes on bins, taxes on home improvement, and even taxes on beds. At least the Chancellor did mention the NHS in his Budget—once—but he did not tell us about the health service’s soaring deficits, now £2.7 billion. The Health Committee says that the Chancellor has brought “boom and bust” to the NHS. Last week, the Leader of the House said that he
“would be delighted to have…a debate”
on the NHS
“any time.”—[Official Report, 22 March 2007; Vol. 458, c. 950.]
So when may we have that debate?
It is revealing that the Chancellor stays quiet when it suits him. He once promised that
“a Labour Treasury will be open rather than secretive”.
But last week he refused to answer when I asked how many meetings he had had with trade unions. When I asked the Leader of the House the same question, he gave an honest answer. The Chancellor also refused to answer my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) when he asked about his other appointments. When my hon. Friend asked the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, he gave an honest answer. Clearly Labour Members face a choice between a secretive Chancellor and a more open Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Can the Leader of the House impress upon all his colleagues the importance of being as open with Parliament as he is? The public know that this Government have a record of stealth, secrets and spin, and they are sick of it. The problem is that when the Chancellor becomes Prime Minister, it will just get worse and worse—more stealth, more secrets and more spin.
The right hon. Lady was doing well until she came to her so-called peroration. In fact, I congratulate her on two rather good jokes—
Indeed. When the right hon. Lady described an excellent letter that I have sent out as junk mail, the Patronage Secretary, ever loyal, described it as spam. Incidentally, one should never believe anything that Mr. Piers Morgan writes, including stuff about me.
I have been remiss and I apologise, because I failed to read out some of the business for Westminster Hall. On Thursday 19 April, there will be a debate on the report from the Trade and Industry Committee on “New Nuclear? Examining the Issues”, and on Thursday 26 April, a debate on a report from the Transport Committee on “How Fair are the Fares? Train Fares and Ticketing”. Those titles may be elocution tests as well—[Interruption.] These were not my ideas, Mr. Speaker. If it had been left to the Patronage Secretary, the debates would have at least been clear in their subjects.
On a very serious note, I thank the right hon. Lady for what she said about my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary coming to the House yesterday in respect of Iran. It is a serious situation and we are all concerned. My right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister and our diplomats, both here and there, are working extremely hard on that matter. Given that the House will not sit again until 16 April, the only way in which we can in practice inform Members about developments is through the media, but of course we shall do so. If there is detailed information that we need to transmit to Members, it can be done by a “dear colleague” letter.
The right hon. Lady mentioned the report by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee this morning and asked when it can be debated. There are plenty of opportunities for the House to debate issues if it wishes. The subjects for debate on estimates days are determined by the Liaison Committee, and if the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee is concerned, it may raise the issue then. Given the synthetic fury to which we are sometimes subjected in business questions, I am surprised that the Opposition do not take the opportunity—if they really think that criticism of Ministers is significant—to raise such matters on Opposition days. They used to do so, when they were a slightly better Opposition. I remember, time and again, between 1974 and 1979, motions for the reduction of Ministers’ salaries—
You are giving them ideas.
I am, because—like my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman)—it is my profound wish and desire to make the Opposition more effective as an Opposition and to keep them there for at least as long as we were there.
The hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) does not have a salary. You cannot reduce it!
No, but he has the joy of working in the Leader’s team.
On the restructuring and the ministry of justice, if the right hon. Lady were to read the written statement that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister issued earlier today, she would see details laid out both on the arrangements for Home Office and on the new ministry.
On the health service, I frankly do not recognise the figures that the right hon. Lady mentions. My right hon. Friend the Health Secretary announced about a month ago that, taking account of the use of some contingency money, there would be a £13 million surplus for this year; and there have been substantial extra funds for the health service for the new year starting on 1 April. Time and again, I listen with bated breath for the right hon. Lady to mention the huge increases in resources in her constituency, but yet again she has failed to do so. Allow me to mention the extra £39 million on top of all the additional funds that her area has had.
May we have a debate on international whaling, which is a big issue in my constituency? It was first raised by a constituent of mine. Iceland has recently resumed commercial whaling of fin whales. Those magnificent creatures can be seen in the Firth of Forth from my constituency, and it is surely outrageous that we cannot do anything to protect them.
I agree. It is not often that I can, as it were, satisfy an hon. Member immediately, but I draw to my hon. Friend’s attention the fact that we will have a debate on the marine environment on the Thursday after the recess, in which she will be able to raise those issues. I hope that she catches your eye, Mr. Speaker.
To pick up on the sedentary comment by the Patronage Secretary, it is obvious that we are in the process of transition from Camelot to Spamalot. [Laughter.]
To return to the serious issue of the changes in the machinery of government, and as the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) said, there is a statement on the Department for Constitutional Affairs in the other place. It is not acceptable for a statement to be made about a Government Department in the non-elected House and not made to this House. I shall leave that thought with the Leader of the House.
Leaving aside the merits or otherwise of the proposed changes, is not the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) right that when we have machinery of government changes that affect Departments, costings and organisation it is sensible for them to be put forward in costed form in a consultation paper that sets out the advantages and disadvantages and allows the House to have scrutiny of such changes before implementation? It is not back-of-the-envelope stuff just before a change of Administration. We ought to be able to set a precedent for this.
May we have a debate on ethical leadership? Given the Select Committee on Public Administration comments this week and those of Sir Alistair Graham, and in the context of Ministers being accused of leaning on officials for political purposes and an ex-Cabinet Minister one day being the advocate of a new policy on ID cards and two years later turning up as an employee of an ID card company, is it not time for a civil service Act and a strengthened ministerial code of conduct? Should not this House have an opportunity to debate that?
May we have a debate on rural housing? The establishment of a new rural housing advisory group has been announced, but we have not yet had a Government response to the affordable rural housing commission that reported only last year. That is a serious issue for many people in rural areas.
Finally, last week the Leader of the House showed that he is adept at studying rail timetables for Milton Keynes and I applaud him for that. I have to repeat my request, however, for a debate on rail services. To quote one of my favourite books:
“Man is born free and everywhere is in trains.”
TravelWatch South West said:
“The Government does not seem to care about public transport in the South West”,
and points to drastic timetable cuts, plummeting reliability and chronic overcrowding. This is a serious issue for the south-west, as it is in many other places, and it is time that we had a debate not only on the narrow issue of rail fares, which the Leader of the House has announced, but also on the wider issue of what is happening to our rail services.
When the hon. Gentleman asked about today’s announcement on splitting the Home Office, he included the words,
“Leaving aside the merits or otherwise of the case”.
That is classic Lib Demory. They have two views, one in favour and one against, and they cannot make up their mind which, so they leave aside the merits. I take seriously some of the points raised by the Opposition because they have a view about the merits of the case, but, although I listened with great care to what the shadow, shadow Lib Dem home affairs spokesman had to say, I was none the wiser at the end of it, nor was I any better informed of the Lib Dem’s position. The matter has been the subject of detailed consideration and of a detailed written ministerial statement. Although there may be a debate about whether some time in future such matters should be handled differently, the truth is that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister handled it more openly today than was ever the case in the past. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said, in 18 years of Labour Opposition there were repeated examples of changes to machinery of government without any announcement to the House.
I am always very happy, if time allows, to have a debate inside or outside the Chamber on ethical leadership. However, it does not do the reputation of politics any good for the hon. Gentleman week after week to come to the House and in one way or another try to denigrate the standards of public life. I accept that there are falls from grace, but our standards are higher and better than in almost every other country in the world, and that is shown from independent monitoring. If any of my former Cabinet colleagues are taking business appointments, they will be doing so only in circumstances where they have been vetted and approved by the Appointments Commission.
We all accept that rural housing is a serious matter. I happened to listen to a radio programme the other day about ways in which planning controls are being used more effectively now to ensure a parallel market for local people. That is an important issue and I shall certainly pass on the hon. Gentleman’s comments to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government.
I made myself expert on the train services to and from Milton Keynes only because I had to, not because of any affection for that timetable. We recognise that there are problems with train services as a result of overcrowding. The timetable changes introduced by First Great Western, a private company, and its failure to ensure sufficient rolling stock inconvenienced a great many Members of this House, including the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) and me. Spending on track support has increased by 55 per cent. in the last 10 years, rail passenger journeys are up by 35 per cent. and, to combat overcrowding, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport recently announced that an extra 1,000 rail carriages are to be purchased.
As chair of the all-party group on smoking and health, I welcome the recent anniversary of smoke-free Scotland and I look forward in four days’ time to smoke-free Wales and in four weeks and four days’ time to smoke-free Northern Ireland, and on 1 July to smoke-free legislation in England. May I draw attention to my early-day motion 1233?
[That this House looks forward to the introduction of smokefree legislation in England on 1st July this year, following Wales on 2nd April and Northern Ireland on 30th April; applauds the protection from proven health risks of secondhand smoke which this will afford to smokers and non-smokers alike in the vast majority of workplaces and public places; notes the successful passing of the first anniversary of smokefree Scotland; further applauds the 46,000 Scots who used NHS Scotland to support their attempt to stop smoking; recognises that a huge surge in demand is expected for Stop Smoking Services in England, running up to, on and following 1st July; welcomes the £10 million additional funding for 2006-07 and 2007-08 provided by the Department of Health to primary care trusts (PCTs) for increased provision of Stop Smoking Services; regrets that there is evidence that many frontline services are being cut at this vital time despite the additional Government funding; and urges the Government to ring-fence the funding to PCTs for the provision of Stop Smoking Services in 2007-08 to ensure that the unique opportunity presented by Smokefree England to make a dramatic cut in smoking prevalence is not wasted.]
It draws attention to the fact that the Government have allocated a fair amount of money to boost stop-smoking services, which is what some people are doing at the implementation of this legislation. May we have a debate on how we can protect such funding? Research shows that that extra funding is being used—snaffled, even—by primary care trusts for other services and that smoke-free services are being reduced in scale. May we have a debate on public health and how we can protect finances and give high priority to that aspect of our health policy?
I take note of what my hon. Friend has to say. I am glad that he acknowledges the big increase in resources that we have put into it. I hope that he is successful in raising the matter, for example, in Westminster Hall.
Given that the Home Office continues to remove to Khartoum failed asylum seekers from Darfur, even though the safety of such an approach is being contested in the Court of Appeal, can we please debate the matter urgently in Government time on the Floor of the House, because many of us believe that the Government are breaking their international commitments and putting opponents of the Sudanese Government at risk of imprisonment, torture, death or a grisly combination of all three?
I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman has to say. I know of no case and I do not believe that there has ever been a case of someone being sent back as a failed asylum seeker unless and until all the avenues of appeal have been exhausted, including appeals before independent immigration judges and possibly even the immigration appeal tribunal. It is well established case law in this country and internationally that it may well be safe to send an individual back to a part of a country although it may be dangerous in another part of that country. That is particularly true of Sudan, which is twice the size of France.
Would my right hon. Friend agree that many of the great campaigns in this House start from an injustice to a constituent? Would he think of an early debate on the behaviour of Swiss banks operating in London outside of European Union regulation? Constituents of mine have lost £2 million through fraud. The fraudster used Pictet and Cie—a French bank—and Pictet Asset Management to back the fraud being perpetrated. My constituents can get no justice because Swiss banks operating in London are outside the normal parameters of European Union protection. Can we have a debate about what is going on with regard to Swiss financial services operating in this capital city of financial services?
I take note of the seriousness of my hon. Friend’s point. I will draw his profound concern to the attention of my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and the chairman of the Financial Services Authority. I hope that he can raise the matter in debate here.
The Government must be alarmed by the criticism in the report of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and by the level of fines. Will the Leader of the House make time, as soon as possible after the House’s return from the Easter recess, for a debate to consider two particular aspects of the criticisms? The first is the fact that the level of the fines means that the farm budget has been raided. In addition, the rural development fund, which would otherwise have been used for flood alleviation schemes, is no longer at the level that it would have been without the fines. Secondly, as the Government are so keen to look into restructuring Departments and to consider the level of ministerial responsibility, will he please ensure that the Minister with responsibility for farms is a House of Commons man or woman, and is in this House to answer questions and receive correspondence? If that had been the case, the Government would have been aware of the difficulties much earlier.
I take note of the hon. Lady’s last point about ministerial responsibility. I would just say that my noble Friend, Lord Rooker, has very much made himself available to this House. I understand the hon. Lady’s point, but he has done what he can to make himself available. On the hon. Lady’s wider point, of course we always take seriously any Select Committee report. My right hon. Friend the Environment Secretary has apologised to farmers for the debacle in the Rural Payments Agency, and I have done so to the House. There have been changes at the head of the agency, and everybody is seeking to learn the lessons from that very unfortunate episode.
Congressional committees in the United States ordinarily take evidence on oath, and my friend the Leader of the House told me yesterday in a written answer that it is open to Select Committees to require witnesses to give evidence on oath. Given the controversy over the remarks of the previous Cabinet Secretary, and the fact that my friend is now campaign manager for someone who has been described as a Stalinist, I am interested in my friend’s views; would he encourage Select Committees to take evidence on oath on appropriate occasions?
I have no particular view about that, because even if evidence is not given on oath, there is a high expectation that those giving evidence will tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I think that I am right in saying that even if the evidence is not given on oath, if it transpires that the witnesses have given false evidence, they can be brought before the House.
Sadly, far too many small shops are falling victim to crime. A survey by the British Retail Consortium showed that shop theft was up 70 per cent. in 2005, and theft costs shops some £2 billion a year. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate on shop theft, either in Westminster Hall or on the Adjournment of the House, and will he support my call for such a debate?
I appreciate that although, overall, crime has come down, one crime is one crime too many, and the statistics are no comfort to the victims of the crimes that continue to occur, so I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman’s concern. We are doing everything that we can to cut shop crime and we will look for an opportunity for him to raise the subject on the Adjournment, or in Westminster Hall.
May we have a debate on information technology developments in primary schools, and will my right hon. Friend join me in urging Members to encourage participation in the competition that is being run by the Parliamentary Information Technology Committee and e-skills, and which is being promoted in the all-party Whip? It is a great way of getting Members to engage with the young people in their constituencies about something that will really affect their future.
I congratulate PITCOM and e-skills, which is the sector skills council for IT and telecoms, for their initiative, and I encourage Members to involve their primary schools in that competition.
I still have constituents who have not been paid their single farm payment for 2005. The Leader of the House underestimates the spectacular language in, and the importance of, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee report. Paragraph 3 says:
“This was a catastrophe for some farmers, and a serious and embarrassing failure for Defra and the RPA. A key part of the Government’s sustainable farming policy was in collapse.”
The majority of Committee members were Government Members, and the report was passed unanimously. The right hon. Gentleman’s replies are not good enough. We need to debate the subject on the Floor of the House, with Ministers present, in Government time. Fobbing us off with estimates days is just not good enough.
Order. May I say to the Leader of the House that he will have to imply a question from the statement that we have just heard?
I will do my best, inadequate though I am. I do not think that I downplayed the gravity of the criticism that was made; it is palpable and it has been well-rehearsed in the newspapers, and on the radio this morning. I do not have much to add to what I have already said. As I said to the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), if Members really think that a criticism made of a Minister is serious, there are many opportunities available to them, and particularly to the Official Opposition, to raise the matter on the Floor of the House.
I wonder when we can have a statement from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on the arrangements for scrutiny by the House of the Home Office and the new ministry of justice. In particular, what arrangements does he intend to propose on the organisation of Select Committees? Given the division of responsibilities, how can the House ensure seamless scrutiny of the criminal justice system?
That is something on which we will have to consult the usual channels, the Chairman of the Liaison Committee and, of course, the Chairmen of the Select Committees concerned. I say to my right hon. Friend that however uncomfortable it may be, the general principle—now enshrined, I think, in the Standing Orders—is that the departmental Select Committees are there to monitor the work of Departments, and that principle is important in making the Select Committees as effective as they can be in fulfilling their role. We have to take that into account.
rose—
Order. I repeat my preference for specific questions.
Looking at the future business, it seems that the Leader of the House and I have failed to secure an Act of Union debate prior to the Scottish elections. I have to say that I am disappointed. I wanted to hear Ministers once again make their positive case—the black hole of the issue of border guards, the brutal language, and so on. When the Leader of the House observes the 10-point Scottish National party lead, does he believe that the current approach is working?
I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not mention that there has been a 20-point reduction in support for independence in Scotland since the SNP started wittering on about it.
Yesterday at Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister stated, in relation to NHS operations:
“now virtually no one waits more than six months.”—[Official Report, 28 March 2007; Vol. 458, c. 1495.]
The House of Commons Library informs me that official figures show that there are currently 7,851 patients who have waited more than six months for an NHS operation. After the recess, will the Leader of the House make a statement on the accuracy of ministerial answers to oral questions, and will he say how they might be corrected if they are found to be wrong?
I think that what my right hon. Friend said is accurate, and I echo what he said, because virtually nobody is waiting more than six months. The number is down by 284,000 since 1997, and is now relatively small. Of course, that is still too many people who are waiting, but the hon. Gentleman needs to make up his mind about whether he supports the extra money that we have put into the health service—it alone has made the improvements possible—or whether he opposes that spending, as he did at the last election, and the one before that.
A major industrial plant in my constituency has suffered terrorist attacks in the past, and thousands of my constituents travel to London every day to work. May we have a debate to explore, in plain language, how the Home Office changes will improve the on-the-ground protection from terrorism for my constituents? That will not be clear to them from the statement made by the Home Secretary this morning.
The purpose of the changes that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced this morning is to strengthen the framework for counter-terrorism and to ensure that our work on local policing continues, so that the good people of Castle Point, including those on Canvey Island, can, with a bit of luck, sleep even easier in their beds than they have been able to since that halcyon day, 1 May 1997.
Points of Order
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance about the failure of the Department for Communities and Local Government to answer not one but three named-day questions that were due on 5 March. The questions, which I tabled on 26 February, relate to an apparent breach of planning law by the Minister for Housing and Planning. If that breach is confirmed it may well result in legal action by my constituents against the Department. Three weeks after answers were due, I have yet to receive an answer or even a holding reply from the Department. Will you confirm, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that that is in breach—I tried to identify whether it was—of Standing Order No. 22, and as you are the protector of our interests as Back Benchers, will you advise me how I can resolve the matter in the interests of my constituents?
This is something that the House rightly takes seriously. It may be helpful if the Leader of the House, who has heard what the hon. Gentleman said, seeks to catch my eye in furtherance of the point of order.
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have obviously taken careful note of what the hon. Gentleman had to say. I shall follow it up and hope to get in touch with him later today.
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In Treasury questions, the Chancellor and the Economic Secretary both flatly refused to answer a straight question as to whether a senior Treasury official had given accurate information to the Select Committee yesterday. Is it possible, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for you to convey the message to the Treasury and to other senior Ministers that their reputations and the reputation of our proceedings are not enhanced outside the House by that sort of behaviour?
The hon. Gentleman must recognise that that is not a point of order for the Chair. The Leader of the House will have heard what he said, and I am sure that he is as interested as any right hon. or hon. Member to ensure that the fullest information is supplied to hon. Members. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should recognise that all of us in our profession are sometimes fallible in giving the fullest of answers to the questions that we are asked in many different theatres.
Deferred Division No. 85
I have to report to the House an error in the numbers reported as having voted yesterday in Deferred Division No. 85 on immigration. The number of Ayes was 366, rather 342, and the number of Noes was 52, rather than 49. I can advise the House that the Clerk will arrange for the record to be corrected.
Easter Adjournment
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Heppell.]
Before the House of Commons adjourns for the Easter recess, I want to raise a matter relating to the manner in which we conduct our proceedings, particularly the manner in which legislation is now being progressed through both Houses of Parliament. On 15 March, I tabled a written parliamentary question to the Prime Minister asking him, in the light of an earlier comment that he had made, if he would place on record the Hansard reference to the occasion on which a very full debate took place on the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007. That written question should have been answered today. The Table Office—and I have no quarrel with the Clerks whatsoever, far from it—rejected the question, on the grounds that the Prime Minister, in his answer at Prime Minister’s Question Time to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), had not actually referred to a parliamentary debate. The Prime Minister in fact said:
“We have had a very full debate on the issue in public”.—[Official Report, 21 March 2007; Vol. 458, c. 811.]
With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, this is the House of Commons. We debate issues in the Chamber, and I do not think that it is satisfactory for the Prime Minister or, indeed, any other Minister to tell the House that we have had a full debate “in public”—what does that mean, is it the public bar of The Bull and Bush?—rather than on the Floor of the House, which is where debates relating to contentious issues upon which there are strongly, deeply and honourably held opinions on both sides should be held.
Looking at what actually happened, we can see how fully the matter was debated. Sexual orientation was not debated at all during the passage of the Equality Act 2006 through the House of Commons. It was not debated in Committee or on Report or on Third Reading in the Commons, because it was only introduced as the subject of an amendment in Committee in the House of Lords. That introduction caused what my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) referred to later on the record as “anomalies”. I think that we can fairly say that the regulations are pretty anomalous. As the implications of the regulations became clear, public concern was widely expressed. To that extent, the Prime Minister was right—there was a public debate outside the House—but still there was no opportunity for a full debate in the House of Commons.
Those highly contentious draft regulations were laid on 13 March. My understanding—and I stand to be corrected, as it is possible that the Committee was appointed late at night on 13 March—is that members of the Committee designated to consider those regulations were not appointed, or at least informed, until 14 March. The regulations were heard by a Delegated Legislation Committee very early in the morning on Thursday 15 March. From the time the regulations were laid, notwithstanding their highly contentious content, until their consideration and determination in full, insofar as debate is concerned, by the House, there was a period of two and a half days. There was no time for consideration by Committee members and there was no time for any further representations to be made. In Committee on 15 March, 17 appointed Committee members were present. In addition—and this is exceptional, as hon. Members will know, for a Statutory Instrument Committee—24 non-Committee members who were, none the less, hon. Members, were present. A dilatory motion was moved, which the Chairman, quite properly, rejected. Once points of order had been raised—and there were a number of them—one Back Bencher had time to comment on those highly contentious regulations. Fourteen hon. Members sought to intervene: my hon. Friends the Members for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Burrowes), for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone), for Stone (Mr. Cash), for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), and for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin); my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood); and my hon. Friends the Members for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies), for Croydon, Central (Mr. Pelling), for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), for Buckingham (John Bercow), for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), and for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne). They all wanted to make a contribution, in one form or another, to the debate, but they were effectively denied the opportunity to do so.
The Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn), who was taking the business through Committee and, to be fair, the Leader of the House, who dealt with the matter subsequently when it was raised in the Chamber, both said in terms that the Conservative Front-Bench team could have requested that the business be taken on the Floor of the House, but they chose not to do so. That is slightly disingenuous. The fact of the matter is that no offer was made, but of course, it is open to the Opposition to make a request. I understand that a request was not made, and the conclusion that we are invited to draw is that the Opposition consented to the manner in which the regulations were taken through the House.
In fact, the shadow Attorney-General, my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), said in Committee that the Minister
“has had representations from the official Opposition that this matter is not suitable to be dealt with by means of statutory instruments, and that it should be dealt with instead as primary legislation. We offered to facilitate that task and to help the Government deal with it in a smooth and sensible fashion.”—[Official Report, 12th Delegated Legislation Committee, 15 March 2007; c. 11.]
Let us be absolutely clear: the Government were offered the co-operation of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition to take the business, as it properly should have been taken, through the House in the form of a short Bill as primary legislation. That would have given the House the opportunity to scrutinise the Bill thoroughly, to remove from it what my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest described as anomalies, and to produce a good and workable piece of legislation to send to the upper House for its further consideration.
Following that dawn hearing of the statutory instrument, we raised the matter at business questions later in the morning with the Leader of the House. I believe you may have been in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when I asked the right hon. Gentleman whether, at the very least, we could delay that business and the vote on it until after this debate, the Easter Adjournment debate, when hon. Friends might have had the opportunity to make their views known on the record. That request was denied.
There was, as we now know, on the following Monday, in a half-empty House when the business was one-line business which collapsed early, an early evening vote which, not entirely surprisingly, was carried by a considerable majority. A number of Members—on both sides of the House, to be fair—who regard the regulations as pernicious simply did not have time to return to the House from constituency business in their constituencies in time for that vote, which was held at about 7.30 pm, whereas ordinarily it might have been expected to take place at 10 pm. I am not suggesting for one moment that that was deliberately orchestrated, but it is a sad fact that not only were Members denied the right to speak on the issue, but they were effectively denied the right to vote.
The legislation was railroaded through the House of Lords on 21 March. Baroness O’Cathain’s amendment was defeated by 122 votes to 168. We were left with no discussion of the effects of the regulations on, for example, small businesses, services and education, or of the highly contentious issue of adoption by gay couples. As Baroness O’Cathain said in the upper House, the Government
“have taken the view that gay rights trump religious rights”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 March 2007; Vol. 690, c. 1298.]
That has led to circumstances that my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield, the shadow Attorney-General, referred to in the Statutory Instrument Committee, when he said that we will
“promote a great deal of litigation and money for lawyers. . . The procedure is a nonsense—it is not suitable to deal with this matter by way of statutory instrument. We have written to the Government to explain that in moderate and sensible terms.”
Following that, my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest said, correctly, from the Front Bench that the legislation
“would have commanded far more respect from its opponents had they had a better opportunity to put their arguments.”—[Official Report, 12th Delegated Legislation Committee, 15 March 2007; c. 19-20.]
The public expected a proper debate on the matter. They expected and had a right to expect from their elected representatives considered legislation from which the flaws had been removed. Instead, we have on the statute book a squalid measure that is illiberal and ill considered and that will lead to legal challenge. That was not necessary.
The Archbishop of York, in the other place, said that
“the Government are venturing down an unconsidered path”
and that they will
“enshrine in legislation a new sub-category of those whom it will be legal to discriminate against. Rather than levelling the playing field for those who suffer discrimination, an aim I”—
the Archbishop of York and I myself—
“fully support, this legislation effects a rearrangement of discriminatory attitudes and bias to overcompensate and skew the field the other way.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 March 2007; Vol. 690, c. 1309.]
In the second part of his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone on 21 March the Prime Minister said that
“we can, if we are sensible, find a way of preventing discrimination against gay people, while allowing Catholic adoption agencies to carry on doing the excellent work that they do. It is a difficult balance to strike, but I believe that we have struck the right balance, and I think that most sensible people would agree with it.”—[Official Report, 21 March 2007; Vol. 458, c. 811.]
What the Prime Minister was actually saying was, “We’ll give you some time to adjust to this new situation and you no doubt will be able to overcome that.” That completely ignores the fact that five days, five months, five years, or 500 years would not affect the issue. We are not dealing with something that is negotiable. We are dealing with principle, and five millennia would not make any difference.
The regulations are so skewed that Catholic adoption agencies will in fairly short order probably close and certainly face discrimination, as do now members of the Catholic and other Churches who feel strongly about these matters. By the way, I myself am an Anglican, not a Catholic. While that is going on, regulation 13 of these carefully thought-through regulations exempts gay welfare groups from the provisions and allows them to reject approaches from heterosexuals, so they can put a notice up on the door saying, “No heterosexuals”. Forgive me—that sounds to me just a tad like discrimination. It is not necessary.
The Archbishop of York said in his excellent speech that we must be liberal and we must learn to listen. The Government have not listened. The House wanted to debate these issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield said in Committee:
“Until the House cottons on to the extent to which”
the regulations mark
“a profound change between tolerance and enforcing a new form of orthodoxy, we will fail to grapple properly with the problems that these regulations pose.”—[Official Report, 12th Delegated Committee, 15 March 2007; c. 29].
To conclude, a fundamental concern has been expressed in both Houses of Parliament from both Front Benches, by—dare I say it?—the Chair and by Back Benchers that the public are disillusioned with Parliament. People outside this place feel that they are not heard and that we do not properly reflect the manner in which their business should be handled.
We voted—some of us voted—earlier this week a not inconsiderable annual sum of money for communications. The thesis behind that was that we need to communicate better with those we serve so that they understand better what we are doing. I do not believe that the people whom I represent will ever understand the way in which this House of Commons and this Government put the sexual orientation regulations through the House, knowing that they were contentious and that they required debate, without giving the elected representatives of those people the chance to have their say. I fear that until we return to parliamentary democracy and reassert the primacy of this Chamber, ordinary people will feel that Parliament is, as it is at present, irrelevant to their lives.
I begin by welcoming the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) to his new position. It is a pleasure to see him on the Front Bench. He occupied the position once before and returns to the Front Bench, I understand, as an unpaid post, so presumably this is one area where we will see good value for money. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman. When he previously held the post, and when he summed up these debates, he always did so with courtesy and respect for the House and for Members. I am delighted to see him back in the Government. I want to use today to raise several issues which directly affect my constituency. I raised some of these matters in the Christmas Adjournment debate, and I want to consider how they have moved on.
I want to touch on a real crisis for the countryside. Hon. Members who represent agricultural constituencies feel incredibly worried about the position of dairy farmers. Approximately 10 years ago, a dairy farmer would get 26p a litre for their milk. Today, the figure is 18p a litre. It has been estimated that on average dairy farmers today are losing in the region of 4p a litre, and they cannot go on losing money on their main product without going bust.
The Government must take a serious look at the matter. This morning, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee issued a devastating report on the Rural Payments Agency. I remember earlier warnings from the Select Committee that the RPA was in serious danger—I think that the Deputy Leader of the House was a member of the Committee at that time—and I also remember Lord Bach saying that the Committee was wrong and that it had misunderstood the whole position. Who was wrong and who was right?
The devastation caused to the farming industry has been fundamental, and the Government’s reputation has been seriously damaged. It is no good saying that the Secretary of State has apologised, because the situation is continuing. On 2 March, the RPA extended its final deadline for the return of the hill farm allowance forms, because it discovered that applicants had not received the explanatory booklet and declaration letter. The RPA is now re-mailing a number of upland farmers. That might explain why, according to the RPA, there was a failure by applicants to submit their declarations. It is difficult to submit a declaration if one has not been sent it in the first instance. There needs to be a radical look at how the RPA works, and perhaps that will now happen.
Without the farmers of this country, there would be no countryside. As the Deputy Leader of the House knows, my constituency is very attractive, and 20 million people a year visit the Peak District national park. The visitors come to see the natural beauty of my constituency, but if the land is not farmed, it will not hold its beauty.
The Minister for Local Environment, Marine and Animal Welfare has said this about the RPA:
“One of the problems that it highlighted when it published its interim findings a short time ago was that it had not had many complaints from farmers.”—[Official Report, 8 March 2007; Vol. 457, c. 1657.]
Following that comment by the junior Minister, I received a letter from a farmer, which stated:
“Most of us see our job to be producing crops and livestock. This is what provides our income. Anything that takes us away from that work tends to be seen as waste of time. In recent years we have been straight jacketed with paperwork from people sitting in front of computers who to justify their existence have to think up new schemes and forms to complete. It is not the fear of reprisals that stops the ordinary farmer from contacting you. Most will have asked question, ‘Will it do me any good?’ Experience says no. To provide you with evidence each of us has to search through our mountains of paper. And we just don’t have the time”.
I hope that the Government will take on board the proper concerns of the dairy industry, and of the agricultural industry, in our country.
The next issue that I want to discuss is the resurfacing of the A50. The A50 is a new road that has been built through part of my constituency, and it has become known as the Doveridge bypass. Traffic volumes have grown dramatically on the bypass. Indeed, it is a mistake to call that part of the A50 the Doveridge bypass, because following work in the Stoke area on the A500, it has become the M1-M6 link road. The Government published a 10-year plan—I think that we are now at the stage of five-year plans—and the then Secretary of State for Transport, who is now Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, wrote to reassure me that the 10-year plan included resurfacing some of the concrete roads in our country. He said that the A50 was in that particular scheme and that it would be done. Surprise, surprise, the 10-year plan never reached expectations, and I have been told that that road will not be resurfaced in the immediate future.
I have tabled written parliamentary questions to the Secretary of State for Transport, and I have written to the Highways Agency. Just the other day, I received a letter from the Highways Agency that contained some very disturbing news:
“As you know the current policy with regard to funding all works on the motorway and trunk road network is entirely dependent on safety and maintenance needs. Concrete roads are designed to have a life of approximately 40 years, but the condition of all roads are regularly assessed for safety and maintenance. Therefore under current procedures it is unlikely that the A50 will need resurfacing for some time.”
The goes against the assurance that I was given by the then Secretary of State for Transport.
The condition of the A50 has damaged the quality of life in Doveridge. When the bypass was built, people were pleased, but they did not expect one problem to be replaced by another, namely consistent noise in the daytime caused by the concrete road.
The A30 Honiton-Exeter road exactly mirrors that situation. The Prime Minister came to Exeter and personally promised that that road would be resurfaced. I share my right hon. Friend’s concern, because it looks like that will not happen for at least 20 years.
We were promised that that would be done.
Exactly the same situation exists on the A303 in my constituency. In 2004, I was told that work would start to lay a low-noise surface on the A303 to relieve noise in Wincanton and the villages along the road, such as Holton, Maperton, Compton Pauncefoot and South Cadbury. That has not happened, and there has been no indication from the Highways Agency when it will be done.
Assurances were given in the past. Particularly in the summer months, the noise from those roads means that people cannot go out in their gardens or enjoy the countryside in which they have purchased houses.
I first raised the issue of quarrying in the Peak district some 10 years ago, when I was very concerned about Longstone Edge and Backdale quarry. After 10 years, a public inquiry has just taken place. I do not expect the Deputy Leader of the House to comment on that public inquiry. I once asked the Library for a briefing on the subject, and it sent back a note stating that it is “a rather complicated matter”—one can ask the Library for a brief on nuclear weapons or treaties, but if one asks for a brief on Backdale quarry, it states that it is “a rather complicated matter”. That is an underestimation, and I will not go into all the issues around the quarry application, but I will say that the issue has been ongoing for more than 10 years.
I hope that when the planning inspector reports, whatever he says, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, to whom I have written about this, will call in and investigate the whole process. The amount of money that it has cost the Peak park planning board and the quarry operators in legal fees, and the amount of officers’ time that has been spent, must be incalculable, and it has not been the most effective way of dealing with the matter.
If the planning inspector’s decision goes the right way, I should like to think that that might be the end of the line, but I fear that we are still going to have to spend a lot of time on this application, which has been incredibly controversial. After all, we are talking about a national park that is visited each year by millions of people who come to see it and enjoy the activities there. I am joined in that view by the former deputy leader of the Labour party, Lord Hattersley, who lives fairly near to the site.
Another issue that is causing a great deal of anxiety to my constituents is the proposed closure of Stoney Middleton school. We now have a new process for school closures whereby they ultimately go to a school adjudicator. It used to be possible for us, as Members of Parliament, to make representations directly to the Secretary of State before a school was closed, but no longer. Stoney Middleton is a fairly small village but it is on a very busy road on which schoolchildren will have to travel if the school closes. That alone should be a reason to think again. In its motion, the county council considered proposals to “discontinue” the school. I suppose that that is a new kind of language and that it really means “close”. Closing the school would take the heart out of the village. I hope that whenever the school adjudicator comes to a final decision, he or she will say that the county council’s case has not been made. The school is providing an excellent educational service for its pupils, and it should be allowed to continue to do so.
When I spoke in the Christmas Adjournment debate, I said that I feared that Darley maternity unit would be proposed for closure by the local trust. I am afraid that those fears have come to fruition, so today I shall turn most of my attention to Darley. It is a small unit run by midwives with a wealth of experience. Indeed, my wife was given first-class service when she was there, almost 17 years ago, on the occasion of the birth of our second child, Clare. Having provided that service for people in the north Derbyshire area for a very long time, it is now threatened with closure. That is completely unacceptable.
The way in which the trust has gone about this, in not being open and honest about the figures, is nothing less than an absolute disgrace. In its consultation document, it says:
“The community maternity service review has shown the unit would need substantial extra investment to meet the required standard of clinical practice and bring it up to safe staffing levels. This extra equates to more than £300,000 a year.”
When I met officials from the trust, together with the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes), I challenged them on that figure. To say that their response was dismal would be kind. To say that they could not justify it in any way, shape or form would be to underestimate their inability to reply. It was a disgraceful episode. In the 20 years that I have been in the House of Commons, I have never had a meeting with officials that I would class as being so bad. I am still unable to get from them a proper figure for their costs as regards the unit, because every time they are asked a question they come up with a different figure. At the meeting, they started by saying that the unit needed an extra two nurses. I said, “Two nurses don’t cost £150,000 each, so what is the rest of the money for?” After a slight pause, they said that it needed an extra five nurses. That is typical of how it went on—it was unbelievable. If trusts are going to make such proposals, they must be told that they need to be honest and open with the people they are dealing with.
I have had many representations from my constituents about the wonderful service that the unit provides. Mrs. Smith from Wirksworth says:
“At Chesterfield for my first baby, I had an appalling birth; no consistency of care, the consultant in and out of the room giving instructions to various midwives without consulting me. I felt totally disempowered I was stitched afterwards by a junior doctor who did not even introduce himself. I had to wait on a trolley for an hour after the birth, unable to move or control my bladder because of my epidural. An auxiliary mopped up my urine without speaking to me. It was like Victorian times. The next day, I was transferred to Darley. I received empathy, support, and debriefing, explaining why my delivery had been so difficult. When I became pregnant again, I booked in to Darley. I can not fault the care I received during labour. I felt supported throughout. Unfortunately, in the final stages, the baby was stuck and I was transferred to Chesterfield in an ambulance. However, the midwife from Darley came with me, held my hand, reassured me. I still felt in control, because I was part of the decision to transfer me. I can never thank the midwives at Darley enough—they saved my sanity. Surely this unit should be a flag ship.”
I could read from many others, but I will not because time is limited and other Members want to speak.
The late Professor Brian Williams was tragically killed just 10 days ago in an awful accident where he was again, as so often, helping the community. He was a professional social researcher and a lecturer at De Montfort university. At an earlier stage, when the trust first came out with its consultation document, he explained that the trust questionnaires broke all the rules that he set down for his students on preparing such documents, because asking such closed questions produces biased results. He said of the questionnaire in the back of the document that is being circulated by the trust:
“The only way for people who do not agree with the perspective presented in the report to express their views is to ignore or delete the closed questions and write answers in one of the boxes—but people tend not to do that, they tend to get irritated and discard the questionnaire. This, of course, would further bias the responses received.”
Just to help the issue along, and before we have the new communications allowance, I produced my own document, which I circulated to my constituents urging them to ensure that they have their say before the final decision is taken on 20 April. I very much hope, even at this late stage, that we get a change of heart from the trust and that the Department of Health investigates the way in which the whole exercise has been gone about.
When people see and hear the Prime Minister telling us how much extra money and resources have gone into making the health service better, as we do every week at the Dispatch Box, they wonder why we are losing the services that we have enjoyed over many years. It does not look that way, even if we want to take the Prime Minister at his word. I find that difficult to do when I consider what is happening to the Darley maternity unit. I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House can respond to that.
Given that the Deputy Leader of the House attended a meeting with me a few weeks ago at Ripley, where we met David Coleman, the chief constable of Derbyshire police, I want to consider police funding and the new formula that the Government have introduced. I am not asking for extra money but for the formula to be distributed in the way in which the Government originally intended. The hon. Gentleman, along with me and other east midlands Members, heard a first-class, impressive presentation. Thankfully, we got rid of the disastrous plan to merge all the police forces in the east midlands, but the presentation described the way in which the forces work together effectively on serious and organised crime. We were taken through the financing and I do not want that element of the police’s work throughout the east midlands to be put in danger. I know that the Deputy Leader of the House does not want that and I hope that he can examine that matter, too.
Today’s debate is an important opportunity for colleagues to put on record some of the things that are going wrong in their constituencies or matters about which constituents are concerned. I have not picked all the issues from my constituency but I have chosen some of the most important. They are causing anxiety and I hope that the Government will tackle them.
It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin), who became a Member of Parliament when I did 20 years ago. He spoke with enormous passion about several key issues that concerned his constituents. I am glad that he did not raise them all; otherwise the whole Adjournment debate would have concentrated on West Derbyshire. However, I hope that he is successful in his campaign to keep his local maternity unit open. I ask him to take the Prime Minister at his word, because I have the same problems in my constituency. There has been massive investment, but those who deliver on the front line need to be careful about the way in which they use public money and they need to be accountable. I hope that he gets satisfaction from his local health trust and that the wonderful maternity unit that gave us his daughter, Clare, and others will remain open.
I join in the congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) on his reappointment as a Minister. He has returned to the post that he held six years ago and I gather from the Opposition Chief Whip that we get him at a discount because of his long service. When my hon. Friend occupied the position previously, he always listened carefully to the views of Back Benchers. I have watched him in the past 15 years or so take up issues of concern to his constituency, and one of the iconic television pictures of the 1992 elections was of my hon. Friend dancing—it looked like banghra dancing—at his count on gaining the previously Conservative seat. I do not say that he has been dancing ever since, but I am sure that he did a little jig on his reappointment this week. I wish him well in his role as Deputy Leader of the House.
On police co-operation, my hon. Friend represents a constituency in Nottinghamshire, the right hon. Member for West Derbyshire represents a constituency in Derbyshire and I represent a constituency in Leicestershire. We did not need police reorganisation for the police forces of Nottinghamshire, Leicestershire and Derbyshire to co-operate. Unfortunately, I missed the meeting to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, but I know that that co-operation is important.
I want to raise two main matters. It is the first time I have participated in the Easter Adjournment debate for some time. I have been unlucky in the ballots so far and have not been able to find parliamentary time to discuss the two issues. I hope that my hon. Friend will give me a positive response and that we get some movement from the Government on both matters.
The first relates to my constituent, Rafiq Gorji, whose case I have raised on several occasions in business questions. He is a widower with three children. Like more than 50,000 British citizens, he went on the pilgrimage to Saudia Arabia to perform his Hajj in December last year. He was on a coach with his wife, Zenab Ali, on the Madinah-Makkah highway near Dubaiyah when it overturned. It hit a central reservation and Mrs. Ali died at the scene of the crash. Mr. Gorji suffered severe burns to his hands and back. Two other British nationals died in the coach crash and many more were injured.
I have met my constituent on several occasions and seen the burns on his body. They remain visible even though the crash happened a few months ago. The crucial point that he makes is that the coach driver was extremely tired. He had been driving for more than 18 hours before the crash. He had been swerving the coach when he was driving Mr. Gorji and his wife, and the coach passengers urged him to stop. They offered him refreshments and asked him to rest because they feared that, if he continued on the journey, the coach would crash. That is exactly what happened.
The crash highlights the problem that many British Muslims, some of whom live in my constituency, suffer when they go on the Hajj to Saudi Arabia. The Leader of the House set up the Hajj Committee when he was Foreign Secretary and my noble Friend Lord Patel of Blackburn chairs it. It does a great job, but it cannot control the activities of the Saudi Arabian Government. So far, we have been unable to bring to the Saudi Arabian Government’s attention with sufficient force an understanding of the problem that continues to occur with those who drive my constituents and those of other hon. Members in Saudi Arabia. The Hajj has to be performed there because the holy places are there.
Rafiq Gorji eloquently made the point to me and the Saudi Arabian authorities that the people who are employed by Saudi Arabia to drive the coaches do not necessarily come from that country. Many come from Libya and Syria. They are not paid a huge amount of money for the task and they are made to work for many hours to get that money. That is why they continue to drive even when they are tired.
The incident was perfectly preventable and that makes it especially sad. Had the man not driven, had he stopped and rested, Mrs. Ali would be alive today and the three children who are still grieving for their mother would have a mother, Mr. Gorji would have a wife and the family would be content.
Mr. Gorji made many complaints to the Ministry of Hajj, which is responsible for licensing the coaches and the drivers, but it has been reticent and reluctant to give us any information. It was months before Mr. Gorji received a copy of his wife’s death certificate. All her personal effects have been lost, including her copy of the Koran. To this day, we have still not received a copy of the police report.
I telephoned Sherard Cowper-Coles, our very good ambassador in Saudi Arabia, in Riyadh and asked him to intervene personally in the case. I want to place on record my appreciation and that of my constituent for the work of Sherard Cowper-Coles, the consulate general in Makkah, and all the other people involved there. The embassy has been absolutely terrific.
We could not go any further, so I did what I normally do when dealing with a foreign Government, which was to make an appointment to see the Saudi Arabian ambassador, the prince who has recently taken over the role here in the United Kingdom. He was unavailable, so I met the deputy ambassador. I took my constituent with me, and I said that we wanted a police report because my constituent could not make progress unless he knew exactly what had happened.
I was a friendly Member of Parliament—I was born in the middle east, I chair the Yemen group and I am a friend of the Arab community—asking a friendly Government in a friendly way for a simple document. I would have thought that that document would be easy to produce, yet I was told that I had to go back to the British embassy and speak to my ambassador, who would then ring the Ministry of Hajj, and that we would then get the police report. No sympathy was offered to my constituent at that stage. So we did that, and we received the response from our man in Riyadh that this was really the responsibility of the Saudi Arabian Government.
In normal circumstances, one might seek to raise such an issue with a Member of Parliament, but as we know, the political situation in Saudi Arabia is slightly different. Approaching the Government was therefore perhaps the best way to get a response. They are, after all, a friendly Government. We have heard the Leader of the House, the Solicitor-General and the Foreign Secretary tell us from the Dispatch Box what a good friend Saudi Arabia is, what a close personal relationship we have with it, and how it is our ally in the region. I would have thought, therefore, that if a British citizen asked for a police report, it would be a simple thing to obtain. To this day, however, we have still not received it, so my constituent cannot take the issue forward.
I have raised the matter twice with the Leader of the House, whom I admire for his great skills and his ability to deal with Back-Bench Members of Parliament. He always came back to me very quickly whenever I raised issues with him when he was Foreign Secretary. He promised to raise this matter with the Foreign Secretary, who would presumably raise it with her Minister of State, who would then raise it with the Saudi Arabians. It is only a matter of a police report, after all. We did the Saudi Arabian Government a great favour recently when we stopped the investigation by the Serious Fraud Office on the ground that it was not in the public interest. I would have thought that it was in the public interest for information such as the police report on this incident to be given to a British citizen.
I was subsequently contacted by the parliamentary liaison officer at the Saudi Arabian embassy, Prince Sultan—not “the” Prince Sultan, but another official called Prince Sultan—who was actually very helpful. He came to see me at the House and told me that he felt that I was right, and that this was a simple thing to ask for. He said that he would go back to his Government and try to arrange it. Four weeks after meeting him, however, absolutely nothing has happened.
Why should a Member of Parliament have to raise this matter constantly in the House of Commons? It concerns a British citizen whose wife has died. Why am I not getting a response from the British Government? Of course, in the end, the matter is the responsibility of the Saudi Arabian Government, but they are on good terms with us. I expect to see action from the British Government in support of a British citizen. I can give my hon. Friend the Minister many examples of British citizens abroad being helped. I remember when a number of nurses were being held in Saudi Arabia. The case attracted massive publicity and our Government moved heaven and earth to assist them. Why have the Government not taken a similar course of action in this case?
I want this matter raised, please. And I want an assurance that when the Foreign Secretary talks to her Saudi Arabian counterpart about all the arms that she is selling to Saudi Arabia—of course we sell them arms—she will raise Mr. Gorji’s case. I also want it raised by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he sees his Saudi Arabian counterparts. I want Mr. Gorji’s name to be on the lips of every British Minister until we receive the police report on the death of his wife, and I will not stop harassing my newly promoted hon. Friend, or the Leader of the House at business questions, until that happens.
That is only the start. My constituent still has not visited his wife’s grave in Saudi Arabia. She had to be buried, according to Muslim rites, almost immediately after she died. He wants to go there, and I want the help of the British Government to ensure that he can do that. Let us be caring of British citizens who face problems such as these abroad, and let us do something about this. I would be grateful to my hon. Friend for a response. He is sitting there very calmly and not intervening. I am not having a go at him; he knows that. However, as the Conservative Chief Whip said, this debate is our opportunity passionately to put forward a cause.
My second subject concerns the problems being faced by the Tamil community in Sri Lanka, which I last raised at Prime Minister’s Questions on 14 March. Daily, hundreds of Tamils are having to leave their homes because of the activities of the Sri Lankan Government. Over the past 15 months, 4,000 have died and hundreds of thousands have been displaced. Recently, the military airport in Sri Lanka was bombed by those who support the Tamil cause.
My hon. Friend the Minister was parliamentary private secretary to the Leader of the House when he was at the Foreign Office, and he will know that this is an issue that Britain needs to be involved in, because we are partly responsible for it. Britain gave Sri Lanka independence 60 years ago and, as we did in so many parts of the world, we drew the borders. We created this situation, and we have a responsibility as honest brokers to help. In 2002, the Norwegian Government brokered a ceasefire which was agreed by both sides: the Government of Sri Lanka and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam.
In response to my question on 14 March, the Prime Minister asked for an immediate ceasefire, so that a dialogue could be resumed. I am utterly in awe of what the Prime Minister has done in Northern Ireland. As a parliamentarian, I do not expect to use terms such as “historic” and “in my lifetime”, even though 20 years is almost a lifetime for some. It is certainly a long sentence on certain criminal tariffs. In the 20 years I have been here, the achievements in Northern Ireland have been profound, and I congratulate all those involved, including the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, on the fact that two Members of this House—even though one of them has not taken the Oath—have been able to sit down together at a table, engage in a dialogue, and agree to share power and form a Government. What a message that is for the United Kingdom to sell to the rest of the world!
I am asking for British involvement in the Sri Lankan issue, to ensure that the two sides get together. Like other hon. Members, I have Tamil people living in my constituency. Some came here as refugees, and some have settled here. They are British citizens whose communities have a hinterland abroad. The continued violence against the Tamil people has to stop. I ask the British Government to do something about it, and to make a statement calling for a ceasefire so that the killing can stop, so that people do not have to leave their homes, and so that we can have peace on that beautiful island.
I have arranged a meeting on 2 May with the Minister for the Middle East, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), and many right hon. and hon. Members wish to be there to support what I am saying. A year from now, Sri Lanka will celebrate 60 years of independence. I am not asking the United Kingdom to apologise for what it has done, but we have a responsibility as the former colonial power. Let us please get involved to bring the two sides together. We all know that the Prime Minister is stepping down. Being a peacemaker in Sri Lanka would be a great role for him. I have not put it to him yet, but I will drop him a note to suggest that he take it on if he is pushed for things to do after he goes.
We had a statement today about Home Office reorganisation. I favour the creation of a ministry for justice, and I was surprised to hear the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Clegg) scolding the Home Secretary over that, because it is Liberal party policy.
To clarify, we have always advocated a ministry for justice, and want to see one, but we are unconvinced by the Home Secretary’s desire to have a sort of anti-terrorism tsar, which we think is a role best played elsewhere.
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should have been making the response to the statement, but at least I am now clear about the Liberal Democrat stance.
I am in favour of a ministry for justice, which should have been introduced four years ago, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) put a stop to it because he felt that it would cut into his empire. I give the Home Secretary full marks for giving up part of his empire without squealing—he has said, “Here is my portfolio; please have it.”
I want the Home Office to concentrate on sorting out the immigration and nationality directorate, because it is still a complete mess, as will be shown by the number of people who come to my surgery tomorrow. Letters go unanswered, passports go missing and decisions are not made. Asylum seekers are told that the reply is in the post. Four years later, they are settled with families. That is what happens sometimes—people come to this country, fall in love and get married, and even the Government cannot legislate against that yet—and as a result, they are settled people. After four years, however, they are told that it is time to go, and that is why they come to see us as MPs—the Government have cut legal aid, so they cannot go to see solicitors. The focus on that area deserves a hooray.
I am concerned, however, about the position of the Attorney-General. We have a good Attorney-General, and some of the burden placed on other Departments—relating to human rights and others issues—should be transferred to his Department. The Select Committee on Constitutional Affairs, under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), is considering that point. If we come up with a better solution to the carve-up of the Home Office, I hope that Ministers will consider it carefully. The issue will not go away and I hope that we will have an early statement from a Constitutional Affairs Minister about the effects. I realise that the Lord Chancellor has made a statement in the other place, but we want to ask questions on the matter here.
I wish right hon. and hon. Members a happy Easter and the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) a happy birthday for last Monday.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman shows admirable attention to detail.
Listening to the right hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) speak earlier, I felt that there must be some sort of spiritual affinity between his constituency and mine. My contribution could easily repeat all the issues that he covered. I intervened on him to refer to the resurfacing of the A303, which is a serious issue in my constituency because of the effect of that road on the environment of many villages and on the people who live there. He also mentioned quarrying, and I represent the biggest quarrying area in the country—the east Mendips. I wondered whether he would refer to our concerns about the aggregates levy, and the use of funds raised by it. The levy was set up to alleviate the disbenefits of the quarrying industry, but those funds will now apparently be distributed across the country to areas that do not suffer from such disbenefits, which is entirely contrary to the original intention of the levy.
We have an opportunity today, however, to discuss a matter that hardly ever gets properly debated—the point on which the right hon. Member for West Derbyshire started—which is agriculture. Agriculture has been airbrushed out of parliamentary debate. Ever since the foot and mouth disaster, we have not had the opportunity to debate in Government time the difficulties faced by agriculture, which is a significant industry in West Derbyshire.
Agriculture is also a significant industry in my constituency, but that will come as a surprise to the Home Office, because in a written answer that I received from it last week, in reply to a question about passport interview centres, I was told that Somerset is not a rural county. I invite the Minister responsible to put on her wellies and stand in a field in Isle Brewers, Kingsbury Episcopi, Leigh-on-Mendip or Rudge, among the cows, and then say that Somerset is not a rural county. Because of our settlement pattern, however, with lots of small villages only about two or three miles apart, and without big empty spaces, we are not deemed to be a rural county. I reassure the House, however, that we are very much a rural county, and that agriculture, particularly dairy farming, is still very important to both the environment in which we live and the enterprises that underpin our way of life. Although agriculture employs far fewer people than it used to do, nevertheless, as we saw during the foot and mouth restrictions, it is fundamental to a lot of downstream industry.
I start off with dairying because it is the predominant mode of agriculture in my county. The dairy industry is still in desperate trouble, as the right hon. Member for West Derbyshire said. Farmers are still only getting about 18p a litre for milk, and that farm-gate price does not allow for any sort of profitability—quite the reverse. It means that farmers are making a loss on the raw material that they produce. If primary producers are making a loss, that is not sustainable. Dairy farmers are going out of business every week because they conclude, rightly, that there is little point in continuing a business that is very hard work—when they can otherwise realise their often substantial capital assets—if they are making a loss.
Effectively, there is a classic oligopoly on the buying side: the big supermarkets take 50 per cent. of the liquid milk in the country, apply a limit to the amount that they are prepared to pay, maintain high profitability in the supermarket through the retail price of milk, but do not pass that on to the primary producers, who are in a much weaker bargaining position. I hate to be apocalyptic, but until we address that, it will be hard for dairy farming in this country to have a future. We are exporting the industry abroad. Once dairy farms are lost, they will not be reconstituted.
That does not just mean the loss of liquid milk production, but of all the higher-value dairy products. I am proud that my constituency makes some of the finest cheese in the world—I do not dispute that other good cheeses are made around the country, but that is a fact. Why would this country want to run down one of our most effective, efficient and best industries and export it abroad? That, however, is happening.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s comments. To carry on with the coincidences relating to his and my constituency, the king of cheeses, Stilton, is made in Hartington in my constituency. Farmers are disturbed that while they are getting 18p a litre for milk, it is being retailed at 52p. Where is that difference going?
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I will not get into a quarrel with him on the relative merits of Stilton and Cheddar—they are both very good, and we can enjoy them. As he says, it is not the primary producers who are making the profit.
Even the supermarkets have not thought the situation through. I have never been convinced that consumers buy milk on the basis of price when confronted with a supermarket shelf of milk. They buy a volume of milk and they pay the price. Therefore, if supermarkets must maintain their current profit level—we all know the great profits that they are capable of making—it would be sustainable for them to do so by increasing the retail price of milk. There are some small signs that that is beginning to happen, at least from the assurances given by supermarkets. However, we have had those assurances before, and they have not been sustained. I am afraid to say that I do not believe that that will be achieved by voluntary arrangement. At the end of the day, there will have to be Government intervention in what is effectively a false market in milk. That is why everyone is waiting with bated breath for the outcome of the Competition Commission report, although I am not entirely optimistic about that. We saw what it did last time when, as the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, it examined vertical integration in milk in the context of Milk Marque. We saw then what it said about the relationship between the producer and the supermarkets. If we ask the wrong questions, we get the wrong answers. The fact that it is saying that it does not have evidence of a distorted market when the distorted market is there for anyone to see in the price of milk, does not fill me with confidence.
Nevertheless, we will have to go beyond a voluntary code of conduct into something that is on a firmer basis if we are ever to see the rescue of the dairy industry. Some people would be happy for the dairy industry to contract and, in their eyes, be made more efficient by the 1,000-header herds owned by an agricultural conglomerate, but the traditional dairy farm run by a family is the building block of British agriculture. It is what is best for this country in terms of both produce and our environment. I want it to be maintained.
The second issue in farming is the ongoing problem with Mycobacterium bovis—tuberculosis—in cattle. The Government are ducking the problem. They have consulted, and the consultation has finished, but they are still not prepared to come to a decision. I know it is a difficult decision to make. It will be very unpopular—almost any decision that they are going to take will be unpopular. However, we cannot have a continuing growth of the spread of TB among the bovine and badger populations. The welfare of cattle is important; the welfare of badgers and other wild species that carry the bacterium is important. We need swift decisions on what is to be done. How do we attack the reservoir of infection effectively? We must also deal with the corollary issue—the profitability of farms. It is devastating when a herd tests positive for TB. It is even more devastating if the recompense—the table valuations—does not recognise the actual value of the stock that is culled. That needs addressing.
There are also opportunities in agriculture. Climate change should provide a massive opportunity for diversification into new crops and new ways of doing business, yet I do not see any joined-up thinking between those who are involved with agriculture, with the environment and with trade and industry, in particular those who have the energy brief. I see no evidence that they understand how those are linked and how we can open up new opportunities for agriculture.
I do not see the incentives for young farmers to come into the industry. That is a serious problem. Farms in my county—I am sure that this is typical of many parts of the country—are often run by people in middle-age to late middle-age whose children are not interested in carrying the farms on. Younger people cannot see a future in farming and are leaving to do other things. That is their right, but we need those who want to make their living from the land to have the opportunity to come into the industry. That is not available to them.
Is not part of the problem with farming that many young people who are set to inherit farms realise that it is so difficult to make money out of farming that it is far better, although less desirable, to sell that farm on to a City stockbroker who simply wants an amenity farm—a sort of leisure centre?
The hon. Gentleman is right. That happens. Farmhouses—detached substantial buildings in the countryside with nice views—are sold off as houses without land. There is an increase in horsey-culture. There is nothing wrong with horses, but the more prime agricultural land that is sold as pony paddock, the less there is available for farming. It worries me that if agribusiness takes over all the land, it will be run entirely on a balance sheet rather than with any consideration for the land and the communities on that land. If the profitability is down, the agribusinesses will leave and reinvest elsewhere. That is a worrying possibility.
A further common problem is over-regulation. The farming industry is still massively over-regulated, with far too much red tape. I welcome the Davidson review of over-implementation of EU regulations. It is a continuing problem. In addition, we have duplication of inspection. There is the view that the man from the Ministry is always around the corner, trying to find fault with what the farmer is trying to do. It is a one-way street: the farmer makes one mistake and he loses out; the Department can make any number of mistakes and they are rectified in the next month. We need ways to allow organisations to share information so that we do not have duplication. We need more straightforward implementation of regulation and far less paperwork.
Regulation is important. We know that from the experiences of the epidemics of bovine spongiform encephalopathy and foot and mouth. However, it must be done in a way that is constructive and supportive of the industry. It should not be put in place in ways that appear to make things difficult.
We need clear labelling. It is one of the long-standing problems in this country that people cannot identify good British food produced by good British producers from the labels, which are often grossly deceptive in terms of foodstuffs that are produced abroad, repackaged in this country and sold as British produce. That cannot be right.
There are many other things that I could say on farming, including the cuts in scientific research, which are concerning. To meet its budgetary requirements, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has cut back massively in the veterinary science organisations for which it is responsible, which could have a disastrous effect. However, my last point is about the Rural Payments Agency. We cannot ignore what the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said today about the RPA. It has produced a devastating report. The overview says:
“This was a catastrophe for some farmers, and a serious and embarrassing failure for Defra and the RPA. A key part of the Government’s sustainable farming policy was in collapse.”
It goes on to say:
“This is not the first time that a major public sector business change or IT project has failed.”
It can say that again. Lastly, and importantly, it says:
“A culture where ministers and senior officials can preside over failure of this magnitude and not be held personally accountable creates a serious risk of further failures in public service delivery.”
That is as devastating and as uncamouflaged an attack on a failure of Government service delivery that I have ever heard from a Select Committee, which has, of course, a Government majority.
The RPA has been a disaster for the Government, but even more of a disaster for those working in agriculture who have found themselves in extraordinary difficulty because of the failure to deliver what is rightfully theirs in terms of payments over such long periods. As we heard, the problems of two years ago and last year are being repeated. We still have difficulties with the administration of rural payments. Those difficulties will continue until the Government get to grips with them.
I agree with the Committee: heads should have rolled. It is not satisfactory that Ministers can walk away from a fiasco like this and be promoted as a result, rather than taking ministerial responsibility. It is not good enough, and it must be addressed as a matter of urgency.
There are many other issues in agriculture, but this is not the time to go through them all. I can only leave the House with the thought that there ought to be an opportunity for us to debate both agriculture and rural issues regularly in the Chamber, with a Minister with responsibility on the Bench to listen. That does not happen. It is left to individual Members to secure Adjournment debates. I have initiated two such debates on the dairy industry in recent years, but debates are not held in Government time, although the issue affects huge swathes of our country and our countryside and, without such debates, goes unremarked.
The problems of agriculture are just one symptom of the malaise in the countryside. We could talk about post offices, rural services, transport and the difficulties of maintaining a decent standard of living in many of our rural areas—which means decent housing over our heads, the ability to work, the ability to find medical treatment and the ability for small schools to be maintained. Those are all important issues; the problem is that we do not have enough opportunities to debate them. This is one such opportunity, and I have taken it today.
I ask the Deputy Leader of the House to ensure that some of my comments, and those of others, are clearly communicated to the Ministers responsible. They have to hear what people in the countryside are saying, and what they are saying is that things need to change.
Devon is at its most glorious at the moment. The woodland floors are covered with an abundance of primroses, the tall Devon banks are still covered in daffodils, and the hedgerows are just starting to turn that wonderful pale green. I thoroughly recommend glorious Devon to anyone who has not yet made arrangements for the Easter break: it is looking absolutely wonderful, and I am looking forward to going home tomorrow.
Despite the rural idyll of glorious Devon, however, we have lower than average wages, higher than average house prices and a large retired population. However good the view from the window, the quality of life for my constituents in Tiverton and Honiton is under increasing pressure from numerous directions, not least as a result of the council tax. But today I shall focus on what is becoming another real financial burden, which we have borne for a long time but for which there seems to be no relief. I refer to the charges imposed by South West Water.
The peninsula of the south-west features a third of the nation’s beaches that have had to be cleaned and brought up to standard. Those of us who live in the south-west fully understand the requirement to do something about the old Victorian sewerage system, because the way in which sewage was being discharged into the sea was clearly a serious health hazard. A great deal of money has been invested in raising the standard of those discharges to an acceptable level, at a cost to those of us in the south-west who pay water charges, particularly those on lower incomes or in retirement.
In the coming financial year, water charges will rise by 12.5 per cent. for those with meters and by 16 per cent. for the rest of the population. That is a massive hike. I know from my postbag and from discussions with those who seek to represent water charge payers how disappointed people are that neither the regulator nor those officially appointed to speak for the water charge payer have been able to use their influence to ensure that the prices are brought under control. As we know, many people on low incomes qualify for tapered council tax relief. I feel we must now consider a similar arrangement for water charges, because I cannot see the present position improving.
On 21 March I met the new chief executive of South West Water to discuss the issue with him. Sympathetic as he was, it was clear to me that there was little he could do about it, for two reasons. First, South West Water faces the “clean sweep” programme. Ours is a tourist area, and we want clean beaches. We want to be able to say to the holidaymaker “Come and bathe in the water—it is all very clean”. Many people come to the south-west to surf. It must be said, however, that although it is not my pensioner constituents who are out on their surf boards on Saturdays—not too many of them, anyway—it is they who are paying for the surfing.
Secondly, the chief executive told me that South West Water faces a five-year programme to refurbish a third of the drinking water mains. Just as one programme starts to tail off and we think there might be a bit of relief in the future, another comes along. The reason for this particular clean-up is a mystery to me. When I go into supermarkets I see people loading bottled water into their trolleys. They stagger under the weight: they can hardly carry the load. We seem to have become a nation that drinks only bottled water, although we have invested enormous amounts in improving the quality and safety of the drinking water that comes out of the tap. For some extraordinary reason people feel that they must buy bottled water, yet regulation upon regulation comes down from on high requiring South West Water to spend more and more on cleaning up the drinking water mains.
There is a serious point that I want the Deputy Leader of the House to convey to his colleagues. Most of the regulations dealing with the costs applying to South West Water originate from Europe. I should like the Deputy Leader of the House to do two things. First, I should like him to ask whether we really need higher and higher quality. There needs to be a standard—we should all feel relatively certain that drinking water is safe and clean—but how far does it have to go? Why, when standards are higher than they have ever been, must we face a five-year programme?
I understand that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has launched a consultation process. The privatised water companies are having to consider taking on financial responsibility for all the unadopted sewers in the country, of which we have a great many in the west country. Who will pay for that? It looks like even more expenditure for the water rate payer in the south-west, and when that is added to the other costs that I have identified, it becomes unbearable and unacceptable.
We have engaged in many cross-party debates about the issue, and there is complete consensus among the parties in the south-west about the unfair burden that is being imposed on water rate payers. We have also had many debates in the Chamber. Now is the time for the Government to do something. I believe that without Government intervention of some kind and some mitigation of the problem, at least for those on lower incomes, there will be a huge impact not only on people’s quality of life but on their incomes.
I do not know whether the hon. Lady was present earlier during Treasury questions, when my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Julia Goldsworthy) made exactly the same point about South West Water to prove the point that this was an all-party issue. I am afraid that the Economic Secretary’s response was simply to talk about tax credits. That does not do a great deal for those who have been penalised by South West Water bills.
That is exactly right. Often things such as water rates do not appear in the retail prices index and the other formulae used by the Government. I ask the Minister to relay to his DEFRA and Treasury ministerial colleagues that this issue is causing a great deal of hardship, and it looks like it will get worse.
Given the relative quality of tap water—a very good product of which we can be proud—is it not curious, or perhaps even obscene, that people are paying more for a bottle of water at their supermarket than they pay for a bottle of milk?
It is bizarre. We all sit down in restaurants and order a bottle of wine and a bottle of water. It is almost second nature—
A jug of tap water; very good. One can get a jug of tap water here in the House but some restaurants look askance when one asks for a jug of water. The hon. Lady’s point is extremely good.
The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) rather wisely stopped discussing the question of who has the best cheese. If we were asked what the worst cheese was, I would say those large pale things with big holes in them; nothing produced in this country, I can assure the hon. Gentleman. Bottled water is another of those continental habits that we have adopted, when we could simply turn on the tap to get a glass of safe, high-quality water for which we have paid an enormous amount.
On that very subject, I come to the issue of how small businesses pay their water rates. The chairman of Tiverton chamber of commerce Mr. David Westwood wrote to me to say:
“Our own offices in Tiverton share our office building with other businesses. The Ground Floor and the first floor are paying in excess of £3,000 a year in water rates. It is more extraordinary that the ground floor has no inlet or outlet water supply. The previous tenants…may also have paid unnecessary rates.”
I had not realised, but it transpires that business rates are assessed based on the old rateable value, whether or not there is a water supply. Of course there will be a communal washroom that is shared with other businesses, so at some point there is a mains inlet and a shared waste disposal system. But that has no relevance to the amount of rates that different businesses in the same building might pay, purely because there are differentials in their traditional rateable values.
This is grossly unfair. Nobody minds paying for the service; if those mainly small businesses share the services that the water company provides, nobody is suggesting that they do not pay. However, this is a licence to print money on the part of the water company. The chamber of commerce has taken the matter up. Water companies have confirmed that the Government have allowed all water companies to continue raising charges based on rateable increases. So every year when the rates go up, businesses pay more and more for their water, irrespective of the number of people in the office; it may be a sole occupancy or they may be only a couple of people. However, they will pay an increasing charge for a restricted service.
In the example given to me, a bill charging £549.91 was calculated by multiplying the rateable value by £99.12 for water and £223.58 for sewerage despite the fact that in the office concerned there is no water or sewerage service. I know that the Minister will write to his ministerial colleagues about my concern about the domestic ratepayers. Will he also pick up on this matter? Small businesses are under pressure.
The Budget’s changes in the burden on small businesses as a result of the rise in the small companies’ rate from 20 per cent. to 22 per cent. will mean that the Treasury brings in £820 million of additional revenue. If the Chancellor is looking for a way to bring some relief to those small businesses that are paying excessive amounts for water services because of the formula, that would be a good place to start.
I come now to another small business case, in which I will refer to a constituent as Mr. E. The case could go into the legal domain; in fact, that is now being seriously considered. I do not want in any way to prejudice a case that may at some point be considered in a court. The case concerns the way in which HMRC has interpreted the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992. Mr. E and his wife ran a shop in the high street of one of my market towns for many years as a family business. They lived above the shop in a flat. On his retirement three years ago, he disposed of the shop and the flat at the same time. His accountant prepared the final accounts for the Revenue, and they were agreed and paid.
Two years later, the Revenue revisited those accounts and decided to challenge the apportionment of capital gains tax that Mr. E had paid and that the Revenue had agreed on the disposal. The reason was that although the flat was his prime home, and had been for 20 years, because he had disposed of the shop and the flat at the same time on retirement, the Revenue regarded that as a single asset. In looking at it as such, the Revenue argued that although he was of course able to offset the CGT liability on the flat—none of us has CGT liability on our prime residence—the taper relief that would have applied to the disposal of the business premises was affected. Therefore, the higher rate of CGT was applied to the business disposal, rather than the tapered relief that had previously been calculated. Without wanting to disclose too much about my constituent's personal details, the differential was in excess of £30,000 liability.
I have had correspondence with my constituent, his accountant and Treasury Ministers on the matter. I am astonished that the Revenue should be interpreting the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act in that way. It is quite clear that, for all other purposes of taxation, when a person lives above a shop in that way, the two items—the flat and the shop—are treated separately for taxation. They are separate assets for council tax and business rates purposes.
The question has been put to me: was that what Parliament intended at the time? I have done research into the case and I am absolutely sure that it was not what Parliament intended at the time.
I sought some explanation from the Paymaster General, and I got a rather strange reply:
“the rate of taper relief is assessed by looking at the use to which the whole asset has been put.”
That is pretty clear. It is a domestic flat with its own entrance and a garden at the back. She goes on:
“This rule might at first glance appear to produce an anomalous result”—
it certainly does—
“However, it is the whole of the asset that is being disposed of, even if part of the gain on it is exempt.”
Mr. Deputy Speaker, if you owned a shop but had a domestic dwelling somewhere else, or if you let out the flat over the shop as a business proposition, the measure would not apply. As we all understand, different tax rules would then apply.
We are getting very close to this being a test case. I and small business organisations will be assisting my constituent to pursue the matter as far as he needs to pursue it to get the right result. There are big implications throughout the country for every shopkeeper who lives above the shop and has an anticipation of what the tax liability may be.
If hon. Members—we are, after all, the legislators—look at the detail of the case, as I did, I am sure that they will agree that that is not what Parliament intended when that legislation came on to the statute book. In anyone's language, it is pretty clear how the measure should be applied to ensure fairness of the tax system.
It is to small business and the water rates that I have particularly addressed myself this afternoon. I add to colleagues’ comments about the Minister. I know that he will take the matters that we raise today seriously and convey them to colleagues. In a previous existence of my own, he and I shared many an end-of-term Adjournment debate across the Dispatch Box. He was extremely diligent in the way he listened to Members' concerns, particularly when they related to their constituency.
I wish everyone—Members and the staff of the House—a very happy Easter, and do come and visit us in God's own county.
Before the House adjourns for the Easter recess, there are a number of points that I wish to raise. I thank the right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), who is not in his place at the moment, for his best wishes for my birthday on Monday. I am not a national figure, so it was hardly a significant event, unlike his 50th birthday celebrations.
Just to show the Deputy Leader of the House how things have changed, when I first became a Member, mine was the only birthday of an hon. Member on 26 March. I note that we are now into double figures with parliamentarians who had their birthday on Monday. In addition, when I entered the House, my Christian name, David, was unusual, but now it seems, certainly in the Conservative party, that it is a requirement if one is to be successful.
Is it really six years since the Deputy Leader of the House occupied that position? As he can see, I am still here. His predecessor, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Nigel Griffiths), did a splendid job. The whole House respects and understands his decision to resign from the Government, but, like my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Angela Browning) and my right hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin), we all welcome back the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping). When we were a little more pressed than we appear to be this afternoon to cover all the subjects, he diligently used to write to us to give us some real responses to the issues that we raised. May I gently say to him, and through him to his officials, that they need not faint at the number of issues that I intend to raise today. I will raise them quickly and perhaps in due course he could write to me about them.
This is the first occasion on which I am able to address the House as a member of the Westminster Lions club. Last night, there was an historic dinner and the Palace of Westminster Lions club was formed. It is the first parliamentary Lions club to be formed in the northern hemisphere. We have 22 members so far, and Mr. Speaker will be given an illuminated address. I hope that other colleagues will join, and we intend to have a charity event.
I am pleased to hear that, but can my hon. Friend enlighten me on this point: what about the lionesses?
My hon. Friend makes a good case. There are a number of lady members of the Lions, but we might look into that. I will refer the issue to my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois), who has been installed as the president of the organisation. [Interruption.] Madam Deputy Speaker also appears to be keen on the idea.
The parliamentary period between Christmas and now has been overshadowed—it is a very long shadow—by the terrible mistake we made by engaging in a war with Iraq. Every Wednesday, the Prime Minister has to give sympathy to the relatives of loved ones. I voted for the war, which I will always regret, and I feel increasingly strongly that those lives have been lost in vain in one respect.
However, I and a small group of others have consistently spoken up about the threat from Iran, and we now find ourselves in an impossible situation in respect of that country. The last thing anyone in our country wants is to be involved in a war with Iran, but we are in a terrible situation. I say gently that the British Government’s policy of appeasement has got us into a bit of a mess; sadly, the Government’s current opinion of the President of Iran is not the same as it was a few years ago. It is a disgrace that the POMI—the People’s Mujaheddin Organisation of Iran—is still a proscribed organisation, despite what has been decided in Europe. I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House reflects on that matter and responds on it.
Does my hon. Friend agree that the disastrous catastrophe that Iraq has become, and our involvement in that, have grievously undermined the case for liberal democracy all the way from Morocco to Indonesia, and that that has therefore put us in a weaker position as a world power to deal with rogue states, such as Iran, that are a serious risk to stability?
Sadly, my hon. Friend is right. One of the tragedies of the current situation is that our country’s significance on the world stage is diminished. Other countries do not listen to us as they used to.
Before I move on to the specific subjects of my speech, let me say something about the Budget. I remember being present in the House when Conservative Chancellors, perhaps thinking that they were being rather clever, produced Budget flourishes. When the current Chancellor came out with the big wheeze at the end of his speech that 2p would be knocked off income tax—despite always saying, “We would never bribe the electorate with tax cuts”—I was not looking at Members of my party, but at the Labour Benches. Labour Members were cock-a-hoop; they were thrilled to bits and were waving their Order Papers. They had probably been a little nervous because the opinion polls had not been good, but yesterday’s opinion polls appear to offer encouragement to the Government’s supporters. However, the Chancellor—who is soon to be Prime Minister—will regret that Budget. I shall be the first to say that, just as the current Prime Minister’s nemesis has been the war with Iraq, this Budget will be the downfall of the next Prime Minister.
I want to raise the issue of east coast fishermen—the Deputy Leader of the House has some expertise in this area—which my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) will also doubtless hope to catch your eye in order to discuss, Madam Deputy Speaker. I attended a meeting on Monday with the Minister for Local Environment, Marine and Animal Welfare, and as ever he was very courteous. He was asked a number of tough questions about what the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is doing to rectify the situation and to save the UK’s inshore fleet from ruin. Having reflected on that meeting, I am not sure that we were satisfied by the answers.
The southern North sea inshore fishermen’s association and the Kent and Essex sea fisheries committee are battling against ill-thought out regulations produced, in the name of conservation, by DEFRA and the European Fisheries Council that have brought the UK inshore fishing industry to near collapse. This year, the EFC introduced by-catch limits of 25 per cent. on skates and rays. That quota is far too restrictive on individual catches and means that small-scale fishermen such as those in Leigh-on-Sea are legally allowed to land only a couple of those fish per day, which is hardly enough to make a living. The Minister put a different spin on matters, but I believe that there was no consultation whatever on the regulations. Many fishermen continued to fish illegally for six weeks, without even realising that they were doing so.
I welcome the recent DEFRA initiative whereby we exchange some of the British quota of North sea nephrops for German North sea sole, but what a crazy way to do business—swapping to try to deal with what turned out to be a crisis! It was also brought to my attention that it is not just the imposition of quotas per se—for example, 14 different species of skates and rays are classified as one group, ignoring the fact that each species is more abundant in some areas than in others—that is threatening our inshore fleet. Current fishing regulations treat radically different fishing techniques in the same way, which is very unfair. For example, long-lining is subject to the same regulations as beam-trawling. I ask the Deputy Leader of the House to have a word with his colleagues and I urge the Government to press the EFC for a quota management review as soon as possible. I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point if I have completely ruined his speech. This latest saga is yet another example of how important it is that the UK be properly represented at meetings. It is an absolute disgrace that these quotas were ever agreed to in the first place.
I want to take this opportunity to congratulate Southend United community and educational trust. Last year, I congratulated Southend United on their imminent promotion to the championship, and this year is the 15th anniversary of their magnificent community programme. They have organised after-schools coaching, holiday soccer weeks and recreational activities for senior citizens, and received all manner of awards, locally, regionally and nationally. I thought this a good opportunity to praise a football team. The team have actively engaged in the debate on obesity, encouraging children to take part in increased levels of physical activity. They specialise in girls-only coaching—that will doubtless meet with the favour of my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Angela Browning)—and they have organised body care and healthy living programmes that give children a better understanding of how to keep their bodies healthy. They have also introduced programmes such as “getting on with the blues”—actually, that is not a bad slogan for my party—and they target antisocial behaviour and support activities that assist local charities and voluntary groups. So Southend United are doing a splendid job, and I am quietly confident that we will retain our place in the championship.
I do not remember, Madam Deputy Speaker, whether you were in the Chair during the Christmas Adjournment debate, but I mentioned that the centenarians in Southend had set a world record. I am delighted to tell the House that this week that was formally recognised by “Guinness World Records” and I received a certificate on behalf of the centenarians. They participated in the largest ever gathering of centenarians. The previous record was 21 and we have now pushed that up to 23. The way that things are going in Southend, I am confident that we will be able to beat that record later this year. People are living much longer. In 1850, for example, people lived to 40 on average, but now it is no longer surprising to knock on a door—as we will all be doing in the local elections—and have it answered by a person of 90, 95 or even 100 years.
We should have more investment in several areas to ensure that the sight, hearing, mobility and general health of elderly people is maintained. That is why I am delighted that my party is leading the way in the national debate on the quality of life. If the Government accepted that agenda, it would reduce the demand on care services. For instance, age-related macular degeneration is the most common cause of blindness and visual impairment in the UK. However, early diagnosis and prompt treatment can prevent the rapid loss of vision.
I am closely associated with the National Rheumatoid Arthritis Society, which has drawn to my attention the postcode lottery that many rheumatoid arthritis sufferers experience when trying to gain access to treatment that would improve their condition significantly. Despite the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence approving anti-tumour necrosis factor-alpha therapy for rheumatoid arthritis in 2002, many primary care trusts refuse to fund its use adequately or they put a cap on the numbers of patients that can be treated. I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will pass that message on to the Health Secretary.
The report by the Communities and Local Government Committee on small coastal towns was published on 7 March. I and other Members who represent coastal towns were concerned because the report said that the Government have no specific policies for coastal towns and that, despite much diversity, they share many common characteristics—physical isolation, deprivation levels, inward migration of older people, high levels of transients, outward migration of older people, poor-quality housing and the nature of the coastal economy. There is a high proportion of elderly people in our coastal resorts; I have already mentioned the number of centenarians living in Leigh. I hope that the Government will adopt a national approach to promote and support seaside tourism. Like many other hon. Members, I supported the national tourism week at the beginning of March and I was pleased to learn that the photograph that we submitted from Leigh-on-Sea was in pride of place at the exhibition in Regent’s street. Tourism brings in £85 billion to the UK, so it would be in all our interests to adopt a national coastal tourism strategy, similar to that in Wales.
I recently visited Princes Avenue school and was greeted by the excellent head teacher, Mrs. Sandy Fletcher, who sadly retires today, and her deputy, Miss Judy Kaufman. They drew my attention to a survey of 5,863 people, which found that 38 per cent. of parents had taken their children on holiday in term time. All hon. Members realise that that happens because families can save £500 on the cost of holidays, but it disrupts schooling. More and more people are doing it, and the Government recognise that. The Association of British Travel Agents comes out with a lot of codswallop about responding to market forces, but I would like to see a little responsibility being exercised. The National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers blames parents. I am not brave enough to blame parents, but there must be a way round this—I will not call it a third way—and I hope that we can find a solution.
Another success for Southend is the fact that the YMCA has won the community impact award presented by the Prince’s Trust for its short film entitled, “Killer in a Can”. Despite having no knowledge of how to make a film, a team of 11 young people decided to raise awareness of the dangers of substance abuse after learning about the subject. They raised £800 to make the film by themselves. It has been shown on national television and used by Essex police. Is not that a good reason to celebrate the excellent work of our young people?
I make no apology for quickly mentioning buses again. We do not have enough buses in Southend, particularly for our elderly people. Why not? It is because 20,000 people were left off the national census in Southend, and so we have no funding for 20,000 people. I hope that a bus company that does not need a subsidy will come forward to provide extra services and that some generous individual or company might come forward with some money to subsidise those services.
Leigh-on-Sea town council is wonderful and is working hard with local businesses to get CCTV installed in a shopping centre. We cannot afford the capital cost of installation and, again, I hope that a benefactor may come forward.
A constituent, Gareth Rogerson, suffered 70 per cent. burns—they are full thickness burns—following a terrible car accident. He is a remarkable person and his family are very proud of him. His hands melted, so he has no hands. Some of us were privileged this week to meet Simon Weston, who suffered 46 per cent. burns—so we can imagine the bravery of this chap. He has friends in Limehouse whom he goes to meet. On a number of occasions, he has been stopped on the train for not being in possession of a valid rail ticket. Prosecutions have been mounted, but I will not name the organisation. The issue is being dealt with. I assume that Gareth is not the only person in this situation. I know that it will be said that he should buy the ticket in advance and have it hanging on a piece of chain around his neck, but surely, given the extreme circumstances, can this not be dealt with differently? How anyone could bring the matter to a magistrates court hearing is beyond belief.
Finally, as it is Easter, I come to badgers. The badgers in our area have got together and decided that they like all sorts of back gardens in Southend. I spoke on Third Reading of the Protection of Badgers Act 1992, which made badgers a protected species. I regret none of that but, 20 years on, I must confess that I had no idea of the impact of that legislation. To move badgers humanely from gardens is an issue. They are into the foundations, garages are collapsing and people cannot go into their back gardens—and I am not exaggerating. We all love badgers, although we should not stroke them, because they have powerful jaws and teeth. The issue needs to be dealt with.
I end by wishing everyone a happy Easter.
It is always a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), who raised some important points. I believe that my constituency has the largest urban badger population in the country. I am delighted that some of them are going on holiday to Leigh-on-Sea, and I wish them well. I have about seven badgers and their young in my garden. I enjoy that; I feed them and watch them, and people come to my house to see them. They are beautiful, wonderful animals, but we must make sure that humans have rights, too. We must get the balance right. It is in the badgers’ best interests that we move them as quickly as possible when there is a conflict in an urban environment, as there often is in my constituency. There are plenty of places to which we could move the badgers where they would be much better off. That would be better than allowing that conflict to get out of hand; I assure hon. Members that that is very bad for the badgers.
The safety of my constituency is threatened by the proposal of Calor and Centrica to put a massive liquefied natural gas importation plant on Canvey Island. They wish to offload LNG from ships in an increasingly busy Thames. It would then be stored in two massive tanks and fed into the gas national grid. The Health and Safety Executive highlighted the project’s potential lack of safety and Calor’s application was rejected. Calor has appealed, so the matter is before Ministers. I have raised the issue in the House on several occasions, and I have obtained an undertaking from Ministers that a public inquiry will be held. Most importantly, it is to be held on Canvey Island, so that local people have direct and easy access to it.
Local opposition is strong. Canvey people have, in their thousands, signed Canvey Island Independent party’s petition, organised by Dave Blackwell, which I presented in the House. As always, I put local politics aside, and congratulate Dave Blackwell and his team on their important and helpful initiative. Top marks, however, go to George Whatley and his People Against Methane team. They led the battle throughout, and organised a very professional referendum. They are true stars. We all got very wet doing the footwork on winter afternoons and evenings, but it was well worth the effort. The referendum results were astounding.
As I say, it was a very professional referendum, with sealed containers. People could vote, in private, however they wanted—either for against. The turnout was 68 per cent. of the total voting population of Canvey Island. That is much more than twice the amount who would vote in any local government election, which shows that the issue has gripped people. The result was even more remarkable: of those who voted, 99.6 per cent. voted against the LNG plant. Two of the people who voted for it filled in their referendum forms with me. They were operators at the plant, and they apologised to me for how they were casting their private vote. Of course, they had no need to tell me how they voted. The result certainly cannot be challenged; it has great credibility, and it cannot be ignored.
I urge the inspector who will eventually consider the matter to give as much weight as possible to that formal measure of public opinion. I do so respectfully, because I know that the inspector will deal with the planning issues carefully and professionally, as he must. I have absolute confidence in his judgment and his great courtesy in dealing with good, local people, who will represent themselves, while the big business will, of course, employ expensive barristers and professionals to represent it. I know that the inspector will be careful to strike the right balance in the inquiry.
If the proposals go ahead, the Canvey site will become one of the very few control of major accident hazards, or COMAH, sites in the UK. The hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac), who is present on the Labour Benches, has one in her constituency, too. In the USA, such sites have a 6-mile residential homes exclusion area around them if they involve LNG. They provide that exclusion area for good reason. The incidents in Port Hudson and Cleveland, Ohio, show just what can happen when an uncontrolled vapour cloud detonation takes place. That is a risk with which Canvey and Castle Point people would have to live, and there is no six-mile limit, as is mandatory in the United States—not even a one-mile safety zone—for Canvey people. The plant is literally within spitting distance of homes and schools, as it is only a few hundred yards away.
Let me paint a true picture of the risk posed. An LNG escape would freeze everything in its path. The Health and Safety Executive and the fire service have confirmed that there is no way of controlling such a spill. Indeed, I am having another meeting next Monday morning with the local fire service. At atmospheric pressure, LNG would vaporise and form a massive, growing cloud that would float and blow around in the wind, combining with air to form an unstable and highly combustible mixture. On ignition, it would explode and flash into a high-temperature fire that would destroy everything in its path. Ignition could take place simply if a car passed through the area or if someone flicked a light switch within it. The direction of such a cloud would be indeterminate beforehand, and the effects on homes and schools would be indiscriminate. Unlike at Buncefield, where the emergency services could use foam to control and contain the fire because it was fuel oil-based, not LNG-based, there is no effective firefighting strategy for an LNG incident. It would be a question of watching and following the fire, and clearing up the carnage afterwards.
Detonation may happen on Canvey Island, but it could also take place on the mainland in Benfleet or Hadleigh. A cloud could even blow over to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) in Leigh, where the ground is higher, and ignite there. This is not just a Canvey Island problem—it is a south Essex issue. There are many other causes for objection. The terrorist threat is significant, although I will not go into it too deeply. The main threat, however, is from an accident. Flixborough and Buncefield were thought to be totally safe the night before they went up. We know what happened there. Indeed, the HSE Buncefield report states in consultative document CD211, section 6, “Wider implications for other major hazard sites”:
“The implications…for major hazard sites need to be considered… Clearly, we have poor scientific understanding of the mechanisms which led to the vapour cloud explosion at Buncefield, and we accept that installations storing other substances could present this type of hazard, for example, bulk LNG”.
There we have it: proof positive from the HSE, no less, that we cannot declare the Canvey Island plant proposal safe.
There is only one conclusion—the appeal should be rejected, to avoid unacceptable dangers to schools and homes, not only in my constituency but elsewhere. Neither the HSE nor the Government have a policy on the safe siting of a COMAH plant, for which I have been asking for months. The inspector therefore has no formal standards against which to measure the application that he is considering. I urge the inspector, therefore, to disallow the appeal on that point alone. However, there are many other reasons to reject it, including the dire implications of flood risk for the site, and the difficulty of building the massive tanks on stilts. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West smiles, but that is a requirement for new build on Canvey Island, which is in the flood plain and, in some places, is 6 or 8 ft below sea level.
Shipping and navigation safety is an important consideration. The environmental implications are significant, too. Just for the record, the plant would confer very little local benefit on my constituents—not that that is a big issue, because there is a national need. However, there are many other effective sites for the importation of LNG that do not give rise to conflicts with other interests and that are not sited close to homes and, in particular, schools. Let there be no mistake: the application is not about national need but about corporate profits. There is nothing wrong with that, but I told Calor and Centrica at the outset that if there was a safety issue—if safety was compromised in their application—I would fight them tooth and nail. Safety is compromised, so I will fight them with every ounce of effort to stop that ill-conceived project.
The conclusions are clear. There is ample evidence of the devastation that could be caused by an incident at such a plant. There is also irrefutable evidence from the HSE, no less, that the operation of the plant cannot be guaranteed without the risk of an incident—it cannot be made fail-safe or totally safe. The Environment Agency has also confirmed that there are serious flooding risks on the site, which is another reason to reject it. There is no separation of homes and schools from the plant; there is no COMAH safe siting policy against which the inspector can measure the application and make a judgment; and there are more appropriate sites to meet the national need and the national interest. The inspector will consider all those matters very carefully. I say, with due respect to the inspector’s independence in making the decision, that I hope that the proposal is rejected.
I am pleased to welcome back the Deputy Leader of the House, who is an excellent Minister—I actually congratulated him on his return last night. Will he confirm that the Trade and Industry Secretary’s new policy to speed up the planning process for large scale energy sites will not be applied retrospectively to the Calor application, which is now being appealed on Canvey Island? I see that the Deputy Leader of the House has nodded, which I appreciate.
On the separate but related matter of flood defences, Canvey Island suffered more than any other community in the 1953 floods, when 58 people were killed on the island. Parts of the island, such as the Calor site, lie below sea level protected by sea walls, sea gates and, in some areas, simple earth banks. We all saw what happened last year in New Orleans, where the substantial levees were swept away in moments. That community was devastated last year, as Canvey was in 1953.
On 18 March, which is not yet two weeks ago, Canvey was at serious risk of flooding, and the sea barriers should have been closed. The Environment Agency is responsible for that, but it failed to do that simple but essential job. The Thames barrier was closed, pushing water back up the Thames towards Canvey Island, but Canvey’s defences were not activated. The result was predictable—Canvey suffered flooding and damage yet again. The Echo report stated:
“Canvey was left to the mercy of raging tides which threatened to engulf it on Sunday after the Environment Agency failed to close two flood barriers, it has emerged. Barriers at Benfleet Creek and East Haven on Canvey island were left open as surging tides breached low-lying shores in Benfleet”.
This time it was not on the scale of 1953, thank goodness, but that was due to divine intervention rather than Environment Agency planning or judgment. Rather foolishly, a spokesman for the Environment Agency was quoted by the Echo as saying:
“It is just one of those things.”
One of my constituents described that comment as “complacent in the extreme”. Another e-mailed me only yesterday to say that that demonstrates
“An enormous degree of incompetence and disinterest”.
I respectfully ask the Secretary of State to undertake an inquiry into the incident and to give me a report, because I must protect the interests of the people on Canvey Island whom I represent.
Perhaps the Deputy Leader of the House will let me know what steps have been taken to prevent the recurrence of that unacceptable failure. That is an issue on which firm and speedy action is needed, as the House will understand. I congratulate Christine Sexton of the Echo, who is the chief reporter for Castle Point, on her efforts on behalf of Castle Point people on that and other matters.
I turn to one of my traditional themes, the national health service. In the Christmas Adjournment debate, I argued that in many fields, such as hepatitis C and coronary heart disease, the NHS should make sensible preventive investments. If it were to do so, the pay-off would be enormous in terms not only of improved health and quality of life, but of cash returns for the Treasury. The Chancellor, who prides himself on prudence, should not miss such an obvious mechanism to maximise the output from the extra £8 billion that he plans to put into the NHS in 2007-08, which I welcome and on which I sincerely congratulate him. However, what matters to patients—our constituents—is output, not input. We need to ensure that we make best use of the extra money that we have been putting into the health service for some years now.
The 2006 Department of Health report, “The Musculoskeletal Services Framework”, is one of the Government’s better efforts. It acknowledges the scale of the problem, with 8 million to 10 million people in the UK suffering from arthritis and 206 million hours every year lost to the UK economy, at a cost of £18 billion. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West referred to rheumatoid arthritis in his excellent remarks. We are mirroring each other’s speeches fairly closely; I am afraid that that will continue. The report states:
“early diagnosis…would be very cost-effective, especially if it resulted in people being able to remain in the workforce as long as possible.”
It goes on to say, however, that
“typically, a diagnosis was made approximately 18 months after symptoms first appeared”
and that people with musculoskeletal conditions
“have endured some of the longest waiting times for hospital care”.
It recommends structural change in the NHS to speed up progress for arthritis patients through “fragmented and incoherent services”. It also pays tribute to the
“significant developments in inflammatory arthritis treatments”
in recent years and concludes that
“multiple cost-effectiveness studies have now been performed to suggest that anti-TNF antibodies should be cost-effective.”
Yet we find that inconsistent postcode rationing or prescribing is a serious problem for people with this disease, of whom there are many.
It is, in many ways, an excellent report that proposes dramatic improvements in treatment, with Treasury revenues as the potential prize for that forethought. However, no one has charge of delivery. We still have patchy provision of the cost-effective drugs that would cut in-patient time and reduce human suffering. The Secretary of State for Health must stop shilly-shallying, get a grip of this, and implement the recommendations in the report as soon as possible, for economic and quality of life reasons.
I will not detain the House for much longer, but will return, if I may, to one of my old chestnuts—Europe. I sincerely apologise to hon. Members who must occasionally listen to my rants on the subject; this will not be the last time, I am afraid. The Berlin declaration—a Trojan horse for the EU constitution—has provoked widespread criticism, including from my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. Jackson), who is sitting next to me. One reason for that criticism is the unilateral procedure used by the German Chancellor. The declaration was discussed in secret with EU member states. The Czech Republic envoy explained that the consultation consisted only of a single bilateral phone conversation with the German authorities, followed up with an e-mail giving the declaration’s very scant content. Neither national Parliaments nor the European Parliament had sight of the wording.
That conspiratorial, smoke-filled-room approach is no way to run a chicken shed, let alone a group of countries. No people of any member state have been consulted, even though a new EU constitution has major constitutional implications. Where that is the case, it must be for the people, not the politicians, to decide such matters.
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his traditionally robust approach to issues in Castle Point and beyond. Does he share my concern that we have not yet received an unequivocal commitment from the Foreign Secretary and the Minister for Europe that the Government support a referendum on any major changes in respect of the constitution?
My hon. Friend anticipates my next point. I share his deep concern about the matter. The Government have implied that they do not believe that the German Chancellor’s watered-down new proposal for a constitution should be put before the people of this country. I shall revert to that shortly.
The federal Government of Germany state that they will compel ratification of the lightly modified and previously rejected EU constitution. The Prime Minister will do as he is told by the Germans, just as he did as he was told by Bush—look where that got us. The Germans are trying to sleepwalk Britain into the new constitution without a referendum and without consulting the people.
The Germans perceive the EU constitution as creating an EU President and a Foreign Minister. It robs Britain of its voting rights on home affairs and justice matters. It will be signed off by the Germans, the Commission and the European Parliament, but not the other 26 member states. It will not be put to the people of those states, including the people of Britain. Hon. Members should listen carefully to the British people, whom they represent, show stronger leadership, and stick to clear principles on those matters.
EU membership is a massive burden to Britain. The Government want a constitution without troubling the people with a referendum, as my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough said. However, the facts are clear: Europe is incompetent, inefficient, corrupt and unwilling to tackle that corruption. It cannot even get its accounts signed off.
The common fisheries policy is a nightmare, which has devastated our fish stocks and virtually destroyed the UK fishing industry. It discriminates especially against local, small, seasonal inshore fleets such as those that operate from Essex and Kent, including Canvey Island and Leigh-on-Sea in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West. I shall not repeat his comments—he made the case more eloquently than I ever could. The relevant Minister has arranged this week to swap some of the quota to fill the gap, but that is not enough. We need another meeting with the Minister soon to discuss, for example, the massive Belgian and Dutch boats, which take in more than 2,000 tonnes of fish each year from Britain’s six-mile and 12-mile limits. My fishermen are worried about the legality of that—especially of where the fish are landed and eventually sold—and the control on the catches that are taken. That is destroying our fish stocks, as we have experienced in the past two decades.
The EU damages the developing world through the redundant common agricultural policy and its selfish, backward-looking, protectionist policies. Labour Members do not even challenge the EU’s failure to deliver international aid effectively. Yesterday, the Secretary of State for International Development said:
“The EU water initiative has been pretty patchy.”—[Official Report, 28 March 2007; Vol. 458, c. 1482.]
He is right. Multilateral aid through the EU is neither as effective as supporting the voluntary sector nor as giving bilateral aid, whereby this country can control the use to which the aid is put and monitor its effectiveness in helping the poorest people in the world.
I am rattling on for too long. I simply emphasise that if mainstream parties will not tackle those tough issues, the public will increasingly support fringe parties to do the job. None of us believes that that would be good for democracy. Britain should revert to a trading relationship and commonsense co-operation in Europe. Getting out of Europe would help UK jobs, our economy and our border controls and it would return our sovereignty. That is what the British people want.
I wish everyone a happy Easter and tell them not to get too sick on their Easter eggs.
It often falls to me to be the tail-end Charlie of the recess Adjournment debates. I am a political book-end, a humble spear carrier in the drama of British politics. I want to pay tribute to the fantastic community and charity work that is undertaken in my constituency. In no particular order, I pay tribute to Energy for Paston, the Salvation Army in Bourges boulevard, the Greater Dogsthorpe Partnership, Werrington Neighbourhood Council, the Westwood and Ravensthorpe Trust and the wonderful Sue Ryder Care charity. This will be the fourth year that I have been on the fundraising committee for Sue Ryder Care, and we are hoping to exceed last year’s total of £36,000 raised for local people who are resident in the hospice.
I also wish all the luck in the world to the Association for Spina Bifida and Hydrocephalus—ASBAH—which is based in my constituency. I hope that, by the time we hold our next Easter Adjournment debate, it will have achieved one of its key objectives: the fortification of foodstuffs with folic acid. That would reduce the incidence of spina bifida and the heartache that afflicts so many families as a result of that disability. It would also have an impact on the hundreds of thousands of elective terminations related to the condition. I pay tribute to everyone involved with ASBAH.
It would be remiss of me not to join hon. Members across the House in welcoming the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) to his new position. If he has just an ounce of the integrity, decency and commitment of his predecessor, he will be doing a superb job. We welcome him.
I would also like to pay tribute to my own local authority, Peterborough city council, which has managed to announce only a 1.4 per cent. increase in council tax this year, the lowest for any unitary authority in the United Kingdom. It has been able to combine excellent council services with value for money, and I pay tribute to Councillor John Peach and all his colleagues.
Parliament has been through a tumultuous period since Christmas, and sparks have been flying. It is an honour and a privilege to be a Member of Parliament and to represent our fellow citizens in this place. I felt that particularly when I read the transcript in Hansard of the wonderful debate that took place on 20 March on the abolition of slavery. The contributions were sparkling, informative, heartfelt and moving, especially those of the hon. Members for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) and for Brent, South (Ms Butler). I had the privilege of being the Conservative candidate for Brent, South in 1997. We must not forget the one and only contribution from my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), who has a particular expertise and, I have to say, commercial interest in the subject of William Wilberforce and all the other people involved in that campaign, including Thomas Clarkson. He was a Wisbech man, and my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) is obviously proud of Clarkson’s role in the abolition of slavery.
I want to talk about the criminal justice system, a subject that is only loosely related to a constituency interest. Suffice it to say, however, that Peterborough has one of the newest prisons in the country. The former Home Secretary once famously said that if no other prison were built in England, one would be built in Peterborough. It is a state-of-the-art prison, and its director general, Mike Conway, is doing an excellent job. It is a prison for male and female prisoners, with 840 beds on the same site. One might not think that it was doing such a good job, however. As a result of the Home Office’s mismanagement of the methodology and of the data management system at the prison, it is unable to tell us how well the prison is doing because the computer system cannot cope with having a male prison and a female prison on the same site. The system therefore defaults the performance indicators to place Peterborough prison almost at the bottom of the 130-odd prisons in England and Wales. That is a simple example of how the Home Office is not working.
Hon. Members will know that, in a named-day question on 29 April 2006, I asked how many foreign prisoners had been released from Peterborough prison in the 12 months to 31 March 2006. It took me eight months to get an answer. Even today, the Home Office has not been able to answer the question: what were those 55 foreign prisoners convicted of? That inquiry has taken a significant amount of my time, and the Minister responsible has been less than clear, but I am determined to get an answer on behalf of my constituents.
The crime and justice review launched by the Prime Minister earlier this week was described in The Guardian on 27 March under the headline “New gloss for old policy framework”. The Guardian went on to say:
“The level of detail and micromanagement by Number 10 of these Home Office policy areas suggests that even after 53 criminal justice bills in a decade, Tony Blair is leaving office deeply frustrated at the slow pace of reform of the police, prisons and probation services.”
We have also seen some reheated, rehashed policy initiatives, such as the concentration on prolific offenders, which was first announced by the then Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), more than three years ago.
I want to focus on prisons in particular. There was some discussion last week of the Conservative party’s fox being shot. I must say that my fox has been shot slightly because my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) beat me to the crease in securing a Westminster Hall debate yesterday entitled, “Prisons (Crime Reduction)”. He will therefore have covered some of the points, so I will not labour them. However, there are some important points to be made about prisons, crime prevention and rehabilitation, which I hope that an incoming Conservative Government will consider carefully.
Conservative Members are thinking hard about the penal system and the criminal justice system. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins), who is concerned about the problem of illicit drugs in prisons, and to my hon. Friends the Members for Buckingham (John Bercow) and for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Burrowes) who are considering the issues of drugs, alcohol and rehabilitation in relation to prisoners.
The problem is that there is a liberal orthodoxy—a settled view—of prisons. According to a liberal, elitist view, driven by criminologists, civil servants and academics, prison does not work and is wrong. That view approaches a cultural disdain for the idea that we, as a civilised society, should send people to prison. I could not disagree with that view more strongly. Prisons are not necessarily bad. The entrenched consensus in the Home Office, and no doubt in its successor bodies, is wrong. Prisons can be made to work. I commend to the House the book, “A Land Fit for Criminals”, published last year, and written by David Fraser, who draws particular attention to what he calls the criminal justice elite.
At the moment, prisons are not working, but they can be made to work. Last year, 53 per cent. of prisons were overcrowded, and the figures were even higher at the beginning of this year. Prisoners have been kept in police cells—Operation Safeguard only concluded at the end of December—and prison numbers reached 79,627 by Christmas. I welcome the Government’s decision to build two more prisons—one in the Woolwich area near Belmarsh prison, and the other on Merseyside—and to bring on-stream a further 8,000 prison places over the next five years. That said, that is within the context of a short-sighted decision by the Treasury to cut or at least freeze real terms funding for the Home Office over the next few years, which I regret.
The criminal justice proposals, as articulated by the Prime Minister, are a swansong crime review. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) has astutely put it, they are an admission of failure. He says:
“In any event, even the sensible proposals in this document are fatally undermined by the Government’s failure to provide the necessary prison places to make them work. In fact, this document barely mentions the crisis in our prisons.”
My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley comprehensively demolished the myths surrounding prison, crime reduction and recidivism. The most potent of those myths is that we “lock too many people up”, and that compared with other European countries too many people are in prison and we should focus on non-custodial sentences, which are better. I completely disagree with that because it is not good enough simply to look at prison numbers; we must also look at those compared with the rate of crime committed. That measurement, rather than just the prison population, compared with the level of recorded crime shows that the proportion of the number of people we put in prison is almost the lowest in the western world. The rate in the United States is high, at 166 prisoners per 1,000 crimes. We incarcerate just 13 prisoners per 1,000 crimes.
The other myth is that prison does not work in terms of recidivism rates. That is true: 75 per cent. of tagged young offenders are reconvicted within 12 months and a study in 2003 showed that 61 per cent. of prisoners jailed in 2001 had reoffended within a year of release. Surely, though, we should be looking at the likelihood of being incarcerated as a key determinant of whether someone commits a crime. Evidence in the United States shows a causal link between the fact that it has the highest per capita number of prisoners but the lowest crime rate.
A comparative study of crime rates between 1981 and 1996 by Professor David Farrington of Cambridge university demonstrated that as the risk of being imprisoned increased, crime fell. That was in the United States, but during the same period in England and Wales the crime rate increased as the likelihood of being incarcerated reduced. We currently have the highest rate of crime in burglary, assault, robbery, motor vehicle theft and rape than in the United States. Its rate is only higher in murder.
It is a matter of public record that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) reduced crime in the period after 1995 by taking a tough line and challenging the liberal orthodoxy then prevalent in the Home Office. I have to say that that reduction continued until 2003, and rose thereafter.
There is empirical evidence that if we put more police on the beat—if we recruit and train more police and put them on to the operational front line—we will also reduce crime. The number of police officers per capita in the United States, which is tracked by the FBI and reported annually, increased by 60,000 officers, or roughly 14 per cent., in the 1990s. Between 1991 and 2001, that accounted for a 10 to 20 per cent. decline in overall crime in that period.
We all have local anecdotes on the effectiveness of policing. I visited the headquarters of the northern division of the Cambridgeshire constabulary a number of months ago and met Chief Superintendent Paul Phillipson at Thorpe Wood in Peterborough. He showed me mugshots of the 22 most prolific and persistent offenders in the city, and estimated that crime would be reduced by perhaps as much as 50 per cent. if they could be permanently excluded from the community. We need to think hard about that.
Overall statistical evidence from the United States shows a disincentive to commit crime if the likelihood of going to prison increases. There is surely a strong economic argument for more prison places. In 2004, the cost of keeping the average prisoner on the prison estate was £27,320 per year. Today it costs us £2.7 billion to maintain 139 prisons, but crime costs us £60,000 million—£60 billion. That constitutes the entire school budget and two thirds of what we will spend on the national health service in 2008. We could spend just £7 billion on doubling the number of prison places to 160,000—which, incidentally, would amount to only 0.4 per cent. of the adult population. Surely such an opportunity cost is worthy of proper examination. Even by fiscal Conservatives such as me, prison can be seen as a bargain.
And, of course, there are the human tragedies. We routinely ignore the many thousand parole board failures that lead to such tragedies, the terrible murder of the City banker John Monckton being the most obvious and infamous example. As any good economist will confirm, unless objectionable behaviour carries a demonstrable cost, that behaviour will not be altered, and will prevail.
It cannot simply be said that prison does not work. It can be made to work. According to the Home Office report “Re-offending of adults: results from the 2003 cohort”, published in November 2006, the recidivism rate among those who had served at least four years in prison was 35 per cent., compared to 70 per cent. among those who were jailed for up to 12 months. We need to move from deterrence and incapacitation to rehabilitation. It is perfectly possible to believe in two complementary concepts: the concept that prison works, and the concept of necessary rehabilitation.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley that it is offensive to my constituents and his that 1,500 prisoners have access to Sky television—although I understand that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) disagrees with that. It causes them anger and annoyance. That, however, does not mean that we should not focus on rehabilitation. It is not necessarily a question of being liberal, lily-livered and non-judgmental.
I stand four-square behind my party’s manifesto commitments of 2005—scrapping the early-release scheme, mandatory minimum sentences and more prison places—but we need to focus on drugs, on rehabilitation, and especially on education. Some facts are inescapable: for instance, 70 per cent. of female prisoners suffer from two or more mental disorders while 44 per cent. of male sentenced prisoners suffer from three or more, and the numbers are much higher among young offenders. It is also time that we focused on the one third of prisoners who have clearly been failed by the care system.
We all know of the endemic effects of alcohol and narcotics abuse across the prison estate, as well as the unacceptable levels of bullying. Two thirds of prisoners are affected by those issues. As a civilised society and for the sake of our own financial well-being, we have a right and a duty to tackle them and to rehabilitate the individuals whom we choose to incarcerate.
Although rehabilitation is vital to reforming criminals and reducing the risk of offending, we must make a decision about spending. We must consider the opportunity cost. There have been some successful schemes in the United States, including the Key-Crest 12-month drug programme in Delaware. After three years, only 31 per cent. of those on the programme had reoffended, compared to 61 per cent. in a control group. In the United Kingdom, there are just 4,700 drug treatment programmes across the whole estate. Prison-based vocational training and employment is important, too. A study in the United States found that prisoners who had been on that programme had a 35 per cent. less chance of re-offending than those who had not.
A particularly innovative scheme is in Florida where prisoners are taught basic skills and manufacture goods such as optical instruments and car registration plates. They are paid a decent wage and given self-respect and hope for the future. Some of the money that comes from selling those goods is put back into the prison estate and to victim support schemes so that prisoners understand the consequences of their actions.
It is our duty and responsibility as parliamentarians to look at giving prisoners hope for the future when they have finished their sentences. It is perfectly possible to believe that we need to jail people longer to prevent crime and that people can be reformed and rehabilitated. I thank hon. Members for listening and I wish all Members, Officers of the House and members of staff a restful and productive Easter break. With that, I look forward to the next recess Adjournment debate.
I am delighted to be able to take part in the debate and to address this packed House of Commons. First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) on returning to the Front Bench as Deputy Leader of the House. I have always found him to be helpful to Back Benchers and I am sure that he will take up all the issues that have been raised today with the appropriate Ministers.
The hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) mentioned developments on Canvey Island. Cleethorpes conjures up the image of a wonderful British seaside resort, which it is, but, geographically, it is a very large constituency. On the Humber bank we have one of the highest concentrations of COMAH—control of major accident hazards—sites in the UK. Several years ago, there was an explosion at one of the oil refineries in the constituency, which impacted on neighbouring villages and towns. I was in my office in Immingham, about two to three miles from the refinery. When the explosion happened, the shock wave bent the glass in the window. I can appreciate the concerns of the constituents of the hon. Gentleman, who also mentioned Flixborough, which is near Scunthorpe. I believe that we have two full-time fire stations because of the number of COMAH sites—refineries, power stations, inorganic chemical works and so on. I understand that given its size Immingham would not even warrant one part-time fire engine if it were not for the COMAH sites within the area. That always has to be looked at in relation to those hazardous developments.
The hon. Lady is starting her speech in an excellent fashion and I congratulate her. The problem for me is that the COMAH site on Canvey Island will be a liquefied natural gas site, not a petrochemical site. With LNG, it is much more difficult to fight the fire. In fact, it is impossible, because it vaporises and floats as a cloud in the air until it meets an ignition source. We cannot use foam, as we can on a petrochemical fire, as happened at Buncefield, for example. Essex firefighters went in and fought that fire and many of those firefighters were trained to protect my constituency.
I take the hon. Gentleman's point. There are many different types of COMAH sites around the country. On the Humber bank, many of the factories have in-house fire crews with specialist equipment. Given the number of COMAH sites within my constituency, I understand the great concern that his constituents have.
The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) is perhaps an hon. Friend in relation to the subject that I am going to mention next, which is seaside towns. He mentioned the report that had been published. I wished to mention it, too. It details the poverty that can exist in seaside towns and the problems with infrastructure due to their remoteness. Those are serious issues to which the Government need to pay more attention. Those issues were covered by the hon. Gentleman, so I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will address those points in his closing remarks.
Like the hon. Member for Southend, West and others, in previous Adjournment debates in the House, I have raised many issues. I recall standing here mentioning the subject of East Ravendale school in the Lincolnshire wolds in the constituency, and the fact that it still had outside toilets and other problems. I spoke in the House about getting funding to build a new school. I am happy to report that the new school building is under way. The children are in their temporary classrooms and are looking forward to going into their new school as soon as possible.
I have mentioned in these Adjournment debates before the issue of nuisance from fireworks. We have seen progress on that issue with the passing of private Member's legislation, but we need closely to monitor that issue because, although there have been improvements, it is clear that there are still problems and there is still misuse.
I have mentioned the resurfacing of the A180, one of the noisiest roads in Britain. I know that other Members here would probably claim that their roads are noisier. In our trunk road network, we have an awful lot of noisy concrete-surface roads, which are causing disturbance and annoyance. Some of the A180 was resurfaced, but the programme has stalled, so many of my constituents are still disturbed by the level of noise from the road.
I urge my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House to put pressure on the appropriate Ministers to complete the resurfacing work. It is ludicrous that, in travelling to Grimsby and Cleethorpes, one is literally rattling around on that concrete-surface road. One can almost feel one’s bones juddering and the car falling apart. The noise is dreadful. The newly surfaced bit is only a short section. The quietness is astonishing. It was only when it was resurfaced that residents and I realised how extreme the problem was. After the short section, we go on to the old surface again. The port of Immingham is growing. Year on year, there is more HGV traffic coming off the container ships. We need to be able to do something as regards those roads. It is not fair that residents continue to be disturbed by vehicles on that road as the traffic on it increases and the port grows.
That leads me on to another urgent local issue to do with Immingham, which is both a town and a port. Although Immingham has the A180 and two very good roads that lead from the east and west dock gates to the main dual carriageway, far too many heavy goods vehicles go through the centre of the town. I have written to local firms saying, “Please can you make sure that your drivers do not go through the centre of town,” and they have assured me that their drivers do not do so, but we have monitored the traffic and we have seen them going through the town. That happens week on week, month on month. It is not only the traffic coming out of the port that is increasing; the traffic going through the middle of what is a residential town is also increasing. That is unacceptable. The local authority is consulting on having a bypass so that the majority of HGVs no longer disturb Immingham’s residents. However, as we all know in respect of all such major road projects, that will not happen in the short term. Any solution will be put in place only in the long term. Therefore, there must be some short-term solutions to the problem. I shall continue to press for a weight restriction on the main residential road through Immingham.
Other Members might have come across similar problems in their constituencies to do with my next subject; if so, I would be interested to know of them. I have found that there is a great problem to do with satellite navigation in HGVs. It does not matter whether we put up weight restriction signs at the beginning of certain streets, because if their satellite navigation system tells them to go down such a street, they will go down it. I do not know whether much can be done about that. I fear that it will increasingly become a problem throughout the country, unless satellite navigation can be programmed to inform of weight restrictions on specific roads and to say that no vehicle over a certain weight should travel down them.
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. She is not alone on this issue: she might like to take a look at an Adjournment debate secured by the hon. Member for High Peak (Tom Levitt), in which I spoke. We discussed some of the options that are available, and the Minister present gave a helpful response.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that information. I think that that Adjournment debate was held this week. [Interruption.] Apparently, it was an earlier debate. I shall certainly take a look at it, and if there is more that I can do on this issue, I will certainly do it. I will join other Members who are campaigning to stop the “sat nav” invasion of our residential streets. I do not suppose that I shall get any free satellite navigation systems in the post after having said that—besides, I much prefer using a traditional map. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Angela Browning) talked about water earlier; I would rather have a traditional jug of water with my meal, and I prefer to use a traditional map than satellite navigation.
Sadly, Immingham has a large landfill site on the outskirts of town, and unfortunately, because it is in a particularly flat part of Lincolnshire, that site is probably the highest bit of ground for miles around. I noticed that under the Budget there will be increased landfill taxes. That worries me because, sadly, my area is still not recycling as much as it should be. Given that the increase has been announced, I hope that the local council takes on board more initiatives. I have many ideas for initiatives to reduce the amount of waste that our area generates and the amount of it that goes into landfill, thereby reducing some of the blot on the landscape that the residents of Immingham have to live with.
I want to move on to a couple of other issues that are causing residents in my constituency some concern. I have raised them in the House before, off and on. I warn my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House that I shall continue to do so until Ministers kindly get the message, give way and try to come up with solutions to these problems.
The Humber bridge is a marvellous, superb piece of engineering; unfortunately, the level of toll that people have to pay each way to cross it is not so marvellous. Because of the way in which health services in my part of the country have been reorganised, thousands more people who live in the towns and villages on the south bank of the River Humber have to travel north to the hospitals in Hull for essential treatment, particularly cancer sufferers. It is a very long journey, which is always problematic for those travelling for chemotherapy or radiotherapy. On top of that, there is this added charge. Because of the way that the benefit system works, although those in a certain income group can get recompense, those just above that threshold—that includes a lot of pensioners—cannot get any assistance. As those who have to travel for such treatment or to visit someone in hospital regularly know, it costs a lot of money to cross the Humber bridge.
All the local MPs have been working on a cross-party basis to find a solution to this problem. Two private Members’ Bills were introduced on this issue, one by my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey). As a Whip, he cannot speak in the House for himself any more, so I have to do so. Sadly, his Bill was caught by the ticking clock and we simply ran out of available Fridays to debate it. I was lucky in the draw, so I took up the measures in that Bill, but yet again we crashed into the parliamentary barriers and ran out of time. The Government have a role to play. I hope that, by bringing together all the parties concerned, we can examine the serious issue of the increasing cost of accessing essential life-saving health care.
I turn to antisocial behaviour and police community support officers. One of my local newspapers, the Grimsby Telegraph, recently ran a strong campaign on the respect agenda and tackling various antisocial behaviour issues in our towns. Sadly, north-east Lincolnshire did not become a respect action zone, which was a great disappointment to people in our area. However, on analysis, it was clear that many things on antisocial behaviour were not being done as well as they could be. I hope that, by taking on board some of the suggestions that were made, we can move forward and become a respect action zone in the next round. I will certainly support that move, and I hope to come up with some suggestions for the council—based on what colleagues in the House have told me is happening in their areas—that might speed up our application to become a respect action zone.
There is one small difficulty relating to police community support officers. I am not going to get into a debate today about numbers. However, our problem in Grimsby and Cleethorpes concerns recruitment: not enough people are coming forward to fill the places available. In the wider area, yes, we can get people to apply, but in the towns, where we want PCSOs to patrol, people are not coming forward. I hope that the Home Office—or whichever bit of the divided Home Office will be responsible—can consider providing extra assistance if an area is struggling to recruit people. Our problems may be because we were late in recruiting PCSOs. We are perhaps four years behind other parts of the country, because the previous chief constable did not want PCSOs. That time lag has created many difficulties. I have raised the issue with Ministers before, but we are trying to recruit at the moment. That serious issue must be addressed so that people can obtain some sort of relief from the hellish antisocial behaviour that can occur.
Cleethorpes winter gardens does not quite compare to the winter gardens in Blackpool, but it is still very special to Cleethorpes residents. It is the only venue of any particular size in the resort. Planning permission has been granted to demolish the winter gardens and build flats on the site. Yes, of course we need accommodation, but it must be affordable. High-rise executive flats on the sea front are not the type of home sought by most people in Cleethorpes. Some of the prices that I have seen are akin to London prices, but the average house price in Cleethorpes is well below them. I am not sure who would buy those properties.
The winter gardens is iconic to the residents of Cleethorpes, as the winter gardens in Blackpool is to its residents. After the planning permission, we had the sad sight of fences being put up around the winter gardens with “Construction Site” notices slapped on them. The guts have been ripped out of the winter gardens and sold off. However, we now hear that the sale of the winter gardens and land, to which the planning permission was linked, has fallen through. I do not know whether there is any way to save the winter gardens, but there have been marches through the town. I understand that independent candidates will even be put up at the elections on a “save the winter gardens” ticket.
Now that the sale has fallen through, perhaps the Department for Culture, Media and Sport can advise on what we can do next. We have tried to get the building listed, which might have helped, but apparently it had been altered a little too much to get a listing. However, there must be some way in which we can save the only real venue of any size in which entertainment can be put on in our seaside resort. The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) mentioned the report about the problems in seaside resorts, but we have just lost our only major venue and that will have a severe impact on the economy of the area and tourism in the resort. I hope that the matter can be taken up with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.
For those with vivid imaginations, my next subject may sound a little odd, but it is referred to locally as the problem of the grass on the beach. I am getting some quizzical looks from hon. Members, but I am not talking about the smokable type of grass. I mean the salt marsh growing on the beach. The Humber estuary has shallow areas and salt marsh has grown, causing concern in the tourist industry in the area that it will eat up the whole beach and kill off tourism in Cleethorpes as we know it. If one considers the detailed botany, biology and ecosystems involved, that is not likely to happen, but we are having some battles with various Government agencies as to how to resolve the problem.
The Humber estuary is a site of special scientific interest. Further south, the salt marsh areas are excellent for visiting birds. Donna Nook is one of the biggest seal colonies on the east coast of Britain. The area is certainly attractive, yet we must get the balance between that more natural part and the more traditional beach with its donkey rides and seaside. We need Ministers to broker some understanding between the two sides to see whether we can contain the growth of the salt marsh and maintain the nice sandy area of the resort that people love.
The final issue of concern to my residents is time dependent and concerns the Humberston fitties. Ironically the name “fitties” comes from a Lincolnshire word for salt marsh. The fitties lie behind the sand dunes and are a most wonderful chalet village. The chalets are painted white and the village is the jewel in the crown of the Lincolnshire coast. It is a conservation area. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton extolled the virtues of Devon, but I will extol the virtues of Lincolnshire. The scent of wild roses by the sand dunes on east-coast Britain is a delight in the summer months and certainly worth a visit.
The chalet development has its problems. The chalets are classified as holiday homes and there are serious problems with the leases. They all vary and have different conditions. We have had fights about ground rents. The residents are paying ground rent, 90 per cent. of council tax and a service charge, so they are paying more in local charges than many local residents, yet according to their leases they may sleep there overnight for only 10 months a year. These are people’s main homes, yet for two months there is a closed period. They may spend time in their home, for which they pay a mortgage, but may not sleep there overnight.
This year people have been peeping through windows to see whether residents are breaking the terms of their lease and, heaven forbid, sleeping in their own beds at night. Various residents will, unfortunately, be taken to court by the local authority. I feel that that reaction is too extreme. One resident who is being taken to court for having the temerity to stay overnight is terminally ill. The court case was due to be heard a few weeks ago, but has been adjourned until mid-April. I hope that something can be done to prevent the case from going ahead. Another person who stayed in their property during the so-called closed period passed away, so the council did not issue them with a summons. Another person has documentary proof that they were not anywhere near their chalet, but as a sensible resident they had lights on timer switches to make it look as though someone was in the chalet to deter burglars, so the council has issued a summons to take them to court. The summons is ludicrous. It was issued a couple of days before the new season started at the beginning of March and it is to evict the residents for the remainder of the closed period, which finished at the end of February.
It is ludicrous to call people to court in mid-April to evict them from their properties until the end of February. That is a complete waste of time, and it is an extreme reaction. I hope that the local authority will see sense and will stop taking terminally ill people, and people who were not in their home, to court. I hope that the authority will work with the residents of the Humberston fitties to sort out the terms and conditions of the leases and get them up to date. It could consider a shorter closed season. Nobody who lives in the fitties wants a 52-week-a-year residency, but if we could reduce the closed season to, say, two or three weeks a year, people could go away on holiday for those weeks. It is hard finding somewhere for two months. If we did that, we could avoid the silly situation that we seem to end up with every single year.
I thank the House for bearing with me while I raised issues of concern to residents in my constituency. Like other hon. Members, I wish everyone a wonderful Easter, including the staff of the House and all the teachers in our schools. I probably will not visit Devon this Easter, despite the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton extolling the virtues of her constituency. I tell the hon. Lady that despite my very Scottish name, my great-granny was born and brought up in Tiverton. I know the area well; in fact, last year I popped down to Tiverton on my way to seeing my mother, who lives in another part of Devon. I hope that the hon. Lady is able to reciprocate by visiting the wonderful east coast resorts of Britain, particularly the beautiful resort of Cleethorpes. I wish everybody a wonderful Easter.
May I start by extending my congratulations to the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) on his reappointment as Deputy Leader of the House? Earlier, my right hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) commented that it would be value for money, as the Deputy Leader of the House will not get an additional sum of money. The alternative view was summarised by the Leader of the House earlier today in business questions; he said that it was all being done for the pleasure of working for the Office of the Leader of the House of Commons.
It is a great pleasure to respond to the debate on behalf of the Opposition. There have been many excellent speeches, which have covered a broad range of subjects, both domestic and international. The Deputy Leader of the House will be aware that there remains considerable concern about the absence of proper answers to written and oral questions, and given that Members have given up a lot of time to be in the Chamber today, I hope that if there are specific issues that he is unable to deal with today, he will pass them on to the relevant Ministers so that proper answers can be obtained. By all accounts, and given all the praise that I have heard today, I can be confident that that will indeed happen.
We started off with a contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale), who rightly raised the absence of proper debate on the important issue of sexual orientation. The subject was recently dealt with in the House by means of a statutory instrument, rather than through primary legislation. As he rightly said, the issue was highly contentious, and there was enormous debate outside the House, but very little in it. I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will take those strongly expressed views on board.
My right hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire covered a number of local points. He started off by discussing dairy farmers and the fact that they receive 18p per litre, which means that most of them are losing some 4p per litre. It is hardly surprising, given that those are the sorts of figures involved, that last year some 350 dairy farmers stopped operating, and that the trend is continuing. He rightly raised the issue of single farm payments, which has caused great anguish to farmers. The situation has not been helped by the fact that Ministers have made two contradictory statements. First, it was said that there were fewer than 200 farmers who had not received either their full payment, or the balance of the payment due. However, in a statement in February, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs admitted that some 13,000 farmers were still awaiting payment. While an apology has been offered to the 200 farmers, it would go a long way if it were extended to the full 13,000 who are still suffering. It is ironic that the Minister responsible was promoted to the Foreign Office.
My right hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire said that farmers were the custodians of the countryside, which is a valid point that the farming community would like to be addressed more than is currently the case in the House. My right hon. Friend rightly said that farmers have been crippled by paperwork. It is a fair point that farmers are in the business of looking after their farms, rather than sitting behind desks filling in endless papers. He referred, too, to the peak district national park planning inquiry. I agree that when the issue is resolved a review should be carried out to assess whether or not the 10 years of legal fees and officers’ time was justified. He said that the local school was the heart of the village, and I very much hope that his efforts to keep that school and, indeed, his efforts to keep the Darley Dale maternity unit continue. He is quite right that it is all very well to receive the Prime Minister’s assurances when the reality is somewhat different.
My right hon. Friend’s speech was followed by a contribution from the right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz). In his typically ingenious way, he managed to bring in and promote Bhangra dancing, which will please his Sikh community. He raised, too, the tragic case of Rafiq Gorji and the death of his wife, Mrs. Ali. I am sure that Members present will share his concern at the lack of response from the Saudi authorities about obtaining the police report so that matters can progress. I noticed that the Leader of the House went to sit next to the right hon. Gentleman and I very much hope that as a former Foreign Secretary he can exert pressure to try to resolve the issue. In my own constituency, I am dealing with the case of Craig Alden, who is still trying to secure justice in Brazil. My efforts at dealing with the Foreign Office have not been particularly fruitful, so if there are any lessons that the right hon. Gentleman can give me, I would be happy to accept them.
The right hon. Gentleman complimented the Prime Minister on the Northern Ireland settlement, and I think it would be fair if the House acknowledged, too, the contribution by a previous Prime Minister, Sir John Major, in arriving at that settlement. That needs to be put on the record. The right hon. Gentleman rightly expressed concern about the Tamils in Sri Lanka, and the whole House will agree that it is right that we should try to engage in dialogue, and that can only happen if there is a ceasefire. He spoke about Britain taking a leading role, and while I agree, I am mindful of the comments by the Minister for Trade in the statement on Zimbabwe that it is important that Britain does not continue its colonial past. There is a balance to be struck—while Britain may offer assistance to former colonies, that should be done delicately and sensitively.
I am pleased that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) assured the House of the agricultural status of his constituency, and I am sure that his constituents will be pleased that that has been put on the record. He, too, referred to the plight of dairy farmers, and he said that some supermarkets have tried to address the issue of their not receiving enough money. My understanding is that at least three supermarkets have raised the price of the milk that they sell, with the intention that the increase will go directly to the farmers. It is important that that voluntary arrangement is properly monitored to ensure that the price increase goes to the farmers, and not to intermediaries or to the supermarkets.
It was interesting that my right hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire made a comment about Stilton cheese being made in his constituency. In my constituency, there is the village of Stilton, where every year on a Sunday we have a Stilton cheese rolling carnival. As for the connection between the village in my constituency and the cheese manufactured in West Derbyshire, I leave that for another day.
The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome spoke about bovine TB, which is indeed a matter of concern. I understand that for the past two years it has been increasing in many herds, and the problem certainly needs to be dealt with. The hon. Gentleman referred to the farming industry being overregulated. Most of us who have farming communities in our constituency would echo the sentiment that it is time for regulations to be reviewed, with the aim of lessening them.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the need for clear labelling. It is a scandal that products that are made overseas or animals that are reared overseas are brought into this country, processed, packaged and sold in British supermarkets and shops as British goods. That is largely a result of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968. It is high time that the Act was revisited, with a view to ensuring that the British public have properly labelled goods.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Angela Browning) began her contribution unashamedly with a plug for the tourist industry of Tiverton and Honiton. She said that Devon was at its most glorious now and commended it for all of us to visit during the recess. She made a passing reference to pensioners surfing, but given the activities that pensioners engage in now, I would not be surprised if a large number of them were thinking of taking that up.
My hon. Friend made the serious point about the lower than average wages in her constituency, compared with the high property prices and council tax. She focused particularly on the massive hike in water rates in her area, which she attributed to regulations emanating from Europe. I would add that it may have something to do with the tradition of gold-plating undertaken by our civil servants. It would be interesting to know how many other European Union countries are as diligent in enforcing regulations as we are.
My hon. Friend spoke of the unfairness for small businesses that are charged water rates with reference to the rateable value of properties, regardless of the number of people who may use the water in a particular business. I hope she has joy in dealing with the issue of taxation arising when the disposal of a flat and shop at the same time by one of her constituents was judged by the Revenue to be the disposal of one asset, rather than two, particularly when for all other matters—council tax and so on—they are treated as two assets. The Chancellor of the Exchequer recently took on board my party’s suggestion for a reduction in corporation tax, so I am hopeful that he will look favourably on the suggestion offered by my hon. Friend.
The contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) was typically robust, as in previous Adjournment debates. He commented that he was rather saddened by the fact that when he entered Parliament, he was the only Member whose birthday was on 26 March, but the number of Members who share that birthday has now reached double figures. He also lamented the fact that there are a lot more Davids in the House than when he entered Parliament. By way of consolation, he should take comfort in the uniqueness of his contribution to this House.
We were all delighted that my hon. Friend took part in yesterday’s inaugural Lions club dinner, where we were heartened by the robust contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton, who questioned whether there would be lionesses, too—I was pleased to learn that there will be lionesses, although they will not be called lionesses.
My hon. Friend also mentioned the more serious topic of Iraq, which concerns many in this House and around the country and which will continue to dominate discussion inside and outside this House.
I share my hon. Friend’s concerns about the regulations on fishing, and I wish him well in trying to get a review of quota management in his constituency.
My hon. Friend mentioned the elderly community in his constituency. In particular, he commented on the centenarians of Southend, who have been formally recognised by “The Guinness Book of Records” at a gathering of 23 of them. He made some welcome comments about making sure that we have effective and proper quality of life for an increasingly elderly population. The young community were not left out, however, because he followed that up by praising members of the Young Men’s Christian Association.
My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) is also a regular contributor to Adjournment debates. He discussed the balance of rights between badgers and humans and suggested that we need to strike a suitable balance for co-existence. He pointed out that he has managed to achieve that, because he has seven badgers in his garden.
It must be a big garden.
I would like to know whether my hon. Friend is sure that there are only seven. He went on to discuss more serious matters, such as the local referendum on planning permission for a plant which threatens the safety and security of schools, homes and the area generally. I, too, hope that when the inspector makes his decision, he will take note of the result of that referendum.
My hon. Friend expressed concern that the Environment Agency failed to activate flood defences to prevent flooding. He asked the Secretary of State to hold an inquiry into the matter, and I am sure that the Deputy Leader of the House will pass on those concerns.
My hon. Friend also discussed health. He rightly pointed out that it is important that the NHS concentrates some resources on preventive medicine rather than trying to deal with illnesses after they have occurred. Such an approach would clearly have a major impact on the NHS budget.
My hon. Friend concluded by referring to the European Union, a subject which has been debated for many hours in the House. The debate has been going on for a long time, and I am sure that it will continue. No doubt he will contribute to future debates.
My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. Jackson), whose constituency adjoins mine, discussed the new prison in his constituency, which has placed law and order at the forefront of local matters. He also considered the arguments of liberal academics who advocate fewer custodial sentences and made it clear that he favours stronger sentencing. He rightly pointed out the overcrowding in our prisons, and, like many hon. Members, he will welcome the fact that the Government have announced that two more prisons will be built. In my view, although that is welcome, we need those prisons now, and we must deal with the problem before those two prisons come into operation.
My hon. Friend touched on the balance between policing and crime, as well as the prevalence of drugs and mental illnesses among those who end up in prison. Of course, law and order is a massive, complex issue that has only been made more complicated by the changes that were proposed earlier today. The House awaits clarification on their full impact in the days and weeks ahead.
We concluded with a speech by the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac). I confess that when she said that she wished to comment on the speeches that had already been made, I was a little concerned that the Deputy Leader of the House and I would be left without much to say, but I was heartened when she quickly moved on to address issues in her constituency. She particularly mentioned the A180, with its noisy concrete surface. I wish her well with her endeavours in resolving that. She mentioned the heavy goods vehicles going through the town and port—she was keen to emphasise the word “port”—of Immingham and the campaign to get weight restrictions imposed. Again, I wish her well with that. She is clearly passionate about the level of tolls on the Humber bridge, which she has spoken about on several occasions, and I hope that that is dealt with satisfactorily. She mentioned the planning issues involving the Winter Gardens and said that there is some uncertainty as to whether the sale has fallen through. I hope that that, too, is satisfactorily resolved.
The hon. Lady concluded by saying that she wished to promote her tourism industry. On what better note could I conclude than to say that with the recess coming, perhaps hon. Members might consider taking a few days off and going to her constituency, or to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton.
I wish you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, all the staff in the House, and all right hon. and hon. Members a very happy and peaceful Easter.
It is a great privilege to be able to respond to this debate. I am delighted by the very generous—perhaps over-generous—comments that hon. Members have made and thank them for doing so.
There has been a lot of talk about birthdays. I was delighted to attend the 50th birthday party of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz)—a big bash. The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) had a significant birthday last week. I have some prescience and know that my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) has her birthday next week.
One of the things that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East talked about was about dancing. When I last did this job, I learned that one has to be quick on one’s feet. My hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes talked about recycling. I feel that I have been recycled into this job; after six years, perhaps I am a bit rusty.
We heard 10 speakers cover a wide range of subjects, including international issues such as Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka and Europe. We also heard about the smaller but important question of the quality of local cheeses. I am not going to get into that, nor will I get drawn into a discussion about whether one should have jugs of water or bottled water at a restaurant. With regard to the comments of the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Angela Browning), I am interested in what happens to all the plastic water bottles. One of the big issues in recycling is how we can make better use of those bottles. That is being considered by the Government agency, WRAP—the Waste and Resources Action Programme. The message must be that we should drink from the jug rather than buy the bottle.
I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton extolling the virtues of Devon. I know its countryside, and for a moment I wanted to walk out of the Chamber to see the banks of primroses.
I also know Donna Nook. For Members who have not been there, it is worth taking visitors in the early part of the year, when it is cold and ferocious, to see the newborn seals. The right hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) reminded us that he has a daughter, who is now an adolescent. Adolescent girls can be difficult but my adolescent girls enjoyed their trip to Donna Nook, which I highly recommend. I commend the British tourist industry and, like other hon. Members, I took part in last week’s event. Tourism is important to new investment and new jobs, especially in rural areas.
Rural communities were a strong theme throughout the debate. Hon. Members referred to agriculture, the environment—including the marine environment—and climate change. Noise pollution was also mentioned. I believe that that will become increasingly important, especially on concrete roads. That affects local residents and I believe that the local environment will increase in political significance in future.
The landfill tax was also mentioned. I am delighted that the Budget increased the landfill tax by £8 a tonne. It is important to divert waste from landfill and move towards recycling.
Let me deal with the specific comments that hon. Members made. I shall start with the right hon. Member for West Derbyshire, first, because of his significance in the Conservative party—he is one of the most powerful men in the Chamber—but secondly, because I know his constituency well and visit it often. I often use the A50 to get there. He is right to remind us of the position of dairy farmers, which the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) also mentioned. There is no doubt that dairy farmers face an extremely difficult position and that something needs to be done.
I look forward to the Competition Commission inquiry. Like the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, I am not holding my breath because I have been here before. It is the third Competition Commission inquiry into the power of supermarkets. The hon. Gentleman was slightly dismissive of the call for evidence from farmers and producers. It is vital that people rise to the challenge and give genuine evidence to the Commission of abuse that takes place.
There should be more honesty and transparency in the supply chain in the milk industry. There is hostility between the producers, the processors and the retailers. Although I examined the matter in some depth at one time, I never really sorted out the cash flows and where the profit came in. There is a supply chain working party and we need to try to get some answers to people.
I am pleased that the report of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on the Rural Payments Agency has been mentioned. I have read it—it is belligerent in tone and shows the difficulties of trying to make management changes while not being clear about policy. The report uses strong words. The new Secretary of State has been diligent in coming to the Chamber, apologising and ensuring that the House is kept up to date with developments. My noble Friend Lord Rooker holds regular surgeries—I have used them—which colleagues can attend to seek advice on individual cases. That is important because the payments for 2005 are not yet resolved. We are in the middle of the payment window for 2006, and 2007 is not far away. We must resolve the outstanding issues before we get into the third payment window. We need to do a great deal and there is a lot to learn from the report.
I know Longstone Edge, which the right hon. Member for West Derbyshire mentioned, the scar on the ridge and the history, which I shall not recount. However, I believe that it would be excellent if we could make arrangements with aggregates extractors not to work in national parks. I do not think that we shall achieve that, but I look forward to the result of the planning inquiry. I noticed that the right hon. Gentleman was present at the public inquiry, looking extremely smart in his country clothes. My noble Friend Lord Hattersley appeared in casual wear, and I know who had the most effect.
Stoney Middleton school is important. The rate of small village school closures has declined dramatically over recent years. Consultation exercises need to take into account the social value of educational establishments, and such considerations should also apply in the campaign for the Darley Dale maternity unit. A consultation is taking place on that at the moment. There is a debate about choice in the health service, and the Government need to be clear that if we offer choice, there will, almost by definition, be increased costs. One of the issues relating to the Darley Dale maternity unit involves costs, but there are also clinical issues involved. The unit is highly regarded, but it is also relatively small, and that needs to be taken into account in the consultation.
I liked the point that the right hon. Gentleman made about the management of primary care trusts and, indeed, of the NHS. I sometimes feel that the non-executive board members of some of those organisations tend to be out of touch with local people. I suspect that that issue will be raised again in the House, and it is one that we should examine.
I would like a debate on agriculture, as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome suggested. It would give us the chance to talk about common agricultural policy reform, in which a lot has been achieved, but more needs to be done. It would also give us an opportunity to celebrate the fact that, today, at last, the English rural development programme has been announced, and that £3.9 billion has been allocated for the period from 2007 to 2013, which is double the amount for the last payment period.
We need to make decisions about the contentious issue of bovine tuberculosis, but that is not easy. In the long term, we all aspire to a solution involving vaccination, but for as long as I have been in the House, vaccination has always been 10 years away and it never seems to get any closer. One of the puzzling things is that the incidence of TB has declined, but now appears to be rising again slightly. We need to look closely at the science. There is a case for culling, but there is also an argument that culling migrates the problem. This is not an easy issue, but the hon. Gentleman is telling us to make our minds up, and he makes a strong point, of which the Secretary of State is well aware.
Biofuels offer opportunities in the countryside, and the hon. Gentleman made a case for joined-up thinking between all the Departments involved, including the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Department for Transport and the Treasury. I am conscious that we have not always done that as satisfactorily as we might have done.
The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton spoke, as all MPs from the south-west do, about water and sewerage charges. I was with representatives of South West Water earlier this week, and I know that the charges are a hot issue in the south-west. Having such a long coastline means that it is not easy to clean up areas of sewage pollution. There are also real issues of affordability in the south-west, where water bills are relatively high compared with those in other parts of the country. As the hon. Lady knows, South West Water has a trust fund for cases where there are difficulties, and it is also involved in an affordability project. We need to come forward with some proposals on that fairly quickly.
It is important to listen to consumers’ voices on water charges, and that is happening increasingly often. One of the questions that I have heard involves marginal increases in water quality: is it worth paying for that little bit extra? There is a real debate to be had in the water industry on that issue. There is also a debate to be had and completed on unadopted sewers. I have argued for many years for the adoption of unadopted sewers. The Government have finally announced that they will do it, but there will be a further period of consultation in which the issue of increased cost, which the hon. Lady rightly raises, will be discussed yet again.
I was also interested in the hon. Lady’s important point in relation to water costs and business premises, and I shall draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister for Climate Change and the Environment to that. The case of Mr. E also deserves attention. I do not want to say too much about it because, as she rightly said, it might become a test case, and might come before the courts. If I can help in any way, however, I would be delighted to try to do so.
The hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) rehearsed the arguments that he was going to make at the public inquiry, which, I thought, were compelling. He knew what he wanted to tell the inspector. Clearly, local people also knew what they were going to tell the inspector. I am delighted that, as he puts it, they will fight tooth and nail at the public inquiry.
The hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of what planning guidelines will be taken into account by the public inquiry, and I am delighted that my Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning is in the Chamber to hear that point. As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, planning guidance will change in future to allow quicker processing of big infrastructure projects. He and his constituents need to know, when they go to the public inquiry, on what set of rules they are fighting. I will make sure that he receives a reply on that. He also referred to the recent inappropriate use of flood barriers. He deserves a proper reply, and I will make sure that he receives one.
The hon. Gentleman made an important point about the NHS, and I am pleased that he recognised the extra £8 billion going into the NHS next year. He is right that we must move away from investment in acute services towards investment in preventive services. To try to achieve that, a big change programme, and an education programme, need to take place in the NHS.
It is a long time since I have replied to the hon. Member for Southend, West in one of these debates. I was sorry that he did not mention the Palace theatre in Southend, which has been a running issue for many years. I hope that that matter is now resolved.
I also hope that progress can be made on the issue of east coast fishing. Looking to the future, how we control, conserve and pursue economic activities in the marine environment will become increasingly important. The House will debate the marine environment on the Thursday after it returns from recess, and a White Paper on the marine environment is out. The Government have a manifesto commitment to bring forward proposals to manage better the marine environment. Therefore the hon. Gentleman is on a winning wicket. I shall make sure that he gets an appropriate reply to the points that he raised.
I was also pleased that the hon. Gentleman mentioned buses. The Department for Transport is consulting on how local authorities can work more closely with bus companies on a more strategic overview of routes. At present, basically, bus routes are planned through market forces, which does not make sense for local consumers, especially vulnerable elderly people. I am pleased that the Department for Transport is consulting on the matter, and it has been indicated that there will be legislation when—as they say—parliamentary time allows.
The hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) did the House a great service by raising the issue of the sexual orientation regulations. As he put it, there are strong, deeply and honourably held opinions on the matter. He will know, as he has been in the House for many years, that there are different views on different sides of the argument. As the hon. Gentleman said, it has proved difficult to reconcile those views. However, I accept his point that outside the House there was a feeling that we did not deal with the process, which he described properly and in some detail, as well as we might have. In the Government’s defence, I have to say that there were discussions between the usual channels, but I accept that many hon. Members, myself included, have strong views on the subject and missed the opportunity to vote on it because the vote was early. We did ourselves a disservice by not handling the matter better.
I think that I am the only hon. Member in the Chamber who has been involved in the actual adoption process. Adoption is vital. It is important that we remember the law—that the needs of the child are paramount. We lost sight of that in the discussion, although I know that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is determined to ensure that faith-based adoption agencies survive into the future. It will not be easy, but I know the valuable work that they do and the difference that they have made to many children’s lives. It would be criminal to see them go out of business.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East used his tremendous expertise at the Foreign Office to raise the case of Mr. Gorji and his wife Mrs. Ali. He has been pursuing that vigorously and I have heard him raise it on several occasions in the Chamber. I assure him that he will get maximum help from the British embassy in Saudi Arabia. There is already a recognition from the Saudi Government that there need to be new and better regulations on drivers. My hon. Friend the Minister for the Middle East will pursue vigorously the point that my right hon. Friend raised about releasing the accident and police report.
My right hon. Friend also mentioned Sri Lanka, where the situation is extremely difficult. He will be pleased to know that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met the Sri Lankan Foreign Minister on 7 March and talked about the importance of establishing a peace process. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East keeps a close watch on such matters, he will know the significance of the role of the Norwegian Government in that regard. It may well be that that is the best avenue for making progress.
I thank my hon. Friend for his words. Does he agree that the position should be that the killing of innocent Tamil people needs to stop and it needs to stop now? That is the key to getting a dialogue going. Violence is not going to achieve that.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has made that clear.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East also talked about the reorganisation of the criminal justice system. He is a distinguished member of the Select Committee on Constitutional Affairs. I shall ensure that those issues are pursued and that he gets replies to them.
The hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Jackson) spoke about the importance of the justice system. I have visited Peterborough prison over the years—I know it well. [Laughter.] In a former life, I used to spend a lot of time in prison, but I had the keys, so it was okay. He is right to say that prisons are an important part of the spectrum of managing crime. He went on to talk about the importance of having a sufficient number of prison places. There have been 19,700 new prison places since 1997, and a further 8,000 are planned by 2012.
The hon. Gentleman was also right to talk about the importance of police on the streets. Again, police numbers are at a record level. There are an extra 14,000 police under this Government, backed by new police community support officers, and that figure will grow to 16,000 this year.
I will pursue the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes about recruitment difficulties. She also made important points about antisocial behaviour and the need for neighbourhood policing.
The right hon. Member for West Derbyshire mentioned police financing as well. As what he said concerned the east midlands and affects my constituents and me, I will pursue it vigorously. He was right to point out that the five police authorities in the east midlands are not receiving their quota under the present formula. He and I, and others, have already pursued that vigorously with the Minister for Policing, Security and Community Safety, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty). My hon. Friend has agreed to visit the east midlands special operations unit, where we have both been fairly recently. That will provide an ideal opportunity not only to press for funds for the unit—£8 million of Home Office grant may well disappear next year—but to press the wider issue of fairness of funding that the right hon. Gentleman raised.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes emphasised the importance of seaside towns. The Government have an excellent record for large-scale regeneration projects. All over the United Kingdom, cranes can be observed and the work can be seen taking place. Where we have not been so successful, and need to be more sophisticated, is in areas with relatively small pockets of deprivation. The Select Committee has produced a report, and the Government will respond in due course—I hope favourably, because seaside towns need an adequate infrastructure.
My hon. Friend also talked about fireworks legislation. We have made progress, but the matter must be kept under review, and I am keen to do that.
Winding up the debate for the Conservatives, the hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Mr. Vara) spoke of concern in the House about oral questions. The Leader of the House is pursuing that issue, and the issue of written questions, extremely vigorously. I will ensure that we try to improve in that respect, and I also undertake to write to all Members to whom I have not responded today.
Two strong themes emerged from the debate. Both the hon. Member for Peterborough and the hon. Member for Southend, West spoke of the importance of community and voluntary groups. They are vital in providing care services and a range of help throughout all our constituencies, and we cannot thank them enough. A number of Members mentioned campaign groups, in Canvey Island, in West Derbyshire and in Cleethorpes. One of the things we must do as a Parliament is connect their activities, their legitimate concerns and their voices. We must ensure that their voices are heard and responded to in this place. Unless Parliament can have greater connection with the public, we are on a slippery slope.
A number of Members also said, “Let us all have a good holiday”. I hope you have a good holiday, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I hope the staff have a good holiday. I remind my hon. Friends in particular that five weeks from today will be 3 May, the day of important elections in Scotland, Wales and local councils. I hope that Opposition Members will have a peaceful and relaxing time, and I hope my colleagues are diligent, hard working and successful in their efforts.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
petition
Armed Forces (Postage)
I wish to present a massive petition with well over 6,000 signatures, superbly organised by David Cain, a redoubtable campaigner, and compiled with the help of many excellent people including Mr. Moir, Steve Lant, landlord of the Haystack pub on Canvey Island, John at the fast-rejuvenating Canvey Island football club, and Jim Neven of Canvey Island Royal British Legion.
It is at times like this—times of celebration and reflection like Christmas and Easter—when we most miss our loved ones who are serving our country in the armed services abroad so valiantly and professionally, and when we most want to communicate with them. I am honoured and delighted to present this petition, which states:
To the House of Commons
The Petition of David Cain, residents of Essex, Dorset and others, declares
That the cost of sending parcels and letters to members of HM Armed Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan is inequitable in relation to the nature of their work and to the commitment they have made to serve their country.
Therefore, your Petitioners implore the Government to adopt a policy of free postage to members of HM Armed Forces for families and friends in the UK in recognition of the contribution made by these brave men.
And the petitioners remain etc.
To lie upon the Table.
Housing (Northampton)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Shaw]
I am pleased to have this Adjournment debate and while I am conscious that I could go on for an hour and a quarter, that might not encourage you to call me again, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I will make sure that my remarks are to the point.
Most people in Northampton, as in other parts of the country, own their own home and have done very well, in no small part owing to low mortgage rates resulting from the Government’s economic stewardship. Northampton is a growing town, so we have a lot of new housing, some of it to very high standards because of the development of new design standards. For those people, housing is not a problem but an economic asset.
However, there is also a group in my constituency for whom things have got quite considerably worse; the people who are dependent on social housing, particularly in certain parts of the constituency where the housing is deteriorating and there is pressure on that housing. We tend to see a widening gap between people doing quite well and those for whom things are very difficult. It gives me real concern that for some, during my time as an MP, things have not improved and different pressures have arisen. I want some assurances as to how things might progress for them.
I know that my hon. Friend the Minister will say that most of these matters are down to the local authority, and I would agree, but she and the Department know that there are particular difficulties in Northampton in terms of the borough council. It is hard to stand by and watch my constituents being left in a worse position because they have a bad council.
I want to focus on some particular housing problems, such as the actual number of people who are homeless. We often think of homeless people as rough sleepers, but there are a lot of hidden homeless who are doubling up in the houses of parents, aunts and uncles or friends. Some are sleeping on sofas or in crowded conditions and some are moving from place to place. Those pressures still exist in my constituency.
In addition, instead of being helped into council housing or other social housing, those people are being pushed into private sector rented accommodation. This has produced some real difficulties, with people finding it impossible to get back on to the housing ladder.
The best way to illustrate the point is with a story about a teenage couple with a charming little girl; I will not mention their names. The mother was vulnerable for a number of reasons—it is not appropriate to go into those here—and they needed extra support. They were living with his parents. His mother was being very supportive and helpful to them. It was she who brought them to me to see whether we could sort something out for their accommodation.
I have no doubt that, in previous times, that couple would have been put into council accommodation. They may have spent some time in temporary accommodation, but they certainly would have been straight into the council system given their circumstances: she had been involved in the care system; they were teenagers; they had a young child; they were very committed to looking after the child; and determined to make a go of things in quite difficult circumstances. They were, however, directed into private sector rented housing and refused access to council accommodation.
The next time we heard from the family, they had to move because they had only a six-month tenancy. Therefore, they were forced to move. The mother was expecting another baby. They managed to do the next move but then things got very difficult. As often happens, because rents are high, they got into arrears. Then real disaster struck. With all the rushing around that he was having to do, the boy lost his job. He had been working to support the family. They had been doing a really good job of holding things together and then he lost his job.
It seems that, because of their record of rent arrears, it is unlikely that the couple would be accepted for council housing. In any ordinary circumstances, they should have been supported by the council and put into social housing. With just a little support, and because they were so committed and they had the support of his parents, they would have probably established and maintained a successful family unit and would have looked forward to a good-quality, happy life. Instead, they are faced with a series of extra problems to cope with, when they already face challenges.
We have been through the subject before, but the couple were directed down the road of private sector housing before a full assessment was done, or else the assessment must have missed a few points. To me, that seems to be wrong. For a number of people, private sector rented accommodation is not a good idea because they cannot afford the rent, or they cannot afford the top-ups of the rent if the landlord is charging above what is covered by housing benefit. For a lot of people, the insecurity of six-month tenancies, with the reality, not just the prospect, of moves each six months, is inappropriate.
Another issue is about the use of bed and breakfast. I know that the number of families with children in bed and breakfast has gone down since the Government said that it should be used for six weeks only and then only in case of emergency. However, it still seems from the cases that I see in my advice surgeries that the prospect of being put into bed and breakfast effectively acts as a deterrent for people who would otherwise properly claim support with housing and then be placed into council housing. I would like my hon. Friend the Minister to say whether it is right that, once someone has given a notice to quit, which then gives 28 days for the assessment to be done, that should be regarded as an emergency. It seems to me that, if someone has given a notice to quit and they know that there will be 28 days for the assessment, that should not be regarded as an emergency.
Housing repairs is a real problem in my constituency. That is something else that I am concerned about in terms of certain areas in my constituency. As always, nice private housing goes up and people move into that as they can. Because there is a buoyant economy, people have jobs and can by and large move, but there is a residue of deteriorating public sector housing that continues to decline in quality. I am concerned that, if nothing is done to deal with some substantial problems of disrepair, a few years down the line, the gap will have widened between people who have very nice private sector housing and people who are stuck in housing that is going down in value.
When the original stock survey for Northampton was done, it was said that the council could achieve the decent homes standard for all housing within existing resources, and therefore it did not go for stock transfer or the other options. However, it was also recognised—finally—that the housing on the east side of town, or in the eastern district as it is called and which is in my constituency, was deteriorating. The standard of housing there was declining as other housing was improving, and it was acknowledged that the two paths would soon cross and that there would be a problem.
That deterioration has continued apace, and I have to deal with some serious problems to do with disrepair, in particular damp. That is often attributed to condensation, although some of it does not look like condensation to me. Condensation is normally accompanied by certain types of mould growth and certain quantities of water, and some of what I see appears to be worse than that, although I am not an expert. A young woman explained to me that she was told that her ground-floor flat had condensation and that she should leave her windows open, and she said that she wondered who in their right mind would leave the windows open of a ground-floor flat on an estate such as hers, which has a high crime level, so all the contents of the flat could rapidly disappear as a result of burglaries.
Some properties do not have central heating. In some instances, that is simply unacceptable. A man who lives in a disability bungalow came to me. He had a couple of storage heaters and he had been given a couple of electric heaters. Not only are they expensive to keep running, but in such domestic circumstances people with a disability, who need a constant and reasonable level of heat, cannot use parts of their home at certain times because they are not warm enough. Does the decent homes standard include the requirement to have central heating? What type of heating are people supposed to have? Also, what will happen in respect of the decent homes standard in future—I ask that especially in the context of the deteriorating housing that I have mentioned?
Adaptations for disabilities is an issue. There is a general problem to do with the disabled facilities grant and the amount of money in it. I am concerned as a number of my constituents who are disabled—or, more importantly and more frequently, who have children who are disabled—have real difficulties in using their accommodation. I was called to see a family with a boy who was almost trapped on the ground floor in his wheelchair because they could not have a stairlift and he had become too big to carry up the stairs, and also the design of the property was quite awkward. He had not had a bath for quite some time, because they had no way of getting him up the stairs. What is regarded as being acceptable in terms of disabled children and their accommodation?
Let me give another example. A woman lives with her partner and two children. One of them is a boy aged 4 who is thought to have attention deficit hyperactivity disorder—he is being assessed. There is also a little girl of one and a half years of age who cannot walk and faces major surgery to her legs and feet. During the time of the recovery, she will need major splints—a frame around her legs—to help with the treatment. They are living in a second-floor flat with no lift. The family find it hard now to get her up two flights of stairs, but that will become very difficult after she has had her surgery and she is in her recovery time. The children’s bedroom has a very old gas heater, and because of the boy’s behavioural difficulties, the parents feel that it is not safe for him to use; I am not surprised at that. They put the wardrobe in front of it so that he cannot get at it, but of course, that means that the room has no heating at all. There is also a hole in the outer wall, which they asked to be filled in.
On considering the information in the application, the medical panel assessed that
“the current accommodation is reasonable on medical grounds”,
so no award of medical points was made. I find that very surprising. What is the guidance on providing accommodation for families with children with disabilities? Getting such children up and down stairs is hard enough, but it is even harder when equipment also needs be carried up and down. The type of accommodation provided for children with behavioural difficulties is also a real issue. If a child is fidgety and fiddling because of ADHD, should they be placed somewhere where there is a gas heater, particularly the older type, which as we know presents problems?
In addition to the disrepair of such properties, there is the wider issue of estate management. If a housing estate is not generally managed well, it becomes a haven for antisocial behaviour. That can, and has, made life very difficult for some of my constituents. The safer community teams have played a really important role, providing a fresh impetus for some of these difficult estates. However, it is quite wrong, as has sometimes happened, to expect the police to deal with problems that housing management should resolve. It is a waste of the police’s function to do work that should be done by housing management. I shall bring one such case to my hon. Friend’s attention a little later.
A fourth issue is overcrowding. I pay tribute to the way in which my hon. Friend has dealt with this issue on the Government’s behalf—I know that standards on overcrowding are due to be published shortly—but I should point out that it is a very real problem not just in the big cities, but in middle England constituencies such as mine. Let me give an example from my constituency. A man, his wife and five children are living in a single bedsit in a hostel that is supposed to be for homeless single people. He was a homeless single person when he came to this country as a refugee, but now that his wife and children are also here, they really need something a bit bigger.
Let me read a letter that I received today—I promise that it is not a plant—that is perhaps a much better example of the typical cases of overcrowding that I hear about. I shall take out some of the detail, so that hopefully, the woman in question cannot be identified:
“My partner and I have four children and I am pregnant with my fifth and we live in a small two-bedroom house and it is very stressful because we don’t have a lot of room. The three older children sleep on just a mattress on the floor in what people would call a box room. They can’t even have wardrobes or toys because there is no room.”
What she wants is a bigger property
“where we can live as a family which will be good because me and my kids have been through enough due to the violent and aggressive relationship that we suffered with the older children’s dad. My kids mean a lot to me and it means a lot to me that they are happy.”
That is the general sentiment of most of my constituents and it is not an unreasonable aspiration. It is important that women who suffer domestic violence can move on and try to establish a stable family unit, in my constituent’s case with a partner who is playing a positive role in her life and the lives of her children. They need a decent start in life.
Another example also concerns the problems related to disability. A woman was living with her husband and their five children, three of whom have special needs, including physical disabilities, in a three-bedroom house. That is a reasonable size, but given the children’s difficulties it was hard. On top of that they were being bullied by other children on the estate. Because of the children’s disabilities, they were targeted and harassed. That raises two issues, one about the standard of accommodation and another about how to manage harassment and bullying when it comes to housing provision. I hope that my hon. Friend can say something about when the standards for overcrowding will come out. What cognisance will be given to children with special needs and disabilities?
As Northampton grows, the existing properties need to be improved along with the new build, because it will not help community cohesion if some people move into nice new properties while others see their personal circumstances, living standards and neighbourhoods deteriorate. If a town is to grow and be successful, everybody needs to share in the good fortune of its growth and development.
In all the discussion about “Every Child Matters”, attention was paid to many issues, but there was no focus on housing, which has always been a slight problem. Unless the problems that I have identified are resolved, we will not be able to deal with some of the issues of vulnerability and social exclusion. Those under particular housing pressure are disabled people, young parents, single parents, victims of domestic violence and children, especially disabled children. For the most part, those are the very people whom social housing was designed to support. I expect that my hon. Friend the Minister will say that it is the local authority’s responsibility, and I accept that, but it is important that pressure is put on the local authority and steps are taken to ensure that my constituents get better housing services. They need to see the prospect of improvements in their lives and a constructive future for their families.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) on securing this debate and choosing to raise a series of issues that are hugely important to families in her constituency. She told the House some heart-rending tales of the experiences of families in her constituency and she is right that poor housing, in different forms, can have a devastating impact on family life and on people’s chances in life. I wish to try to address some of the points that my hon. Friend has made and to refer to some of the national issues, as well as the local issues that she raised.
We are clear that we face housing pressures across the country as a result of not having built—over a 30-year period—enough homes to meet rising demand, with the growing number of single households and people living longer. We are clear, too, that if we are to address the pressures of affordability for the next generation, we need to ensure that we build more market housing, shared ownership housing and social housing. That means that we need to address pressures around social housing in my hon. Friend’s constituency and across the region. When there is demand for social housing, it is even more important that the social housing in place is well and sensitively managed, including issues of allocation and quality. For those reasons, the cases that my hon. Friend raised are of concern.
My hon. Friend will be aware that we have set standards for decent homes. There was a shocking £19 billion backlog of repairs and maintenance in 1997. Every council and social housing tenant has a right to live in a decent home. We have given local authorities an additional 30 per cent. in real terms funding per home compared with 1997 to invest in improvements and refurbishment to council housing. We urge them to ensure that it is well used to improve housing standards. Some local authorities need additional resources, given the backlog of repairs that they face. That is why we have made available additional resources through arm’s length management organisations and stock transfers.
My hon. Friend and I have met people from her local council at her instigation to urge them to look at the deteriorating stock that she identified and what more needed to be done to meet the decent homes target. It is important that councils take account of areas where the age of homes means that they may be able to anticipate the need for further work over the next few years and ensure that that is properly taken account of as part of the decent homes programme.
Given my hon. Friend’s concerns about the continuing deterioration of the stock in a particular area of her constituency, I will ask the Government Office to review the position for her area against the decent homes programme and to look into heating issues. It is certainly part of the decent homes standard that they should be heated to a proper modern standard. Local authorities need to make sure that they have appropriate heating systems in place.
My hon. Friend spoke about overcrowding. She has campaigned on this issue over many years and has been responsible for raising it up the political agenda and ensuring that it is addressed. The standards have not changed for 70 years and they need to be updated. We have consulted on a new approach but, as she will be aware, it is not enough simply to change the standards; we need a programme to address overcrowding. That is why we are looking not simply at standards, but at how to combine that with the appropriate work to prevent overcrowding through building larger family homes and better management of our stock to ensure that we can better address the needs of large families.
My hon. Friend asked about homelessness. It is important that housing authorities have a sensitive approach to the particular needs of families who are becoming homeless. It may be that all kinds of measures can be taken to prevent them from becoming homeless in the first place and to support them. Councils should take into account the vulnerability of different families and their particular needs. They should carry out proper assessments to ensure that people get the right kind of support.
My hon. Friend raised issues concerning families with disabilities and children with behavioural difficulties. There is a wider issue here around children in poor housing that we need to look at further, particularly around children with disabilities and the links between housing and child poverty. It is interesting that the Fabian Society’s recent report on life chances, which looked into the issue of life chances and child poverty, did not consider housing very much. There is a tendency for people to think about child poverty simply in terms of the income that a family receives, but the quality of the housing that people live in, and that children grow up in, can be critical to their future.
The decent homes programme has already lifted 1.4 million children out of bad housing since 1997. We have made substantial progress in improving the quality of housing for many children across the country, but there are issues, particularly to do with overcrowding, that my hon. Friend is right to highlight, and we need to do more on some families’ special needs. She raised a series of other questions, too. She pointed to the fact that many of the issues are matters for the local council. We need to do more in a series of areas at national level if we are to continue the progress that we have made, both through the decent homes programme, and through the recent increases in the amount of social housing built. However, there are clearly responsibilities at local level, too.
We recognise that Northampton borough council’s housing service has considerable room for improvement, and the Audit Commission’s progress report, published earlier this year, indicated that its housing service was poor. Programmes of work are under way to try to improve the service in different areas, but we want those improvements to be sustained. There is considerably more work to do in a series of areas, and Northampton borough council needs to do more to improve its housing services in the interests of local tenants and local people across the board. We have asked officials at the Government office for the east midlands to work closely with Northampton borough council to improve its housing services before the next Audit Commission inspection, which is planned for this autumn. I will raise the concerns that my hon. Friend has mentioned this afternoon with officials, so that they are included in that improvement process. May I again thank my hon. Friend for raising such important issues, and wish her and the House a happy Easter?
Before we rise, perhaps I might in turn wish right hon. and hon. Members—those who are here, and those who are not here—and members of staff across the House, who support us so well, a happy Easter.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes to Six o’clock.