The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman): First, I welcome the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) and her new team to the Front Bench. I enjoyed cordial relations with her predecessors in the short time we were opposite each other and I hope that cordiality will continue.
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has been working closely with Natural England on substantial reforms to transform it into a leaner, more efficient front-line delivery body that is focused strongly on the Government's ambitions for the environment.
Julian Smith: I thank the Secretary of State for that response. Will she give a little more detail regarding the impact of the comprehensive spending review on the two stewardship schemes that are run by Natural England and how she sees that impact progressing in coming years?
Mrs Spelman: I am delighted to tell my hon. Friend that as a result of the comprehensive spending review, both types of stewardship scheme will be maintained. There will be new entrants to both the entry-level and the higher-level stewardship schemes. We have ambitions to increase by about 80% the number of farmers in the higher-level stewardship scheme and to increase qualitatively the environmental benefits provided under the entry-level scheme.
Sir Peter Soulsby (Leicester South) (Lab):
Natural England is the nation's principle conservation agency and our champion of biodiversity. In the name of reform, the Government are leaving it with no choice but to hand over 140 national nature reserves to anyone who will take them on, to put our network of national trails up for grabs and to cut back on the expert support that is vital to delivering the environmental stewardship
schemes. We are talking about the nation's front line in protecting our environment. The Government claim to be the greenest ever, but is not the reality that the Secretary of State is prepared to sacrifice Natural England and our precious environment in a bid to win friends and credit at the Treasury?
Mrs Spelman: I should like to countermand those suggestions. Natural England, in common with all the arm's-length bodies in the DEFRA delivery network, is taking a pro rata reduction. It is required to make efficiency savings in the same way as the core Department has to. None the less, there will be no changes in Natural England's statutory functions. It will cease to undertake some activities, such as lobbying and policy making, which should rightly be the domain of the Department at the centre. Consideration is being given to options for improving the management of our national nature reserves because that is consistent with a big society approach.
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman): Tackling biodiversity loss is one of my Department's top priorities. I have just returned from international negotiations in Nagoya where the UK played a pivotal role in securing agreement on the ambitious new framework to halt biodiversity loss. The challenge now is to implement this domestically. In the spring, I intend to publish a White Paper outlining the Government's vision for the natural environment, backed up with practical action to deliver that ambition.
Annette Brooke: I thank the Secretary of State for her answer. Given the Government's intention to sell off a substantial part of the forest estate, what measures will be in place to ensure the biodiversity potential of this land and to ensure that the commitments in the Forestry Commission's forest design plans will be fully implemented?
Mrs Spelman: I can give the hon. Lady clear assurances on this point, but we need to start with a little myth-busting on the back of press speculation. Only 18% of forests and woodland in England are owned by the state and it is wrong to confuse ownership with any suggestion of a reduction in biodiversity. It is quite right, and in the spirit of the coalition agreement, to consider giving the community who live nearest to the forest the opportunity to own it, as that community and civil society are most likely to give it the best protection. Finally, I should like to reassure her by clarifying that not one tree can be felled without a licence being issued by my Department. In the last analysis, we are committed to forest biodiversity and to enhancing biodiversity. Our forests are among the richest of our genetic resources and we have every intention of protecting them.
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab):
May I begin by thanking the Secretary of State for welcoming me to my new role and for the briefing that she gave me on Nagoya? I am sure that the whole House will join me in
welcoming the new fund that the Government have pledged in order to deliver international biodiversity benefits through international forestry.
On Government plans to maintain biodiversity at home, however, we have seen a series of deeply worrying moves from the right hon. Lady over the past three months. The Government plan to sell off or simply give away 140 national nature reserves; our national parks, which a Labour Government began in 1949, will suffer a catastrophic 30% cut to their budgets, leaving park workers unemployed, our national trails abandoned and precious habitats neglected; and her Department has announced a review of England's forests, seeing them sold to the highest bidder-asset stripping our natural heritage. Is it not the case that she preaches environmental evangelism around the world and practices environmental vandalism at home?
Mrs Spelman: That is a disappointing opener from the hon. Lady. She appears not to understand that her own party when in government would have had to make cuts, and there will be no credibility to her accusations unless she tells the House where she would have made savings. In any event, however, there is no suggestion that we are poised to sell off nature reserves. Can she not see that it is not necessarily for the state to do everything? The Wildlife Trusts welcome the opportunity to be more involved in the management of our nature reserves.
Mrs Spelman: The hon. Lady shakes her head, but I suggest that she ask them. As for selling off the forests, she just heard my explanation that it is wrong to confuse ownership with the quality of environmental protection, and I believe that the communities and charities that would like to be more involved in protecting and enhancing our forest biodiversity welcome our suggestions.
Mary Creagh: The truth is that the Government have reserved their most vicious spending cut for a 30% cut in environmental spending. We know that in the spending review, the right hon. Lady caved in early to the Chancellor's pressure, and that she gave away too much too quickly. Why did she sell out the country's environment to the Chancellor?
Mrs Spelman: The hon. Lady shakes her head, but her Government were committed to a 50% reduction in capital. Perhaps she would like to identify in the Department's budget what she would have done. What I can tell the House is that, going into those negotiations with the Treasury, we took a strategic approach, because it was important for us to protect as much of the capital as possible. Her party, had it been in government, would have cut the capital budget by 50%, but we succeeded in reducing that to a 34% reduction, meaning that the bulk of our flood defence capital has been protected.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice): There is an ongoing programme of sales run by the Forestry Commission, year on year, to achieve operational efficiency. In the 2009-10 accounts, the public forest estate in England was valued at £700 million. That is the net book value; it does not necessarily reflect the true market value. I intend to consult on proposals for new ownership options for the public forest estate in England, and on how to secure the important public benefits that they provide.
Kerry McCarthy: I think that for once, given the answers that we have heard today, The Daily Telegraph might be right, because it says that the Government cannot see the forest for the fees. However, can the Minister give a categorical assurance that, contrary to other press reports, if Government-owned forest is sold off, it will not be sold off to developers to be turned into things such as Center Parcs and golf courses?
Mr Paice: I am delighted to have the opportunity to debunk that absurd notion. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, before trees can be felled, one requires a felling licence from the Forestry Commission. The Forestry Commission will continue to have that role, even through those disposals, if that is what happens; and, of course, planning consent would be required to undertake any of those things, such as golf courses or Center Parcs. We have no intention of seeing our forest damaged; we want to maintain the public benefits that we already have.
Caroline Lucas: Will the Minister make a commitment that all land transferred from the Forestry Commission's control will be covered by legally binding commitments on new owners to maintain current policies for environmentally and socially beneficial use, especially those on the restoration of planted ancient woodland and on public access? Can he also put on the record what will happen to the funds raised from the proposed new programme to sell off those woodlands?
Mr Paice: There would be no point in having a consultation if I were to announce the results of it now, so I am not going to do so. However, I can tell the hon. Lady, as my right hon. Friend has said and I have just said, that we have absolutely no intention of allowing any public benefit of our woodland, be it access, biodiversity or carbon storage, to be damaged by whatever action we take on public ownership.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con):
Is the Minister aware of the Forestry Commission's involvement in a pilot flood protection project to protect Pickering from future floods by planting a great number of trees to soak up the excess water and prevent it from
entering Pickering? Will he give me an assurance today that that project will not be at risk from any future cutbacks and that the Government will continue with their tree planting programme?
Mr Paice: It is worth making the point to my hon. Friend that under the previous Government the amount of trees and new woodland planted in this country fell dramatically. The Opposition, as they now are, need to account for that. My hon. Friend is absolutely right; trees have a vital role in flood prevention and alleviation, and although I do not know the detail of the scheme to which she refers, I have no doubt that it will continue in some guise.
Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD): ConFor, the Confederation of Forest Industries, represents sawmills and other processing businesses, and it values the supply of timber that it receives from the Forestry Commission estate because of its quality and consistency. As he considers the sale of some of that estate, will the Minister consult ConFor and the timber industries to ensure that their interests are taken into consideration?
Mr Paice: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I assure him that I have already had consultations and discussions with ConFor. I have discussed various options with its representatives, who, obviously, will submit a response to the consultation when we launch it. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that a number of the timber trade businesses rely on a constant supply of timber from the Forestry Commission, and I am very much aware that that factor will have to be taken into account to ensure that our important timber industry gets continuity of supply.
Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab): I thank the Minister for his letter of last week about the future of Forestry Commission land, even if it is regrettable that it has not been accompanied by a full statement to the House.
The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the Woodland Trust have said that the sale price for that ancient forest land does not match its environmental or social value and that they lack the resources to purchase the land. Why has the Minister failed to give the House any assurance that the money raised from this fire sale of English woodland will be reinvested in environmental protection or green jobs, rather than simply ending up in the Treasury's coffers? Is not the reality that big business, not the big society, will benefit from this land grab?
Mr Paice: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new position-and long may he hold it, if that is the best that he can do. I had hoped that we could have a rational debate about the future of our forests. Much of what the hon. Gentleman said is absolute nonsense. As I have repeatedly said, we are determined to protect our forests and increase the rate of new planting in this country, beyond the failure of his Government, whom he supported. That is what has to be done. Working towards new ownership does not in any way countermand the important value of our British forests, which we intend to maintain.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice): The Government are determined to help our farming industry play its full role in the food supply chain by clawing back markets lost to imports and by increasing exports. We are therefore changing the whole culture of regulation to one of trust rather than one of threat. We provide investment assistance under the rural development programme and we are working with the industry on knowledge transfer, skills development and sustainability issues.
Simon Hart: I thank the Minister for his answer. Will he reassure members of the Farmers Union of Wales, whom I met earlier this week, that he is making progress on the creation of a supermarket ombudsman?
Mr Paice: As my hon. Friend knows, the legislative aspects of that issue relate to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, but I assure him that I am in close contact with my colleagues. We are determined to press ahead with the supermarket adjudicator, as recommended by the Competition Commission a year or so ago.
Anne Marie Morris: Animal disease is costly to the Government and farmers, both financially and emotionally. In 2009-10, the Government spent £330 million on animal health and welfare, and the foot and mouth outbreak in 2001, which devastated the local farming economy in Devon, is believed to have cost the UK £8 billion. I recently had a meeting with farmers in Newton Abbot, and they are very concerned that the Government will not listen to them about shaping plans, going forward, for cost and risk sharing-
Mr Speaker: Order. I know that the hon. Lady is a new Member and I appreciate her commitment to the House, but far too many questions are prefaced with substantial descriptive statements. That must not happen. I ask her for a quick sentence, and then we will move on.
Mr Paice: Yes, I will happily meet my hon. Friend. If you will allow me one more sentence, Mr Speaker, under the cost and responsibility discussions I am absolutely determined, and I will reassure my hon. Friend's farmers on this, that they will have a major role in formulating disease control policy.
Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab):
May I ask the Minister how the Government will use their new buying standards for food in the public sector to support British farmers in the 88% of public sector food purchases
not covered by the new Government standards? My private Member's Bill next week is the ideal opportunity for a detailed debate in Committee where we can discuss how we can support farmers.
Mr Paice: I can tell the hon. Lady that I am certainly looking forward to next week's debate on her private Member's Bill and I congratulate her on introducing it to enable us to have that debate. We will consult on the Government's buying standards in the next few weeks and we will be launching them early next year. They will apply compulsorily to central Government-we have determined that we should drive these standards forward-and they will include the need to ensure that food procured by the Government is produced to the standards that we expect of our own farmers. That is the best way to ensure fair competition in public procurement.
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab): Does the Minister accept, in the interests of what he has said about competitiveness, that the decision to abolish the national Agricultural Wages Board will not contribute to competitiveness but will simply reduce the living standards and wages of our agricultural workers?
Mr Paice: I am afraid that I do not agree with the hon. Lady. That legislation has been in place for 60 years and industrial relations and wages negotiations have changed dramatically over those years. It is worth pointing out that the previous Government, in office for 13 years, did not bring back any of the other wages boards that we had abolished. The present wages board does not allow salaries, it does not allow proper piecework rates and it does not allow annualised rates. Those are all measures that modern labour relations require. That is why it needs to go and all workers will be protected by the national minimum wage regulations, which apply to every other worker in this country.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Richard Benyon): The Marine Management Organisation has introduced a requirement for masters of under-10-metre fishing vessels fishing in, or transiting, either International Council for the Exploration of the Sea areas IVc and VIId, or ICES areas VIId and VIIe in the same fishing trip, to complete and submit an EU logbook. The new requirement has been introduced to provide greater assurance over the accuracy of catch information for fish stocks in those areas, following concerns expressed about potential misdeclaration of catch areas.
Laura Sandys: As a great supporter of the under-10-metre fishing fleet, I hope that the Minister will point out to the MMO that this is a highly bureaucratic, quite impractical approach for some of the smaller boats. Will he urge the MMO to consider working much more closely with the local patrol fleets, which know these local fisheries much better than anybody else?
Richard Benyon: I understand my hon. Friend's point. I know her local fishing community and how much she stands up for them. I am happy to meet them and discuss this. As we go forward with our negotiations with the Commission on catch quotas for next year, we have to do so on the basis of knowledge of what is there and on the basis of science. That sometimes requires us to ask fishermen to take actions that can add to their working day. I do not want to burden people with regulation-that is not the direction that the Government are going in-and I am happy to meet my hon. Friend and the MMO to see whether we can find another way forward, but we need an accurate declaration of stocks in those areas.
6. Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab): What discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government on the likely effects of the outcome of the comprehensive spending review on the funding available to reduce the amount of waste going to landfill. 
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman): We have worked closely with the Department for Communities and Local Government to understand cost pressures on local authority waste management over the spending review period and have taken these into account in the overall local government settlement. Significantly increased financial flexibility will free local authorities to allocate resources to meet their priorities and make continued efficiency savings while continuing to deliver our overall environmental goals for waste management.
Dr Whitehead: Has the Secretary of State looked at last year's estimate by the Waste and Resources Action Programme suggesting that there will be an additional 3 million tonnes of dried municipal recyclates circulating by 2015, while all-materials recycling facilities would be used up and 60% of local authority areas would have insufficient capacity? What has changed in this analysis since May 2010 other than her Department's withdrawal of seven private finance initiative waste projects and the cutting of local authority budgets by 28%?
Mrs Spelman: I invite the hon. Gentleman, who has a great interest in this subject, to look at some municipal waste statistics that have just been published this morning. The more recent data show three things: first, that we are producing less waste; secondly, that we are recycling more waste; and thirdly, therefore, that we are sending less to landfill. That is what makes us confident that the 2020 targets can be met with fewer publicly funded projects.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice):
The consultation closed on 1 June and received 4,250 responses. The
Government will be publishing a summary of those responses and will make an announcement on the way forward very shortly.
Luciana Berger: In 2008, almost 6,000 people needed hospital treatment for injuries sustained by dangerous dogs. The Communication Workers Union reports that every year between 5,000 and 6,000 of its members suffer injuries by dogs. Every month, three guide dogs are attacked. In the past three years, five children have been killed by dangerous dogs, including John Paul Massey in my constituency. Will the Minister seriously consider the draft legislation proposed by the Association of Chief Police Officers, the RSPCA and the National Dog Warden Association in order adequately to deal with this problem?
Mr Paice: I do not think anybody in this House can be unaware of the increasing problems of dangerous dogs to which the hon. Lady refers, and the tragedy of John Paul Massey and other children who have been killed by dogs in recent years. Clearly, we do have to act. I can assure her that my noble Friend Lord Henley, who leads on these matters, will be taking account of the proposals to which she refers. We should understand that we need to find a way forward that addresses the real problem of people who are already, in many cases, disobeying the law by holding dogs which are classified as dangerous dogs. It is those people we need to attack rather than the much larger number whose dogs are perfectly harmless.
Dr John Pugh (Southport) (LD): We do not let a criminal or unsuitable person have lawful possession of a firearm or a weapon. Given the known temperament of certain breeds of dog, could we not insist on a fit and proper person test as a precondition of owning a dangerous dog? After all, criminals seem to have a proclivity for precisely these breeds.
Mr Paice: As I have said, that proposition and many others are being considered by my noble Friend, and he will make his announcement shortly. My hon. Friend needs to recognise that to take that approach would require an immense amount of regulation and control about who was able to purchase dogs, which would then feed back through the whole supply chain of puppies and become quite a mammoth undertaking. Nevertheless, it is worth considering, as with all other propositions.
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman): I, along with other DEFRA Ministers, regularly meet our EU counterparts to discuss reform of the common agricultural policy. The Minister of State and I attended the Informal Agriculture Council, where CAP reform was discussed, and most recently I hosted the German Agriculture Minister to discuss a range of issues of common interest, including reform of the CAP.
Mrs Spelman: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the EU budget needs to reflect the straitened economic circumstances that all European member states are experiencing. Last weekend, the Prime Minister met the German Chancellor, Frau Merkel, and earlier this week he met President Sarkozy from France, to have important discussions about the realities of the size of the EU budget. Part of those considerations will be the allocation that goes to the common agricultural policy.
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab): We all know that a successful outcome to the common agricultural policy negotiations is vital for Britain's rural communities. In an interview on "Farming Today", the right hon. Lady said that the Treasury had conducted a regional impact assessment of the CSR, and that her Department had considered its rural impact. I asked her Department for a copy of that rural impact assessment, and the reply from the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), stated:
"DEFRA has not carried out a formal assessment of the impact of the spending review on rural matters."-[ Official Report, 1 November 2010; Vol. 517, c. 606W.]
Mrs Spelman: As I am sure the hon. Lady will appreciate, it is not just the decisions made at DEFRA that have implications for rural communities. As the Government's rural champion, DEFRA is therefore undertaking an assessment of the implications of other Departments' elements of the spending review across rural areas. For example, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport has made some positive decisions arising from the spending review, including the roll-out of superfast broadband in rural areas, that will have a positive effect on rural areas. The matter needs to be regarded in the round, and that work has been undertaken since the announcement of the decisions affecting all Departments was made on 20 October.
9. Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con): If she will discuss with the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government proposals to extend the power of communities to protect local rural environments. 
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Richard Benyon): The Government are committed to reforming the current top-down planning system to give communities far greater powers to shape their neighbourhoods and share in the benefits of growth. In particular, neighbourhood plans will give communities the freedom to bring forward more development than is set out in the local authority plan, or to introduce more localised rural environmental protection policies. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will work closely with the Department for Communities and Local Government in taking that forward.
Matthew Hancock: I thank the Minister. To ensure that there is public support for important renewable energy programmes, does the Minister agree that it is crucial that such projects are put in the right place, and that projects such as onshore wind farms are not put in spectacularly beautiful parts of the country where there is no local support? Will he visit my spectacular part of the country in Suffolk, to see just how beautiful it is?
The importance of renewables is known and agreed upon throughout the House, and the Government recognise the value of increasing the amount of electricity that we produce from renewable energy. However, we also recognise the genuine local concerns, which have to be included in the planning process. We are reforming the planning system so that it will give local communities more of a say. We want to get that balance right, because it has become skewed in recent years.
George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con): As part of his discussions with the DCLG, will the Minister consider transferring responsibility for the management of the rural development programme for England to local enterprise partnerships where they wish to take on that role?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Richard Benyon): I can confirm that there have been no recent discussions between DEFRA Ministers and Covanta about its planned projects in my hon. Friend's constituency. DEFRA officials have attended meetings between Covanta and local authorities about Covanta's planned projects there, as part of the standard procedure of supporting local authorities in their waste management procurement processes.
Nadine Dorries: The Infrastructure Planning Commission has begun an online registration process for Mid Bedfordshire constituents to register their intent to object to the Covanta proposals. That process depends upon constituents having read a 7,000-page document. Will the Secretary of State and the Minister support me in a call to halt the online registration process today, so that the irregularities of it can be examined, and possibly so that it can be aborted and revisited at a later stage?
I am interested in that process, which fulfils part of the greater democratic accountability that the Government are talking about for decisions such as the one in my hon. Friend's constituency, about which I know she feels strongly. That is why we are abolishing the IPC and replacing it with an organisation within the
Planning Inspectorate that will have much more democratic accountability. I hope that as many of her constituents as possible can contribute to the consultation before 19 November, but I will discuss her views with colleagues elsewhere in government.
12. Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab): What assessment she has made of the likely effects of the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board on wages and working conditions in the farming and food production sectors. 
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice): Abolition of the board will allow modern employment practices within the agricultural and food packaging industry, which will help the industry develop and provide more job opportunities. Workers will retain any existing contractual rights in place at the time of abolition. New workers will be protected by general employment legislation, including the national minimum wage, as with workers in all other sectors of the economy. A full impact assessment and equality impact assessment will be made available during the legislative process.
Tom Blenkinsop: How does abolishing an organisation that ensures that workers get 2p above the national minimum wage support growth in rural communities such as mine in east Cleveland and in the rural economy?
Mr Paice: The hon. Gentleman puts his finger on the nonsense. What is the point of having the whole superstructure of the Agricultural Wages Board simply to provide a 2p-an-hour premium over the minimum wage? That is part of the justification for saying that the board is not necessary. I stand with the hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members in wanting to see all farm and agricultural workers treated properly and receive a fair day's pay for a fair day's work, but we need to bring agricultural wages regulations into the present day so that the modern, efficient businesses in my constituency and his can grow, expand and provide more job opportunities, not fewer.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice): A public consultation is currently under way on a badger control policy to tackle bovine tuberculosis. As of yesterday evening, we have received 1,613 responses from a variety of individuals and organisations. I would encourage anyone with a view to respond to the consultation, which closes on 8 December. We will be making a decision on the Government's approach early next year.
Mr Paice: We have been consulting the Home Office and police forces in areas where we think culls might occur, and we will obviously take their advice forward. I do not want to prejudge the outcome of the consultation or, indeed, our consideration of it, but the hon. Lady puts her finger on a very important point, which has to be addressed in the overall approach that we adopt. I can assure her that we are talking with the relevant bodies and authorities.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice): As my hon. Friend knows, supporting the farming sector is fundamental to my Department's business. The sugar beet sector remains heavily regulated by the common agricultural policy, and it is expected that it will be considered during the forthcoming round of CAP reforms in response to the European Union budget review. The UK Government will seek an outcome where our sugar beet industry can thrive in a more competitive and sustainable environment.
Mr Ruffley: The Minister will understand that the greater use of biofuels in this country will not only cut CO2 emissions, but give a vital boost to East Anglian sugar beet growers. British Sugar would like to know what the Government are doing to provide incentives to companies such as itself to invest in future biofuel production. Can the Minister tell us?
Mr Paice: Incentives for biofuel production are primarily a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, but I can assure my hon. Friend that we fully recognise the pioneering work that British Sugar has done at the Wissington factory in Norfolk, where it produces biofuels and uses the heat generated as a by-product to grow tomatoes in glasshouses. I can also assure him that we are determined to encourage and enable our sugar industry to contribute just as much to biofuels as to our sugar supply. However, in terms of the detail, he needs to address himself to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change.
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman): This Government are committed to showing leadership on sustainability through our own decisions and policies. I am discussing ways to mainstream sustainable development across Government, specifically focusing on Cabinet-level working, policy making and the Government's own operations and procurement with Cabinet colleagues. I have also spoken to the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee to discuss how Government can be held to account for our performance against our commitments.
Duncan Hames: In the Secretary of State's role of leading mainstream sustainability across the Government, will she continue to meet the designated green Ministers from each Department to ensure that sustainability is the organising principle behind all that they do?
Mrs Spelman: I give my hon. Friend that assurance. Sustainable development cannot be delivered by one Government Department alone. In fact, the Cabinet Office has a cross-cutting role and will report on pan-Government progress against the targets for the sustainable operations of the Government estate. The latest performance data will be published by the end of the year.
Mr Jamie Reed (Copeland) (Lab): One key performance objective on environmental sustainability is protection from flooding. The Association of British Insurers has expressed disappointment at the Government's cuts to flood defence spending, and the Institute of Civil Engineers estimates that the cuts could cost us £4.8 billion in future. How will those cuts affect the insurance premiums and excesses of those 5.5 million British properties that are currently at risk from flooding? Can she give a guarantee that the cuts will not lead to any properties becoming either uninsurable or unmortgageable?
Mrs Spelman: I can assure the House that the Government are working very closely with the ABI on the question of insurance. Its statement of principles is up for renegotiation in 2013. My impression of the situation is different from the hon. Gentleman's, because actually the ABI welcomed the fact that much of the capital for flood defences was protected, so the Government can spend £2.1 billion on flood defences within the spending review period. There will be an 8% reduction per annum, but a lot of that can be absorbed in efficiencies, as the Environment Agency demonstrated this year by building more than its target of flood defences notwithstanding a 5.5% reduction in its resources.
17. Gordon Banks (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Lab): What recent discussions she has had with the Gangmasters Licensing Authority on the use of child labour in the farming and food industry sectors. 
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice): The Gangmasters Licensing Authority licenses labour providers in the agriculture, food processing and shellfish-gathering sectors, and also enforces the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004. It does not have responsibility for enforcing legislation on child labour-that falls to the police, who work alongside local authorities' children's services departments. Nevertheless, the GLA played an important role in liaising with the relevant authorities in the recent very shocking case of Romanian children found picking spring onions in Worcestershire.
Gordon Banks: The Minister is right that we are all shocked at the news of those Romanian children. I take on board what he said about the GLA, but does he feel that, given the remoteness of some locations where people are expected to work in the agricultural sector, managing the possibility of child exploitation is difficult?
Mr Paice: As the hon. Gentleman knows, children below the age of 13 are not permitted to work other than in certain parts of the entertainment industry. He will also know that restrictions apply to the number of hours that 13 to 16-year-olds can work and that a licence must be obtained from the local authority before such employment begins. Let us therefore be under no doubt that if children are employed in agriculture, they are employed illegally, unless they are licensed in the way I described.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the remoteness of much agricultural activity. I entirely understand his point, but I do not think that we should allow that incident-I cannot comment on the detail-to make us think that such practices are rife all over the country. The vast majority of farmers and fruit and vegetable growers behave properly towards their work force and ensure that they comply with employment legislation. We need to ensure that breaches in the law, as might have happened in that case, are dealt with appropriately.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con): The Romanian children were found working in my constituency. Many of the local farmers use migrant labourers. Has the Minister any general advice for those farmers on the employment of migrant labour?
Mr Paice: I can say to my hon. Friend quite clearly that the most important thing that anybody who wants to employ migrant labour-or, indeed, any non-local labour-should do is ensure that they are dealing with a licensed gangmaster. They should ask to see the certificate or licence of the gangmaster proposing to bring the labour on to the farm. That way they can all be reassured they are doing the right thing.
Neil Parish: This country has a highly competitive pig and poultry industry that is completely unsubsidised and relies heavily on imported feed. Will the Minister assure us that we can get a greater threshold when allowing imports of non-genetically modified feed into the country, otherwise we will export our industry abroad?
Mr Paice: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Discussions are taking place in Europe about the threshold for the import of GM soya, predominantly, which is what he is talking about, and I can assure him that we will be taking a constructive view to those negotiations. Quite clearly it would be pointless to deprive our livestock sector of something in a way that simply means we import more livestock products that have been fed on GM food.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD):
Farmers clearly cannot be competitive if supermarkets have got them in an arm lock. In response to the question from the hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire
(Simon Hart), the Minister rightly supported the Government policy of enforcing the grocery code supply practice. However, will he acknowledge that there is anxiety in the farming community about the fact that the Government may not be introducing this legislation soon enough. Can he reassure us that they will take the earliest opportunity to bring it forward?
Mr Paice: May I recognise and pay tribute to the sterling work that my hon. Friend has done on this matter over a number of years in bringing forward this proposition, which is now Government policy? I can reassure him that I am constantly talking to my colleagues in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and urging them to bring this forward, because I fully recognise its importance to the whole of the agriculture industry.
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman): I am sure that Members on both sides of the House will want to welcome the agreement secured in Nagoya, not least because, as Members will know, the previous Government, and many before them, sought over a long period to secure agreement on a protocol on access to, and benefit sharing of, genetic resources, putting in place the tools to help countries halt the loss of biodiversity. It is right for us all to pay tribute to the officials in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs who have worked so hard for so long to achieve this agreement.
On my way back, I represented the UK at the closing ceremony of Expo 2010 in Shanghai, and I am delighted to be able to tell the House that the UK won the top award for a pavilion part-funded by DEFRA on the theme of biodiversity, and that the Chinese premier himself recognised its excellence. I would like to thank the Foreign and Commonwealth Office staff who delivered this considerable achievement-Simon Featherstone, who rescued the project, and Carma Elliot and her team, who spent four years driving the project to its successful conclusion.
Kerry McCarthy: In June, the Secretary of State said that the Hunting Act 2004 had not been a demonstrable success and was difficult to enforce, but figures published by the Department last year showed 57 prosecutions in 2009-an average of one every week-and more convictions than any other piece of wildlife legislation. How do Ministers square that with her belief that it has not been a demonstrable success?
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice): If the hon. Lady examines those figures more deeply, she will find that most of them are to do with what is known as illegal hare coursing on land where the owner has not given permission for that to take place-let alone the fact that the process is currently illegal under the 2004 Act. The Government have said that they will bring forward legislation. It will be a free vote in the House, and she will have an opportunity to make her statements and to vote accordingly when the Government introduce that legislation.
T3.  Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con): May I thank the Secretary of State for having announced today that she will give permission for the £14.25 million Banbury flood alleviation scheme? It will be really welcomed in Banbury. It is being funded partially by the Environment Agency, partially by others such as Cherwell district council, and will enable the Banbury canal side regeneration scheme to go ahead, which will be very welcome. May I simply thank her and Ministers for doing the right thing?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Richard Benyon): I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The Banbury scheme is a prime example of bringing together business, organisations such as Railtrack, the local authority and the Environment Agency. That is a really important partnership, and a model for schemes elsewhere in the country. I am delighted that it is going ahead. My hon. Friend can take credit for frequently cornering me in the Lobby to show his support for the scheme.
T2.  Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab): The European Food Safety Authority has concluded that the major factor causing poor welfare in dairy cows is genetic selection to produce high yields. Given proposals to intensify milk production for higher yields, such as those planned at Nocton, will the Secretary of State agree urgently to review the welfare code for dairy cows in the UK, and to meet a delegation of cross-party MPs and non-governmental organisations to discuss how her Department can ensure that its code takes into account the latest scientific advice and ensures that any new dairies do not compromise cow welfare?
Mr Paice: I am happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and others to discuss the matter, but I assure him that the Department puts welfare at the top of our agenda, as I hope our record to date shows. However, we must be guided by science, which is why I am looking forward to the results of the three-year study being carried out in Scotland on intensive dairy farming, and the work at Harper Adams university college on the same issue. After that, we will be in a better position to know the precise answers. I remind him that the Farm Animal Welfare Council, which the Department normally listens to, has said clearly that welfare is a function more of management than of scale.
T4.  Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con): Given that the Department would like all animals to be stunned before slaughter, may we please have some food labelling regulations to mark halal and kosher products as such, so that those of us who object to ritual slaughter do not inadvertently buy such products in shops and restaurants?
As my hon. Friend is aware and as the House fully understands, this is a highly emotive issue, and I understand the demand for labelling. As he rightly says, the Government would like all animals to be properly stunned before they are bled to slaughter. There is a discussion at European level about food information regulations, but we do not believe that that is the right vehicle. Next year, we will consult on implementation of the European animal welfare regulations,
and the labelling issue will certainly be examined as part of that. I recognise the strength of feeling to which my hon. Friend refers.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP): I am sure that Ministers share my disappointment that last week's talks aimed at resolving the mackerel dispute between Iceland, the Faroe Islands, Norway and the EU ended without resolution. The ongoing uncertainty is causing great distress to the pelagic fleet and parts of the processing sector in my constituency, where much of the industry is based. Those people have much to lose and little to gain in the negotiations. Will the Minister update the House on the outcome of those negotiations, and assure us that the Government will take a robust line in those talks to defend our historic fishing rights and to ensure that the EU does not acquiesce to the unreasonable and environmentally destructive demands being made by Iceland and the Faroes?
Richard Benyon: I am well aware of the issue's importance to the hon. Lady's constituents and many others. The UK has been robust in its attitude to the Icelandic and Faroese proposal to damage a sustainable stock. We fear the risk that it may have on the Marine Stewardship Council's accreditation for the stock, and its impact on her constituents and many others. I assure her that we have been robust, we are being robust, and we will continue to be robust, as I believe is the Commission.
T5.  Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con): Will the Minister tell me what impact the comprehensive spending review has had on flood defences, and particularly the Folkestone to Cliff End erosion and flood strategy, which is important for maintaining the sea defences along the Romney marsh coast, and to my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd)?
Richard Benyon: My hon. Friend will be pleased that we managed to protect the flood budget in the comprehensive spending review. The amount is reducing- [Interruption.] At 8% a year it is considerably lower than the 50% capital cuts the Labour Government proposed. An 8% cut across the piece is a considerable advantage.
I have seen the schemes in my hon. Friend's constituency, and I have met the excellent Defend our Coast community group. That is exactly the sort of arrangement whereby we deliver more by working in a partnership, and deliver a better result at the end of the day. I hope that many of his constituents will-
"Scientific findings indicate that the rising incidence of disease can be reversed, and geographical spread contained, by the rigid application of cattle-based control measures alone"?
The hon. Gentleman needs to recognise that that study ended several years ago. We now have more science, which has superseded those conclusions reached by the independent study group. I have laid out
the new scientific evidence from ongoing studies in the consultation document, and that is the reason for the proposal that we have put forward.
T6.  Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD): The Prime Minister responded to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) on 15 September about the Campaign to Protect Rural England's report on a bottle deposit and return scheme, and gave an indication that the Government would be looking at it. Given the potential to increase recycling and reduce litter, will the Minister give some views on the report and say what action might be taken?
Richard Benyon: We welcome the report, which we think is a good addition to the review of waste being carried out by my noble Friend Lord Henley, and we will certainly consider it as part of that process.
Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) (Lab): Investment in anaerobic digestion not only helps farmers to become more competitive, but helps small rural communities such as those in North East Derbyshire both to process waste and to make energy. What is the Department doing to ensure that farmers can diversify in this way?
Mrs Spelman: Anaerobic digestion has great potential in helping the farming industry reduce its overall carbon emissions and will be an important part of the Government's aim, as part of being the greenest Government ever, of achieving those reductions. Anaerobic digestion is something that we welcome, but the important thing is to have constant feedstocks. Anaerobic digestion has a wider application in the communities that we all live in, but for farming it is definitely an interesting option.
T7.  Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con): Can my hon. Friend advise the House on whether he has had any discussions with independent animal welfare organisations about the prospects for intensive dairy farming of the sort proposed by a planning application in Lincolnshire?
Mr Paice: I have had no specific discussions or meetings on the matter, nor have I received any specific representations, but it has arisen in other discussions that I have had with animal welfare lobbies, which have all put their views forward. I should point out that, as I understand it, a planning application has not even been made yet. That will be a planning issue, and I cannot comment on the detail.
Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op): I am sure that the Minister will share my disquiet at the reported comments by the Icelandic negotiator last week. Will he do everything in his power to ensure that next week's meeting of the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission is used as another vehicle to try to find a solution to the dispute about the mackerel quota in the North sea, which is vital to many communities in Scotland?
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we will use any means possible to resolve the issue, which has wider implications. Iceland is going through
a process of accession to the Europe Union, and it seems a strange way to behave to tear up the rule book before joining the club. We are using a variety of mechanisms to try to put pressure on Iceland to operate in a sustainable way and protect a sustainable stock.
Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con): Does the Minister share the concerns of a number of farming organisations-in particular smaller farming organisations, such as the Small Farms Association and the Family Farmers Association-that plans to build a mega-dairy in Nocton will fatally undermine the viability of a great number of small and family farms?
Mr Paice: Obviously I understand those concerns, and as my hon. Friend knows, I have been in the industry for most of my working life. Two points need to be made. First, it is good news that somebody thinks that the dairy industry is worth investing in, given that so many dairy farmers have given up over the past few years. Secondly, I genuinely believe that there is huge scope for reclaiming much of our domestic market, which has been lost to imported dairy products. If through expansion and greater efficiencies we can do that, there will be room in the industry for both large and small producers.
Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab): Given the reference made to the Environmental Audit Committee, I hope we can return to the issue of resources in due course. On a constituency matter, I met the Staffordshire wildlife trust last week and it is looking to make a submission to the EU LIFE+ programme to enhance biodiversity in Stoke-on-Trent. Will the Secretary of State commit DEFRA officers to give support to any proposal that comes out of that?
I might have made an error, Mr Speaker, in not responding myself to the question put by the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy). I apologise, as I should have taken it-but, of course, I agree with everything that the Minister of State had to say.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con): The heart of the new national forest lies in my beautiful constituency of North West Leicestershire. Will the Minister assure the House that any sale of Forestry Commission assets will not reduce public access or enjoyment of our woods and forests?
Mr Paice: I am happy to give yet again the assurance that if any disposal of Forestry Commission land takes place-it is a matter for consultation-it will not be at the expense of any existing public benefit. I make the point that the National Forest Company, to which my hon. Friend rightly refers, has done a superb job. The discussion does not include the national forest, much of which is, of course, already in private hands.
Wednesday 10 November-Consideration in Committee and remaining stages of the Equitable Life (Payments) Bill, followed by a motion to approve European documents relating to economic policy co-ordination.
Wednesday 17 November-Opposition day [6th allotted day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject to be announced, followed by a motion to approve the Draft Local Elections (Northern Ireland) Order 2010 and the Draft Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections) (Amendment) Order 2010.
This week, Mr Speaker, you have granted two urgent questions because the Government did not see fit to come and tell the House what they were doing. The first concerned the fact that the Justice Secretary appears keener to put convicted prisoners on to the electoral register than he is the 3.5 million missing voters. The second was because the Prime Minister thought that the French President, the media, civil servants and just about everybody else should be told first about two very
significant treaties affecting our nation's security, whereas the House of Commons got to hear about them only as a reluctant afterthought. Does the Leader of the House think that this is a satisfactory way in which to treat Members? Because I do not.
Turning now to broken pledges, will the Leader of the House assure us that enough time will be provided on the Floor of the House to debate the huge increase in tuition fees now facing students and the huge cut in funding for university teaching-a cut described in The Guardian today as "insane"? The House will require a lot of time. First, it will require time so that the Prime Minister can come to the House and apologise for breaking his firm pledge to keep education maintenance allowances, which, as every Member knows, have played a really important part in helping students from low-income backgrounds to get to higher education. Secondly, it will require time so that Ministers can be clear about what will actually happen to funding for undergraduate teaching of non-STEM-science, technology, engineering and mathematics-subjects.
"would essentially lose their teaching grant support".
The House will wonder how places such as the School of Oriental and African Studies, Goldsmiths college, Leeds Trinity and All Saints college, the Royal Academy of Music and Leeds College of Music will manage when every single pound of their public funding for undergraduate teaching disappears. Yesterday, the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning, the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), said in Westminster Hall that
"We will continue to support the arts through the subsidy for teaching in universities."-[ Official Report, 3 November 2010; Vol. 517, c. 315WH.]
Thirdly, we will need time so that Liberal Democrats-whether they are currently Ministers or thinking about resigning as Ministers-can explain to thousands and thousands of angry and disillusioned students what exactly they were thinking of when they made their solemn pledge to vote against any increase in tuition fees. It could not have been clearer. Was it just a ploy to win votes? Was it a mistake? Or was it that the Liberal Democrats had no idea what they were doing? Whichever it was, I do not think that they will be getting those votes again.
Has the Leader of the House read the powerful speech made on Monday in the other place by Baroness Campbell of Surbiton about the proposal to take away the mobility component of disability living allowance from people who are in residential care? She cited the case of a couple, both disabled, who say that if that goes ahead they will no longer be able to visit the doctor, the dentist, the bank, the church, the library or shops, let alone their friends and relatives. Why is that the case? It is because they will lose respectively 45% and 69% of their allowances. Lady Campbell said that the plan
"makes neither moral nor financial sense."-[ Official Report, House of Lords, 1 November 2010; Vol. 721, c. 1468.]
I agree. May we have a debate on why the Government seem so determined to take away those disabled people's mobility, whether it is their use of taxis, electric scooters or electric wheelchairs so that they can actually get about? May we also have a statement on whether that harsh proposal was considered by the Government's own office for disability issues before it was announced in the comprehensive spending review?
Finally, can the Leader of the House confirm that there will be a statement following the G20 summit next week? Will photographs of the occasion by the Prime Minister's personal photographer and newest civil servant be placed in the Library of the House ?
On Tuesday, the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), made it quite clear that the Government had made no decision on prisoner voting rights. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that in its 16th report of the Session, published in 2007, the Joint Committee on Human Rights criticised the then Government on the issue, stating that the time taken to produce the second consultation paper was "disproportionate", and that the Government's failure to enfranchise "at least part" of the prisoner community was "unlawful". That was three years ago, and during those three years the Government did absolutely nothing. The right hon. Gentleman will have heard what the Prime Minister said about that yesterday. It is another example of the coalition Government clearing up a mess that we inherited from the outgoing Labour Government.
"laid before Parliament in the usual way."-[ Official Report, 1 November 2010; Vol. 517, c. 615.]
There is no secrecy about that. The Prime Minister's statement was followed by a written ministerial statement on Tuesday morning. The Command Papers and explanatory memorandums will accompany each treaty when it is presented to Parliament for scrutiny in the usual manner in the next few days.
On tuition fees, the right hon. Gentleman-and his colleague, the hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas), yesterday-gave no indication at all of the Labour party's reaction to Lord Browne's report, which Labour itself commissioned. We are determined to have a fair system: a system that is free at the point of access, that enables more students from low-income backgrounds to participate, that offers generous student support and that is progressive by expecting only those who have completed their learning and are earning more to pay more.
On disability living allowance, the right hon. Gentleman raised the serious issue of whether one should align those in residential care funded by the NHS who lose the mobility component with those who are funded by social services who do not. There is an issue of equity between two people in identical circumstances living in
the same home who at the moment receive differential treatment, and of course there should be adequate opportunity to debate it.
Finally, on the issue of photographs, it is important not to lose sight of the big picture. The right hon. Gentleman will have seen the statement by my noble Friend the Minister without Portfolio. The previous Prime Minister spent £40,000 a year on an image consultant and Labour spent over half a million pounds on photographs and videos in its last three years in office alone, so I honestly do not think it is fitting for the right hon. Gentleman to criticise this Government for misuse of the media.
Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con): My right hon. Friend will know that Horn lane in Acton is one of the most polluted roads in London, largely, it seems, because a group of industrial units still operate there. Local residents have now set up a campaign to try to deal with the problem, but they have discovered that it is virtually impossible to get anything done because they must prove that an individual unit is responsible. Does my right hon. Friend agree that a debate would help in identifying some new measures that might assist in tackling the problem?
Sir George Young: As my hon. Friend may know, I lived in Horn lane when I was the Member of Parliament for Ealing, Acton, and I apologise to her for not resolving this problem during my 23 years representing that constituency. She raises an important issue that might be an appropriate subject for an Adjournment debate, at which one of my colleagues from the Department for Communities and Local Government would be able to respond.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab): The Leader of the House will have seen this week's reports arguing that alcohol is by far the most damaging drug in our society. Will he make time for a long and serious debate on alcohol in which we can look at the links between alcohol and high levels of teenage pregnancy and domestic violence, the incidence of foetal alcohol syndrome, levels of addiction, the impact on the economy and every other aspect of the alcohol problem, and in which we can also examine the possibility of unit pricing for alcohol across the whole country and of raising the legal age for alcohol consumption and purchase?
Sir George Young: The hon. Gentleman raises a series of serious subjects which of course the House should debate. We will be bringing forward tough action to deal with problem drinking, such as stopping supermarkets selling alcohol below cost price. We are going to introduce a much tougher licensing regime. We are also going to review alcohol taxation and pricing. Related to that, we will publish a drugs strategy in the coming months, and we will set out a radical new approach to public health in a White Paper, which will also focus on drinking issues.
Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD):
I wonder whether the Leader of the House can find time for a debate on local enterprise partnerships. Quangos are being culled and that is resulting in Essex being twinned with Kent and East Sussex, which are not local. In fact, Holland is almost as close to Colchester as Brighton. Does the
right hon. Gentleman agree that it makes sense for Colchester and north Essex to be allied with Suffolk and Norfolk, rather than Brighton?
Sir George Young: Decisions about who is to be part of a local enterprise partnership should, essentially, be taken at local level, not by Whitehall. The thrust of our policy in abolishing regional development agencies is to let local people, local businesses and local authorities decide on the best formula for taking forward LEPs. The hon. Gentleman should therefore contact his local authorities and pursue the case with them, because it is they who will be deciding the framework for the future LEP.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab): Despite what the Leader of the House said, would it not be useful to have a statement next week on the fact that the Government now have not only an official photographer but a film maker? Is it true that Mr Parsons, the photographer, intends to display photographs of the Prime Minister all around Portcullis House so that the younger generation, particularly school parties, can pay tribute to the dear leader, North Korean-style?
Sir George Young: What this Government are seeking to do on the publicity front will, I believe, cost the taxpayer far less than the previous Government spent in achieving similar objectives and will do it far more effectively.
Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con): Will my right hon. Friend consider the difficulties that many of us find with the process of consultation? Will he review this with his colleagues and see whether it might be possible to have a debate in order to find a better way for consultations to take place, in which people really feel that they have had their day in court and that their views have been listened to?
Sir George Young: I welcome what my hon. Friend has said. We will be producing a localism Bill, the thrust of which will be to push decision making down to the local level and to engage people more effectively in decisions that affect their own community. He will know that a code of practice on consultation has been put out by the Cabinet Office and, in the light of his question, I will raise with my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office the issue of whether this consultation paper might be revisited.
Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab): Will the Leader of the House grant a debate on the accuracy of Government statements, particularly the use of the phrase, "We are all in this together"? On 14 May, Downing street proclaimed that ministerial pay would be cut by 5%, but I have been told by the Treasury that that has not happened. Were a civil servant to be overpaid by £3,500 his boss would make him pay it back. Will the Leader of the House tell the Prime Minister that he has to pay it back?
Sir George Young: Speaking from experience, I am pretty certain that my own pay is 5% less than my predecessor received for performing exactly the same duties. I will, of course, make some inquiries and confirm that the Government's policy to reduce ministerial pay by 5% has indeed been effected.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con): I appreciate the comments that the Leader of the House made a few minutes ago about prisoners' voting rights. Notwithstanding that, may I tell him that my constituents have been quick off the mark in letting me know their total opposition to any prospect of prisoners voting? It may be helpful to the Government to have an early debate, so that all Members are given an opportunity to express their views before the Government produce details. Could we please have such an early debate?
Sir George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that. Any change of the law would, of course, require a debate in the House of Commons. Ministers are considering how to implement the judgment-which the previous Government failed to do. When the Government have made a decision, the House will be the first to know.
Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) (Lab): Is the Leader of the House aware that Members who are unsuccessful in securing Adjournment debates can make representations to the Backbench Business Committee for debates in Westminster Hall of anything up to three hours? Will he therefore join me in encouraging Back Benchers to make representations to the Committee on Monday at 4 pm-and every following Monday at 4 pm? We have put in a regular slot, so that Members can make representations and bids for time, both in the Chamber and in Westminster Hall.
Sir George Young: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that, and I would encourage hon. Members who have an issue that they think ought to be ventilated, either here or in Westminster Hall, to attend her salon on a Monday at 4 pm. May I also remind the House that the Backbench Business Committee has assumed responsibility for what were the set-piece debates in the previous Parliament? Debates such as the day on Welsh affairs and the one for international women's day will take place under the new regime only if Members go to her Committee and effectively make the case for their repetition.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con): May I visit the Leader of the House's salon to request, on behalf of all colleagues who have been affected by recent ward closures, an early debate on the approach of primary care trusts and hospital trusts across the country to closing wards by stealth? That is causing great concern and would justify an early debate.
Sir George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question. There will be a debate in Westminster Hall next Thursday on the impact of the comprehensive spending review on the Department of Health. That might be a good opportunity for her to raise her concerns.
Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab): May we have an early debate ahead of the Prime Minister's visit to China on the case of Liu Xiaobo, the Nobel peace prize winner? In a shameful conspiracy of silence, there is no reference to him on either the No. 10 or the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website. When Andrei Sakharov won the same prize there was no greater champion of him than Mrs Thatcher. I am all for good trade with China, but it is shameful that neither of our two top spokespersons on foreign affairs has mentioned that great and noble man's name. Will the Prime Minister do it next week in China?
Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con): Will my right hon. Friend encourage the Foreign Secretary to make a statement on his visit to Israel and the occupied territories when he returns next week? Many of us are beginning to doubt whether we will live to see a two-state solution and it would be good to hear the Foreign Secretary's assessment of what is happening in Israel and Palestine.
Sir George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this serious issue. If my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is not able to make a statement, there are Foreign and Commonwealth Office questions next Tuesday, which would be an appropriate time for my hon. Friend to press him on that matter.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab): Many of my constituents have relatives in Pakistan who suffered in the floods and now feel largely forgotten. May we have an urgent debate on the current level of aid and support for those beleaguered people?
Sir George Young: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising this important issue. Again, there will be Foreign and Commonwealth Office questions next Tuesday, when there might be an opportunity for her to raise these issues with the Foreign Secretary.
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con): Many of my constituents are deeply concerned about the lack of transparency and accountability of the Yorkshire Dales national park authority. Will my right hon. Friend grant a debate on the future of Britain's national parks?
Sir George Young: We have just had questions to the relevant Department and I understand that the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), will launch a public consultation next week on the governance arrangements of the nine English national park authorities and the Broads authority, thereby delivering one of the commitments in the coalition agreement and in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs draft structural reform plan.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab): May we have an early debate on Public Bill Committee evidence sessions? This is an issue about which I also intend to write to you, Mr Speaker. I am a member of a Public Bill Committee that has had three evidence sessions, none of which the Minister has attended to hear the evidence, to contribute to the debate or to listen to Members' contributions. Whatever has happened in the past on this matter, is it not important that Ministers attend evidence sessions in Bill Committees?
Sir George Young: I shall make inquiries about that. I assume that the Minister in question is a member of the Committee and that there will therefore be adequate opportunities to press him in person on his performance during the Committee. I suggest that that is the appropriate forum in which to raise this matter.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD): The Government's policy to introduce a supermarket adjudicator enjoys wide support in the country and has all-party support in the House. However, those who are enthusiastic about it cannot believe that the Government have no plans to introduce legislation to enforce the code of practice before the end of this very extended Session. What can the Leader of the House do to ensure that this matter is brought forward as quickly as possible?
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab): The Leader of the House is held in high regard on both sides of the House and by all parties. As someone who holds the rights of the House in high esteem, does he share my eagerness to see information that has been given to the House corrected by the Secretary of State for Health? In Tuesday's Health questions, the Secretary of State said that spending on the national health service will increase in real terms even if the social care budget given to local authorities is removed, but the Library and the Nuffield Trust have both stated that that is incorrect. Can the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State to return to the House to correct that misinformation?
Sir George Young: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the kind words that prefaced his question. I shall raise with the Secretary of State for Health the point that the hon. Gentleman has made, implying that information was incorrectly given to the House, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend will take appropriate action when he has read this morning's Hansard.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con): My 14-year-old constituent, Bethanie Thorn from Silver End, was a healthy teenager until last month when she was left bedridden by an illness. Despite her constant agony and blood tests that reveal cancer markers, the Mid-Essex Hospital Services trust is denying her the MRI scan that her doctor has urgently requested. Will the Leader of the House use his good offices to investigate the reason for the appalling delays at the trust and may we have a debate on why the trust has been able to spend £10 million employing 109 managers but cannot arrange this urgent scan for my constituent?
Sir George Young: I am sorry to hear of Bethanie's illness and I understand how important it is for her to have the MRI scan. As my hon. Friend will know, we are increasing in real terms the budget available to the NHS and we are introducing reforms so that more resources go to the front line. I shall raise this specific issue with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health to see whether there is any action he might take.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP):
Yesterday, the tug boat Anglian Prince was again involved in serious work as it towed a ship with engine trouble into Stornoway. Luckily, this time the ship was not full of oil and was not a nuclear submarine. May we have a debate on the possible environmental damage of the cuts and the removal of the maritime insurance policy in north-west Scotland, thereby
highlighting the fact that the UK cannot or is unwilling to afford it, whereas an independent Scotland would and could?
Sir George Young: If the independent Scotland had the resources that it currently gets from elsewhere in the United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue which I suggest is an appropriate subject for an Adjournment debate.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con): Prior to the spending review, it was accepted that Scotland receives approximately 20% more per head than a needs-based analysis would result in, particularly when compared with the English regions. That is due to an anomaly in the Barnett formula, but I understand that the Government do not intend to review the formula. The spending review cuts deeper in England than in Scotland; is it not time for a debate on this subject?
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op): More than six months ago, candidates in all political parties signed a series of pledges, including the sanctuary pledge, in which candidates who are now Members of Parliament pledged to remove children from immigration detention. Why then, six months after the general election, has the coalition not yet carried out that pledge, which also appears in the coalition agreement?
Sir George Young: This is another issue that we inherited from the outgoing Labour Government, as they failed to address it. It is addressed in the coalition agreement, as the hon. Gentleman will see, and the coalition Government will take action to deliver that commitment.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con): Talking of issues that were inherited from the previous Government, we found out this week-six months after the general election-that as a result of the European Court of Human Rights ruling about prisoners having the right to vote, the UK faces a bill in excess of £100 million. May we have a statement on what other hidden and contingent liabilities were left behind by the Labour Government for us to deal with?
Sir George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He will know, having listened to statements by Treasury Ministers, that we have had to deal with a large number of commitments by the outgoing Government for which the resources were not made available. On the specific issue, as he knows, Ministers are considering how to implement the judgment and, indeed, how to avoid the fines to which he refers. When the Government have made a decision, the House will be the first to know.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op):
May I press the Leader of the House? My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) mentioned that the Minister for Universities and Science has said that non-STEM-science, technology, engineering and mathematics-subjects will lose their teaching grant.
Yet in a Westminster Hall debate that I took part in yesterday, the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning said:
"We will continue to support the arts through the subsidy for teaching in universities." -[ Official Report, 3 November 2010; Vol. 517, c. 315WH.]
Please may we have an urgent statement on when universities will learn of their funding settlements in order to alleviate the uncertainty that so many universities, teaching staff, students and prospective students are suffering?
Sir George Young: Of course I understand the concern that the hon. Lady expresses. She will have heard my right hon. Friend the Minister for Universities and Science say yesterday in his statement that there would be a debate quite soon, after which there would be a vote on the order to raise the caps. That would be an appropriate point for the hon. Lady to raise her concerns again.
Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con): My right hon. Friend and every MP will be aware of the burdens and, more importantly, the excessive costs of the systems that the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority has introduced. Do the Government have the confidence to allow the House the time to bring forward and to debate measures that would deal with those excessive costs?
Sir George Young: My hon. Friend has a private Member's Bill on that subject. The Government have no plans to have an earlier debate on IPSA, but he will know that IPSA is about to announce a review, and I hope that that will provide an opportunity for all hon. Members to submit their views. My view is absolutely clear: IPSA is there to sustain Members and to enable them to discharge their duties, and any barriers that get in the way should be removed.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab): Speaking of salons, is it true that No. 10 has also employed a hair stylist? Perhaps that is what the Government mean by cuts. But seriously, may we have a debate on civil service recruitment? It is not just the Prime Minister's vanity snapper and film-maker that is at issue; I have had a letter outstanding to the Cabinet Secretary since September on the issue of the Culture Secretary bringing in people from outside the civil service at a time when civil servants are being sacked. We need a serious debate on the matter, and I need an answer to my letter.
Sir George Young: I have no knowledge of any hair stylist being employed at No. 10, and as the hon. Gentleman can see I would have no need of such a service. On the specific issue, he is entitled to a response to his letter. Any recruitment to No. 10 or, indeed, elsewhere in the public sector has to follow the due procedures.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con): When can we expect the much awaited localism Bill to begin its passage through Parliament? I am particularly keen to see our planning system reforms introduced quickly. In my constituency and, I believe, those of many other hon. Members, developers are quite keen to exploit what they perceive as the grey area of planning before the Bill is introduced. When will we have settlement on the matter?
Sir George Young: I understand my hon. Friend's concern. The localism Bill was announced in the Queen's Speech on 25 May, and it contains a wide range of measures to devolve more powers to councils. In answer to his specific question, the Bill will be introduced to Parliament shortly.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab): Two weeks ago, the Leader of the House announced a review of House sitting hours. Can he confirm that it will include a review of September sittings? Once it has taken place, will all matters, including September sittings, return to the House for a decision on a free vote? If so, will he provide to Members full information about the financial and other consequences for the long-term maintenance of the House of a shorter recess and less time to carry out maintenance during the summer?
Sir George Young: The Procedure Committee is indeed carrying out a review of the sitting hours of the House. It will include whether we should sit in September, as well as the actual hours that we sit during the day. That has always been a House of Commons matter on which Members have had a free vote. There will also be an opportunity for the House authorities to raise the issue of the cost to the House if they do not have a long run during the summer recess to carry out certain capital work-although whether that should be decisive in determining whether the House sits in September is something on which I should like to reflect.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab): The Leader of the House will be aware of the huge consequences of trebling fees to £9,000 for students, and of the decision to withdraw funding from arts and humanities teaching throughout our universities. He will forgive me, because I have an arts degree, but surely it is right that we debate not just the fee levels, but the implications for widening participation and the decision to withdraw from the arts and humanities. The debate must be about the entire matter, not solely the fee level.
Sir George Young: Yesterday we had an extensive debate on the issue when my right hon. Friend the Minister for Universities and Science made a statement to the House. There will be another full day's debate on the whole issue, as I said in response to an earlier question. On the specific issue of arts and humanities, which a number of colleagues have raised, I will of course pass on to the Secretary of State their deep concerns about the funding of those faculties.
Mr Dave Watts (St Helens North) (Lab): Given that the Government's economic policy seems to be based on sacking up to 1 million public sector workers and replacing them with private sector employees, and that nobody bar the Government believes that that is workable, may we have a debate in which the Government have an opportunity to spell out how they will achieve that miracle?
Sir George Young:
I remind the hon. Gentleman of what the Office for Budget Responsibility has said on the matter. It expects whole economy employment to rise during every year of its forecast, from 28.89 million people in 2010-11 to 30.23 million in 2015-16. Employment has also risen very sharply in recent months. In the
three months to July 2010, total employment rose by 286,000, and while public sector employment, to which he refers, fell by 22,000 in the second quarter, private sector employment rose by 308,000. That puts the issue in perspective.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab): I wish to return to the education maintenance allowance, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) mentioned. As recently as June, the Minister with responsibility for schools reiterated the coalition Government's commitment to the EMA, but we now see that that commitment was as hollow as a Liberal Democrat pledge. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement on the equalities impact assessment of the withdrawal of the EMA?
Sir George Young: The hon. Gentleman will know that in the comprehensive spending review announcement, there was a clear statement on the future of the EMA, which will be transferred to a more targeted, local and discretionary system. We had a debate on the CSR last Thursday, when there was an opportunity to raise the EMA and other issues, so I am not sure that I can find time for another debate in the very near future.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab): When we have the debate that my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) has requested, may we also have a debate on Lib-Dem manifesto commitments, so that Ministers can hear the comments of students in my constituency, who have told me that they have decided either to change courses, based on which careers pay most, or not to go to university at all?
Sir George Young: As I have said, there will be an opportunity to debate the statement that we heard yesterday. It would be helpful if, during that debate, we just had some idea of where the Labour party stands on the matter.
Mr Jamie Reed (Copeland) (Lab): The Leader of the House will know that we are five months on from the shootings in my constituency, so there is no notion whatever of a knee-jerk response to those events. The Association of Chief Police Officers has recommended changes to the gun laws, and Home Office Ministers have promised Members a debate on such changes. When may we have that debate, and may we have it sooner rather than later please?
Sir George Young: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He will know that the Home Affairs Committee is undertaking an inquiry into firearms legislation, and we await the outcome of the inquiry into the tragic incidents in Cumbria earlier this year. Once we have had that, we will honour our commitment to a debate on our gun laws, which are already among the toughest in the world.
Mr Speaker: Order. I was expecting to move on to the main business. [ Interruption. ] I emphasise that I had been expecting to move on to the main business. Suddenly, there are points of order. We will observe just how genuine they are. I feel sure that they will be.
Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I hope that this is a very important matter on which you can offer some guidance. It seems to me that in this Parliament over the last 100 years, Governments and Prime Ministers have often dictated the terms and conditions for Members of Parliament, when in fact Parliament should be dictating the- [ Interruption. ] The point of order is this: is it right that the Government should be able to block Private Members' Bills that relate to the terms and conditions for Members? [ Interruption. ]
Mr Speaker: Order. It is absolutely legitimate for Members of the House, including members of the Government, to take a view about a particular Bill. That is the short answer to the attempted point of order from the hon. Gentleman.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like to bring to your attention the huge difference in the time that it takes to get letters from various Ministers. Should we introduce a maximum time for responses to legitimate questions from Back-Bench MPs?
Mr Speaker: A number of Departments have target response times. The hon. Gentleman says that he is raising a point of order with me, but it is not a matter specifically and directly for the Chair. He has, however, raised his concerns in front of the Leader of the House, who will have heard them. I feel sure that the right hon. Gentleman will attach importance to ensuring that those concerns are heeded.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It seems to me that, certainly for new Members, there is uncertainty about when it is appropriate for points of order to be made-and, indeed, about what actually constitutes a point of order.
Mr Speaker: There is no uncertainty in my mind. [Interruption.] Order. I am genuinely sorry for the hon. Gentleman if he is suffering from uncertainty. I am not suffering from any uncertainty on this matter, although I pay tribute to him for his efforts.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will know that I have raised with the House authorities the delays there have been as I have tried to secure certain school tours. This week, I had a group cancellation-
Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady was actively discouraged from pursuing that matter as a point of order. I fully understand her sense of grievance about it, but it is not, I am afraid, a matter of order. For her, it is a matter of real and understandable frustration, which is not quite the same thing.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your guidance. Earlier this week, there was a meeting, for the first time in 15 years, of the Welsh parliamentary party. I am not sure what the status of the Welsh parliamentary party is, but my question-
Mr Jackson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Do you, like me, deprecate the practice, too common among Departments under the previous Government, of referring, in written answers to parliamentary questions, to website addresses rather than giving substantive answers? Will you intercede?
Mr Speaker: I am happy to comment on that point of order. The hon. Gentleman draws the attention of the House to what is becoming a common practice. Responses from Ministers to questions should be as helpful and clear as possible. Simply referring an hon. Member to a website is, frankly, not good enough. [Interruption.]
That this House has considered the matter of the Strategic Defence and Security Review.
Mr Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State should resume his seat. Given that he was manifestly late for the debate, I thought that, as a matter of straightforward courtesy, he would begin his remarks with a fulsome apology to the House. That is what he will now do.
Last month, the Government published the strategic defence and security review. This was a thorough, cross-Government strategic effort, overseen by the National Security Council, looking at all aspects of security and defence. It describes the adaptable posture that we have chosen to meet the threats and exploit the opportunities that we identified in the national security strategy.
Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD): I intervene to assist the Secretary of State. He should pour a cup of water and catch his breath, so that he can be fully refreshed as he makes his statement. I hope that my intervention has been helpful.
I pay tribute, after a long and complex process, to Lord Stirrup and Sir Bill Jeffrey, the outgoing Chief of the Defence Staff and the permanent secretary at the MOD. I would like to thank them for all their hard work on behalf of the Department and the armed forces over many years.
The fiscal environment that we inherited from the previous Government has required us to make some very difficult and complex decisions in the SDSR. That should not come as a surprise to the Labour party. In his Green Paper, my predecessor, the right hon. Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth), who is in his place today, wrote with characteristic understatement that defence faced
"challenging financial pressures...which will constrain Government resources."
"We cannot proceed with all the activities and programmes we currently aspire to, while simultaneously supporting our current operations and investing in the new capabilities we need. We will need to make tough decisions".
We have had 12 years without a fundamental rethink and we are in the midst of the biggest financial crisis in a generation, with an inherited defence budget that is in overdraft to the tune of some £38 billion and is tied up by a byzantine system of contractual obligations. There was a record in-year increase of £3.3 billion in the equipment programme during Labour's last year in government alone. All that has come at a time when our armed forces are fighting at a high tempo in Afghanistan.
It has fallen to this Government to take the tough decisions required without undermining serious capabilities, the military covenant or the UK industrial capacity.
If we had a clean sheet of paper without the financial pressures that face all Government Departments as a result of the inherited fiscal deficit, and if we were unencumbered by existing contractual obligations and in different operational circumstances, the results would undoubtedly have been different. Nevertheless, although difficult, the decisions that we have made are coherent and consistent, and will provide us with the capabilities that we require for the future.
We now know that, as the former Chief of the Defence Staff has said, Labour Ministers were offered advice on which cuts to make to get the defence budget back into balance, but that advice was rejected owing to the lack of political will in the run-up to the general election. Only the coalition Government have had the political courage to do what was financially and militarily right with defence. We have had to implement the cuts that Labour Ministers lacked the courage to make.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op): The Secretary of State said that if he had had a clean sheet of paper, he would have made different decisions. Does that mean that the agreement with the French that was signed this week would not have happened?
Dr Fox: Quite the reverse. In opposition, we spent considerable time discussing with the French what we would want to do in terms of greater co-operation were we to win the general election. What we saw this week were the fruits of considerable labour on both sides for a considerable time.
It is rational and reasonable simply to want greater co-operation with our biggest military ally in continental Europe. What has been amazing in the last few days is the level of agreement, which seems to have occurred across the political spectrum, that this is not a drastic threat to UK sovereignty, but a common-sense use of both our nations' resources.
Mr Bob Ainsworth (Coventry North East) (Lab): As the Defence Secretary for the last year of the Labour Government, I remind the right hon. Gentleman that in that year we took £900 million out of the defence budget, rather than increase the deficit by £3 billion, and that that was met with howls from the then Opposition. Without wanting to fall out with the then Chief of the Defence Staff, I have to say that I cannot remember his ever having said anything to me about defence cuts that I was not prepared to make. I say that on the record.
Dr Fox: The right hon. Gentleman has made his point very clearly. Obviously, I am unable to say what discussions might have taken place. However, the point is that, as the National Audit Office said, there was an added overspend of £3.3 billion in the final year alone in the projects budgets. That is very clear.
As the Prime Minister has said, the SDSR was about taking the right decisions to protect national security in the years ahead, not simply a cost-saving exercise to get to grips with the biggest budget deficit in post-war history. However, let us be absolutely clear that those are not two separate things. Proper strategic thought encompasses ends, ways and means, matching ambition
and policy to commitments and resources. A strategy that does not take account of fiscal or budgetary measures is no strategy at all; it is simply wishful thinking.
As Lord Ashdown recently put it, we cannot defend a country on flights of fancy. Furthermore, history has clearly shown how fundamental a strong economy is for effective national security and defence over the long term. We were left an economically toxic legacy by the previous Government. They doubled the national debt and left us with the biggest budget deficit in the G20. We are spending £120 million every single day just to pay off the interest on Labour's debt. The interest we will pay next year on the debt is some £46 billion, significantly more than the entire annual defence budget, and we will get nothing for that money. Without regaining economic strength, we will be unable to sustain in the long term the capabilities required, including military capabilities, to keep our citizens safe and maintain our influence on the world stage.
If we learned anything from the cold war, it is that a strong economy equals strong defence. The economic legacy of the previous Government is a national security liability. We were left with a situation in which the country's finances were wrecked while the world is a more dangerous place than at any time in recent memory.
Every Department must make its own contribution to deficit reduction and the MOD is no exception, but because of the priority we place on security, the defence budget is making a more modest contribution to deficit reduction relative to almost all other Government Departments.
The SDSR meets twin priorities of protecting front-line capability for Afghanistan and beginning the process of transforming our armed forces to meet the challenges of the future, setting the path to a coherent and affordable defence capability in 2020 and beyond.
Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP): As the right hon. Gentleman knows, decisions still have to be made on the future of the joint combat aircraft and RAF Lossiemouth, which the MOD recently concluded to be the ideal JCA base because it provides excellent access to training areas and modern facilities and is the most cost-effective. The Secretary of State is in Oslo next week meeting Nordic partners. Will he discuss the opportunities for air defence co-operation with the Norwegians, who will have the same aircraft and will station them closest to RAF Lossiemouth?
Dr Fox: The hon. Gentleman makes a useful point. We will be discussing a wide range of future issues, including air defences and the common threats that we face. The hon. Gentleman's point is important but, as he recognises, it will have to be balanced against a number of other interests. We fully recognise the problems and anxieties that the uncertainties will create until the decisions are taken, but we will try to expedite them as best we can while fully understanding the issues involved.
As I said, the SDSR dealt with Afghanistan and the future 2020 force so, if I may, I shall take them in turn. Our armed forces are in Afghanistan first and foremost to protect our national security by ensuring that transnational terrorists cannot find safe and unhindered sanctuary there, as they did before 9/11. There is no difference across this House and those who seek to do
ill to British forces or British interests should understand that there is a united House of Commons behind our armed forces.
Under the leadership of, first, General McChrystal and now General Petraeus, we have the right strategy in place to succeed. We now have the right number of troops in theatre with the right equipment and we will soon agree a plan for the transition of key responsibilities to the Afghan Government at the NATO summit in Lisbon in a couple of weeks' time. We now have to be patient and let the strategy run its course.
The Foreign Secretary set out to Parliament last week the steady progress that is being made in the security mission. Afghanistan is the top foreign policy priority for the Government and the main effort for defence and we will do all that is necessary to achieve operational success and ensure that our forces have the tools they require to do the job. I am grateful to the shadow Defence Secretary and the shadow Foreign Secretary for showing such an interest in detailed briefing on the subject so early in their time in office.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab): Of course the Opposition support what the Government are doing in Afghanistan but, as we saw from the events of this week, as al-Qaeda is displaced from Afghanistan, it ends up in places such as Yemen. May I urge the Secretary of State to recognise that when we take action in one country, it affects another, and can we please also pursue a strategy to ensure that Yemen is as stable as possible?
Dr Fox: I am not sure that I accept the basic premise that it is an either/or situation. We have to deal with al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Even if we deal with them effectively, that does not mean that there will not be a terrorist threat from elsewhere. We need to be ever vigilant and to recognise that the problem of dealing with an ideology is that it can occur in any part of the globe. We also need to be aware that it is most likely to be present and to have effect where there are failed states.
I believe that proper joined-up government that is willing to consider how we support failing states and how we get improved governance, resources and development into those countries is one of the best ways of ensuring that the ideology never takes root. It is true in whatever dispute we are talking about that people who have nothing to lose may gamble with it, whereas people who have a stake are far more likely to be circumspect about what happens. That is one of the best ways to deny territory to those with that sort of fanatical ideology.
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab): I agree with the Secretary of State's assessment of Afghanistan and that there is a united House. However, could he enlighten the House by telling us at what stage the Prime Minister consulted him on the withdrawal date of 2015?
We have so many ongoing discussions, not just inside the Government but, as the hon. Lady knows, with our NATO partners and with our American partners.
It is essential that when we set these dates we are also cognisant of what the Afghan Government want. The Afghan Government have for some time-as the previous Government fully understood-had the ambition to manage entirely their own security apparatus by the end of 2014. The approach that has been taken by this Government and more widely in NATO has been to ask how we tie our timetables in with the ambitions of the Afghans. It is perfectly reasonable. As the NATO summit in a couple of weeks' time will show, it is increasingly the view of NATO that we should transition out of a combat role and allow the Afghan Government to have control by the end of 2014, but that we should maintain the resources required to give them support. For example, whether the Afghans will be able to develop any sort of meaningful air wing according to their timetable of 2014 is something that we must consider.
Bob Russell: May I take the Secretary of State back to his comments on last week's statement by the Foreign Secretary? So far, his speech has concentrated, quite rightly, on the military, but may I press him on the importance of joined-up government across Departments here so that in Afghanistan the political and economic sides-the other two sides of the triangle-get equal weight? Does joined-up thinking happen in Government here?
Dr Fox: It is increasingly happening, not only here but on the ground. To be fair, I must say that it is increasingly happening within NATO. The planning to co-ordinate military activity with the civilian reconstruction element is increasingly successful. There remains a gap which is what people talk about as "hot" construction, "hot" intervention or "hot" reconstruction, however we want to define it, which is at the initial period when we have military success, how do we begin the reconstruction process early enough and maximise the benefits from our own actions there? There are many people who would look at the example of Afghanistan in recent years and say that between 2003 and 2006 we perhaps did not ensure that we had in the optimal way joined the different elements that my hon. Friend mentions. However, we are seeing regular improvements in that regard, both nationally and internationally.
Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con): As the Secretary of State is probably aware, the Foreign Affairs Committee visited Afghanistan last week, when we had an opportunity to see the components of the settlement that he has described put in place. We welcome the indications of cautious optimism that are coming out of that country. As for 2015, does he accept that when that pledge was made, it related to a period that was almost the length of the second world war? Does he agree that that provides an ample opportunity for a solution and a settlement to be realised?
Where proposed changes in the SDSR had implications for operations in Afghanistan, we have ensured that the success of the mission was given priority. Consequently we have made no changes to combat units involved in Afghan operations and have postponed changes in other key capabilities such as the RAF's Sentinel ground surveillance aircraft for as long as they are required
there. This is in addition to the enhancements planned in capabilities such as counter-IED, protected vehicle surveillance and remotely piloted aircraft. And of course we have doubled the operational allowance, as we promised.
The men and women of our armed forces risk an awful lot to keep us safe. In Afghanistan, their sacrifice has been significant, and it will continue to be a dangerous place in which to operate. All of us in this House owe them our respect and gratitude, but most of all we owe them our support. This Government will not let them down.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab): I appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman says about the debt of gratitude that we owe to our armed forces; that will be endorsed on both sides of this House. We also owe a huge debt of gratitude to their families. When the Prime Minister brought the defence and security decisions before this House, he said that there were decisions to be made about the allowances made to the armed forces and their families. When will we have that information? Can we have an assurance that those families will not be worse off as a result of the ongoing sacrifice of their family members on the front line?
Dr Fox: The hon. Lady makes a very important point. Indeed, when we recently met a number of our armed forces coming home from Afghanistan, we both pointed out that without the support of families it would be infinitely more difficult for our service personnel to be engaged in Afghanistan. It is important that when we look at allowances, we strike a balance between what will enable our personnel and their families to get an adequate standard of living, particularly when they face the unique difficulties of postings abroad or extended periods away from family, and ensuring, in the very difficult financial climate we inherited, that we get value for money. We will carry out the review as quickly as we can, but I have to say to the hon. Lady that I would much rather get it right than get it quickly. We need properly to understand the implications for changes to the allowance, and any changes that are made must be phased in in a way that makes it possible for families to adjust to and absorb any of the financial changes that we are forced to undertake.
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con): My right hon. Friend has rightly won admiration for the very difficult settlement that he has had to reach in this review. He is clear from his remarks that the Afghan campaign, which may be costing the British taxpayer up to £8 billion a year, has significantly skewed the shape of the core defence programme. Can this be quantified? Should not those distortions to the core defence programme also be funded from the reserve so that defence policy in the long term is not affected by what we are doing in Afghanistan?
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|