1. Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab): What assessment he has made of the capacity of the Afghan national security forces to assume responsibility for the security of Afghanistan by 2015; and if he will make a statement. 
The Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Liam Fox): Assessments of the Afghan national security forces are regularly carried out by the NATO training mission in Afghanistan, of which UK forces form an important part. There are currently around 144,000 Afghan national army personnel and around 116,000 Afghan national police. The October 2010 targets were exceeded two months ahead of schedule and we assess that the growth in both capacity and capability of the Afghan forces is on track to meet the target of transferring lead responsibility for security to the Afghans by the end of 2014.
Ian Murray: When in Afghanistan, the Prime Minister said he was confident that troops could begin to return home in 2011, but the Chief of the Defence Staff has said that we will not "cut and run", and the Defence Secretary has said that we will be there for as long as it takes. That causes confusion and could make the situation in Afghanistan worse, and it causes a great deal of uncertainty for both our troops and their families. Will the Secretary of State categorically state whether UK troops will begin to depart from Afghanistan in 2011?
Dr Fox: The Prime Minister made it clear on his visit to Afghanistan, as the Chief of the Defence Staff and I have done, that if conditions allow, we may be able to see a reduction in 2011 of some UK forces. We may also decide to use UK forces in a different way, particular in more of a training mission, but that will depend on what happens on the ground next year.
Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth and Horncastle) (Con): May I ask my right hon. Friend, the sixth successive Defence Minister to whom I have pointed out the utter folly of our current intervention in Afghanistan-four of the quintet before him have wisely fled the House, and the first has just been banned from the Tea Room for five years-to whom he thinks the Afghan security force, which has been recruited from various tribes who have been bitterly hostile to each other for centuries, will owe their allegiance? Alternatively, does he expect a military dictator to emerge from their ranks to impose order?
Dr Fox: I am well aware of my hon. Friend's long-standing interest in Afghanistan and his long-standing difference of opinion with the mainstream. It is not just the UK that believes that the mission is essential. A coalition of some 48 countries in Afghanistan believes, and understands correctly, that we need both to degrade the threat in Afghanistan and to increase the capability of the Afghan Government to provide security if we are to see regional, and indeed global, stability.
Mr Bob Ainsworth (Coventry North East) (Lab): The progress being made by the Afghan security forces is good news, but when I asked the Prime Minister why he decided to announce a deadline so far out from 2015, he replied that one reason was to get away from the pressure for constant, short-term deadlines. He then went to Afghanistan and announced that our troops may well start coming home by 2011. Why is he doing that? What is the purpose of those constant public announcements on the end of the combat mission and the beginning of troops returning home? No one in the House denies that they want to see the troops come home quickly, but everybody is somewhat worried about those public pronouncements.
Dr Fox: There was indeed no announcement of any short-term milestone on the way to 2015. In answer to the question of whether British troops might be able to come home in 2011 and reduce their number, the Prime Minister said that that was dependent on conditions on the ground, which is entirely consistent with the Government's position in the run-up to 2015.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con): The numbers of Afghan forces-some 250,000 all told-are encouraging. That is a major step in the right direction, but does the Secretary of State agree that their capabilities and abilities matter more than just the numbers? What assessment has he made of the development-rapid or otherwise-of those capabilities?
Dr Fox: The capabilities speak for themselves. There have been enormous leaps in what the Afghan forces can do. The Afghan national army has conducted itself honourably and with great credit in terms of its technical ability, not least in Kandahar, and the Afghan national police are now moving ahead, for two reasons. First, the police were given equal pay status with the ANA, and secondly, along with that, literacy training led to a big increase in the quality of those joining. That is a major step forward from where we were in recent years.
Mr Jim Murphy (East Renfrewshire) (Lab): No one doubts the bravery of many of those joining the Afghan security forces-it is beyond doubt-but the Secretary of State will be aware that there are still worries about the quality of current training, the levels of desertion from the Afghan forces, and the very few cases in which some in the Afghan forces have turned their weapons on those in the international security assistance force. This is a crucial issue, because success in Afghanistan depends on it, so will he support increased international effort to improve the training and resilience of Afghan forces on the ground?
Indeed, I will. The right hon. Gentleman makes a crucial point. The international community, if it wants to be truly successful, must recognise that this
is about not just the numbers but the capability. Those who intend to transition away from a combat role would do well therefore to put the resources into increased training in Afghanistan to ensure that what the international community sets out to do is achieved.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan): The Government are committed to ensuring that all our former service personnel receive the support they require from across the whole of government. We also remain committed to rebuilding the military covenant.
My officials are in regular discussion with the Department of Health, the Ministry of Justice, the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Department for Work and Pensions and others to ensure that former servicemen and women get the services they deserve.
David T. C. Davies: Has the Minister considered lobbying the Government to change the law so that ex-service personnel can be discriminated in favour of in job interviews? Does he agree that were we to add ex-service personnel to the list of people in our society who can be discriminated in favour of, it would be a true example of positive discrimination?
Mr Robathan: I would say to all potential employers that most ex-service personnel bring with them a resilience and hard-work ethos that they may not find in every civilian. I would also say that we have very good resettlement packages for people going out into the civilian world, and we will certainly lobby employers to take disabled and other ex-service personnel on to their books. However, positive discrimination is illegal, and I do not think we are aiming to change the statutes. It is also unlawful to discriminate against disabled people.
Gemma Doyle (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab/Co-op): The Minister has said in recent letters to Members that the Government have no plans to introduce a veterans card scheme, which many believe would assist in identifying veterans to ensure that they get the care they deserve. However, the report on the military covenant commissioned by the Government and published last week recommends implementing such a scheme. Will he now reconsider his view on this matter?
Mr Robathan: There is no point in commissioning a report without looking at it, and we are doing so closely-as the hon. Lady will know, we are already implementing one or two of its recommendations. The veterans card is a difficult one, because, as Labour Members in the last Administration will know, it is difficult to identify who has been in the armed forces over a period of perhaps 60 years, and to ensure that it is feasible. It is also difficult to identify what exactly would be the point of it. We should remember, for instance, that there is already a discount service for those people.
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Nick Harvey): The strategic defence and security review published on 19 October 2010 stated that the Harrier fleet would be withdrawn from service in 2011. We have brought this date forward to coincide with the cessation of flying. The Harrier fleet will now be retired from service with the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force on 15 December 2010.
Angie Bray: I was lucky enough to sit in the cockpit of a Harrier jet when I was working for the British Forces Broadcasting Service in Gibraltar some years ago. The jets are fantastic pieces of kit. Does the Minister agree that the Harrier jets and their pilots have performed a great service for this country? Will he also update us on the training programme for the joint strike fighter, which is the replacement?
Nick Harvey: It is a pleasure to echo the hon. Lady's words in paying tribute to all who have served with the Harrier, in both the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force, and in complimenting the Harrier itself, which, in its day, was a much-admired and, indeed, groundbreaking piece of engineering. [ Interruption. ] I am sorry; I had forgotten the hon. Lady's question. Training for the joint strike fighter is already under way. Indeed, it will continue throughout the next few years, increasing its momentum considerably as we get into the second half of the coming decade, because of the necessity to bring the JSF into service in 2019. The intense training period will run for several years ahead of that, but the training itself has already begun.
Michael Dugher (Barnsley East) (Lab): The Minister for the Armed Forces said in an interview on 9 November that the Government would save more money by scrapping the Harrier than by scrapping the Tornado, yet the Minister responsible for defence equipment, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Peter Luff), said in a subsequent written answer that the cost of supporting the Harrier to 2018 would have been £0.7 billion, whereas the cost of the Tornado over the next 10 years would be £3.1 billion. However, Lord Astor put the figure at £4.8 billion. Does that not show that there is not only a capability gap, in the words of the Secretary of State, but a credibility gap, too?
I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman is comparing like with like in those figures, but in any case, the military grounds for the choice were straightforward. It would not have been possible for the Harrier to go back into service in Afghanistan because of the run-down of the Harrier fleet under the previous Administration. Furthermore, the Tornado has a
considerably greater range of capabilities, in terms of its range and performance, weapons payload and reconnaissance capabilities. The decision was taken on the basis of military advice.
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Nick Harvey): RAF Bicester has been in disposal for some time, and it would not make practical or economic sense to withdraw it from that process now. Because the wider estate rationalisation work that is under way is a complex piece of work that will take some time to complete, where it is sensible to do so, we will allow normal disposal business to continue.
Tony Baldry: Can my hon. Friend explain to the chief executive of Defence Estates that RAF Bicester has absolutely no commercial value? It is a combination of a number of historic listed buildings, a runway surrounded by ammunition dumps that have the same statutory listing as Stonehenge and a grass airfield riven by Crichel Down disputes. Defence Estates has been trying to market RAF Bicester for several years now, yet absolutely no one has shown any interest in it because it has no commercial value. In the meantime, all that happens is that those wonderful listed buildings rot. That is a dereliction of duty, so can my hon. Friend get a grip with the chief executive of Defence Estates, so that RAF Bicester can be transferred to those in Bomber Command Heritage and others who would like to put it to good, heritage use?
Nick Harvey: I detect that my hon. Friend has a greater familiarity with the history than I do; suffice to say that whatever the history, it is now understood by Defence Estates. It has now been concluded that the site can be disposed of, and the accounts and views of former owners, among others, are being considered. When disposing of such defence assets, it is essential that competence and experience in dealing with historic buildings be taken into account. Any idea that the site had any significant commercial value has, I think, passed.
The Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Liam Fox): There are currently 48 troop-contributing nations and more than 130,000 troops in the international security assistance force. The UK is the second largest troop contributor after the United States, contributing around 7.5% of the total force. This figure is also double the size of the third largest contribution, made by Germany.
At this time I would like to pay tribute to our brave men and women who are serving in Afghanistan, especially as Christmas approaches. Is the Secretary of State surprised that UK troops in Afghanistan
account for 43% of the troops contributed by European Union countries? Is he satisfied that our colleagues are doing enough?
Dr Fox: No, I am not satisfied, and therefore the Government will constantly be urging our other NATO partners to do more. However, it is worth saying that some of the smaller nations contribute disproportionately. In particular, given the difficulties that we face in Helmand, I am sure that the House would like to pay tribute to our Danish and Estonian colleagues, who have done such a wonderful job. In general terms, the message for the rest of NATO is that we all need to act together-and in together and out together.
Dr Fox: That is necessarily dependent on the security position in Afghanistan, especially as regards the quality-discussed in an earlier question-of the Afghan security forces, but I think it would be reasonable to expect the UK to be in Afghanistan in a training and support role for some time after 2015 to ensure that the legacy we hand over to the Afghan Government is maintained because, in the longer term, that regional stability is important for our safety here in the UK.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Peter Luff): The construction of the two Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers is expected to create or sustain around 7,000 to 8,000 jobs in the tier 1 shipyards of Appledore, Govan, Portsmouth and Rosyth, with a further 2,000 to 3,000 jobs in the wider supply chain. Equipment subcontracts to the value of some £1.3 billion have been placed to date, boosting local economies across the UK. The strategic defence and security review confirmed that both carriers will be built, and we expect that construction work on the programme will continue until late in this decade.
Catherine McKinnell: I thank the Minister for that encouraging answer. He may be aware that I have introduced the Apprenticeships and Skills (Public Procurement Contracts) Bill to encourage better use of the public procurement system to increase the number of apprenticeships available. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that defence procurement increases the number of apprenticeships available, helping to build on skills bases in areas like the north-east, which has a proud history of manufacturing in this sector?
Peter Luff: I congratulate the hon. Lady on her initiative, and I can say that defence contractors up and down the country are committed to apprenticeships-and I pay tribute to them for that. It is very important that we maintain the skills base of our defence manufacturing industries, and they will be invited to contribute to the consultation that we are launching shortly on our new defence equipment policy.
7. Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab): If he will take steps to implement the recommendations of parliamentary Committees in the last Parliament and the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child to end the recruitment of under-18s into the armed forces. 
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan): The United Kingdom ratified the optional protocol on children in armed conflict in June 2003. The minimum age at which individuals may join the armed forces remains at 16 years, which broadly reflects the minimum statutory school leaving age. There are no plans to change this.
Nic Dakin: Some 28% of recruits into the armed forces were aged under 18 in 2008-09. Recruitment to the armed forces carries significant emotional and physical risks to well-being for young people. What steps are the Government taking to mitigate those risks?
Mr Robathan: I recently took a passing-out parade at Bassingbourn, and I was struck by how happy all the young recruits under training appeared to be. We take our duty of care very seriously. It is a tough environment, but the recruits are well looked after, and most of the young people I met were desperate to join their units. We do not allow people under 18 to go operational theatre as a matter of policy.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Peter Luff): The strategic defence and security review concluded that a carrier strike capability was needed for the future. The most cost-effective way of delivering that capability from around 2020 is to continue building both the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers, fitting the operational carrier with catapults and arrestor gear to enable the use of the more capable carrier variant of the joint strike fighter.
David Mowat: I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he agree that it cannot have been right on the eve of a general election, weeks before we reached the certainty of the strategic defence review, for a large UK supplier to enter into a contract with the Government? It was very difficult to break, so it effectively prejudged the result of the defence review. Is the Minister happy that BAE Systems acted in good faith in this matter?
Cancellation costs are a very complex area. The contract for the aircraft carriers was related to the programme of work, agreed by the previous Government under the so-called terms of business agreement, to sustain the ability to design and integrate complex warships in the UK. Over the next few years, the QE class is providing that work load, with a Type 26 global combat ship taking over later in the decade. If we were to cancel the contracts for the QE class under TOBA we would need to provide replacement work,
which would come at a cost, compounding the inevitable costs of cancelling the QE class ships, one of which is already well under construction. This brings us to the position so clearly outlined by the Prime Minister in the SDSR announcement. I would not point the finger of blame so much at BAE Systems as at my predecessor, who acquiesced in the delay of the carrier contract, which led to £767 million of increased costs in the last financial year alone, and a total of £1.56 billion over the life of the programme, making his peerage just about the most expensive in British political history.
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab): As the Minister knows, the best way of obtaining value for money for the "cats and traps" is to fit them during the construction of both Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales. Can he update us on the progress made by his civil servants in discussing the issue with Babcock, and will he also tell us when he will report to the House on the final decision?
Peter Luff: The hon. Gentleman has a habit of asking me questions that I cannot answer. No decisions have been made yet, although they are currently being made. However, I can reassure him that we are considering carefully which system of "cats and traps" should be fitted to the carriers. Once again, he has made a point very well on behalf of his constituents.
Mr David Crausby (Bolton North East) (Lab): Two new aircraft carriers fitted with joint strike fighters will put Britain's naval strike force in the premier league, but how can the Minister justify the absolute necessity in the longer term if he is prepared to accept no aircraft cover in the shorter term?
Peter Luff: I am amazed that the hon. Gentleman has even asked that question. It is clear that we can accept the capability gap now to ensure that we have a truly capable carrier in the future-and it will be a truly capable carrier thanks to the decision to change the carrier variant, which will significantly enhance the power and projection of the vessel.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Gerald Howarth): The strategic defence and security review set out our clear intention to increase defence exports as part of our enhanced defence diplomacy initiative. The principal purpose of such exports is to enhance our partnerships with allies, share UK ethos and doctrine, and generally promote the UK's influence. They provide the additional benefit of helping to drive down the cost of equipment for Britain's armed forces.
Ministers across Departments are already actively promoting the policy, led by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Officials in the Ministry of Defence and the Defence and Security Organisation, which is part of UK Trade & Investment, are giving invaluable support to Ministers and industry.
Andrea Leadsom: Is my hon. Friend aware of the enormous difficulties experienced by businesses such as Enterprise Control Systems in my constituency in securing export licences for the servicing and maintaining of equipment that they have sold abroad? Enterprise Control Systems makes world-class radio frequency inhibitors, but it is losing business because of the difficulty of obtaining credit licences.
Mr Howarth: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing my attention to the difficulties faced by the company in her constituency. I can tell her that she is not alone: other companies throughout the country are experiencing the same difficulties. It is very important for us to ensure that licences are dealt with promptly by the Ministry of Defence and its agencies.
Along with the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Peter Luff), who is responsible for defence equipment, support and technology, I will look into the specific points that my hon. Friend has raised. It would be helpful if she wrote to me.
Andrew Stephenson: Rolls-Royce, which is the largest employer in my constituency, plans to build a £100 million extension to its Barnoldswick site and to take on 100 extra workers if it wins the contract for manufacturing engine fan blades for the new F35 joint strike fighter. Is my hon. Friend able to update us on what the Government are doing to help Rolls-Royce to secure the contract?
Mr Howarth: I am acutely aware of the contribution that Barnoldswick in my hon. Friend's constituency makes to Rolls-Royce, which is surely one of the extraordinary jewels in the United Kingdom's engineering crown. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has written to Congressmen in both Houses on the Hill to emphasise our support for the F136 engine, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has had meetings with the head of Air Force Acquisition, Lockheed Martin and others. I assure my hon. Friend that this Administration are doing everything that he would expect of them to promote a great British product to the United States.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab): Of course we all want to see a successful defence industry exporting as much as possible abroad, but must there not be a bottom line, namely that we do not sell to corrupt countries or to countries that will use what they buy from us to oppress their own people? In that context, is it not important for us to ensure that exports of small arms-which often keep inflamed the battles and civil wars in Africa-are brought to an end?
I hope that the hon. Gentleman would be the first to accept that we have one of the toughest export licensing controls for military equipment in the world. I yield to no one in praising the efforts of both the present Government and the last Conservative
Government to ensure that, as far as possible, equipment has gone to the right people and not to those who would misuse it. We are, of course, governed by the law as well.
Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab): Even during these current difficult economic times, the UK's defence export sector requires ongoing research and technology investment, but if we are to increase levels of exports in the defence sector, how does that square with the Secretary of State's view, admittedly when in opposition, that US-UK interoperability is the key and he would intend to follow a much more pro-American profile in procurement?
Mr Howarth: Of course having a viable and successful defence industrial base in this country is very important; there is nothing to be interoperable with otherwise. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we place a high premium on interoperability, partly because we think it will help to drive down costs if our equipment is interoperable with that of other countries. The United States is, of course, our principal ally in these matters, and is likely to continue to be-provided, of course, that they are helpful to us when we need their help in supporting our industry.
The Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Liam Fox): So far, the defence reform unit under Lord Levene has considered the key activities defence needs to undertake: an analysis of our current structure; how a number of other countries manage aspects of defence; and the benefits, disadvantages and robustness of a range of different operating models. It is currently considering proposals on how better to manage defence infrastructure and to deliver corporate services across defence. It is also examining the relationship between the head office, the rest of the Department and the armed forces.
Michael Ellis: I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for his response and congratulate him on the progress made. Can he assure us that the much-needed restructuring of the Ministry of Defence will not impact on the operation in Afghanistan or the provision of services to any of Her Majesty's armed forces?
Dr Fox: As I have said, defence reform is, effectively, a root-and-branch reform of the entire Department including, essentially, everything other than the front-line capabilities that were covered in the SDSR. It will have no impact on what is happening in Afghanistan, which will remain the prime effort of the MOD.
Mr Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP):
In the context of reform, when does the Department intend to implement the recommendation in the report of the
Secretary of State's party colleague, the hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), envisaging the establishment of a veterans information service?
Dr Fox: Yes, acquisition will be part of what the DRU does; my right hon. Friend makes an important point. There will also be an announcement-I hope in the very near future-about a new chief of defence matériel, who will be important in that process. I hope the report on the acquisition reform will be available before the end of July 2011.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab): The SDSR projected savings from the redundancies of 25,000 civilian civil servants in the MOD. In answers to parliamentary questions, the Secretary of State has previously stated that the cost of redundancy packages are yet unknown. Will he today share with the House the cost of making 25,000 civil servants redundant, or is this just another area of the SDSR where announcements are being made before the work has been done?
Dr Fox: Given the financial position the Government inherited, it was necessary to make major reductions in costs, not least in personnel. How those costs ultimately are manifested is dependent upon whether we require compulsory redundancies, how many are voluntary redundancies and how many are early retirements. These matters are subject to discussions with the civil service at the current time.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Peter Luff): I receive monthly reports and quarterly detailed project health checks on the Ministry of Defence's largest projects. Last year, discounting deliberate policy decisions made by the previous Government, the MOD met all its targets to deliver its major projects to cost, time and performance. This year looks equally encouraging. The top 30 major projects are also reviewed annually by the National Audit Office and in this year's report the Comptroller and Auditor General said:
"In-year performance on the majority of large defence projects which we examined has been encouraging".
But we should not wait for the NAO to tell us how we are doing at the end of the year. That is why I can announce to the House today that the Secretary of
State and I are forming a major projects performance board that will review our most significant projects regularly.
Claire Perry: I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he agree that in a long line of procurement failures from the previous Government, the £38 billion overspend in the defence budget takes the biscuit? Will he reassure the House on what steps will be taken so that that level of commercial failure will be, like the idea of a Labour Government, a thing of the past? [ Interruption. ]
Peter Luff: I hear howls of protest from the Opposition Front Bench, but over the weekend I heard the shadow Secretary of State fessing up to major failures in procurement. I strongly agree with my hon. Friend.
I am happy to tell you, Mr Speaker, that I cannot comply with your request for short answers and do justice to my hon. Friend's question because we have a range of measures in place to achieve precisely that outcome, including stronger controls over the entry for new projects in the equipment programme; a formal project start-up process that considers requirement risk, technical viability risk, affordability and deliverability; improving key skills; working closely with the NAO; and reaffirming our commitment to regular defence reviews. All that will achieve exactly the outcome that she so rightly desires.
Mark Lancaster: Historically, one of the fundamental problems with procurement has been a disconnect between Ministers, civil servants, uniformed personnel and the defence industry. How do we intend to address that problem in the future?
Peter Luff: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We talk of a conspiracy of optimism in these major projects that has so often characterised procurement decisions in the past. The list I rattled through in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Claire Perry) partly addresses the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster). I am sorry that I said it so fast, but it was important to get it on the record. If I do not deliver on that, I think my job will be on the line.
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Nick Harvey): As we set out in the strategic defence and security review, we attach a high priority to the cyber-defence of our systems. The Government have placed a renewed focus on that threat. We have recognised attacks through cyber-space as a tier 1 risk to national security and put an extra £650 million in place to enhance our protection. There are technical and procedural measures in place to protect MOD systems from cyber-attack and to ensure we can mitigate the impact of those attacks. The House will understand if I do not comment further on the detail of those measures.
Robert Halfon: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Following the welcome Stuxnet viral attack on the Iranian nuclear facility, what steps is the Ministry of Defence taking to avoid a similar assault on our internet infrastructure?
Nick Harvey: Our cyber-defences are regularly tested by intruders, and we are confident in our defences. The threat, of course, is changing in extent and complexity, which requires continual improvements in our security measures and novel approaches to deal with the more sophisticated threats.
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con): Recent news reports have indicated that cyber-attacks by WikiLeaks on critical national infrastructure are only likely to grow. Does the Minister agree that we must involve the private sector in ensuring that we can be ahead of the game when it comes to our cyber-security?
Nick Harvey: Yes. We are committed to working closely with the private sector in defence not only of our own systems but of those across Government. Many are, of course, provided by the private sector, so it is essential that we have the strongest possible partnership with it.
The Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Liam Fox): As I said in answer to an earlier question, the strength of the Afghan national army currently stands at around 144,000 and of the Afghan national police at around 116,000. Through continued investment in Afghan forces, we are confident that, by the end of 2014, they will be able to take the lead for security across their country.
Caroline Dinenage: Given that answer-that our aspiration is to withdraw from Afghanistan and that the SDSR is focused on supporting our troops over there-are we still wise to have effective cuts in our expeditionary fighting capabilities, particularly in light of recent events in North Korea?
Dr Fox: In terms of what is happening in Afghanistan, we have made it very clear not only that that is the primary aim of our activity in the Ministry of Defence, but that it would be unaffected by the SDSR, including that particular expeditionary capability. It is not just what the armed forces are doing that contributes to that security: the UK's biggest direct police training effort is in Helmand, where we have 77 UK military personnel and nine MOD police improving the quality of the Afghan police, who are just as important as the Afghan national army for long-term security.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab): Why is the Secretary of State still in denial about the number of desertions and dismissals from the Afghan army and police being similar to the number of new recruits? Will he face up to the fact that when NATO leaves and the Afghan Government are fleeing to their boltholes in Dubai, the number of people deserting the Afghan army will increase massively?
Dr Fox: It is the hon. Gentleman's opinion that flies in the face of the facts. The net size of both the Afghan national army and police are increasing, as is their capability, and the governance that will ultimately determine how they are deployed is improving. There is cause for cautious optimism and it does nothing for the morale of our forces when people constantly pretend that there cannot possibly be a positive outcome in Afghanistan.
16. Tony Cunningham (Workington) (Lab): What studies his Department has undertaken on the feasibility of operating the existing fleet of Sea King search and rescue helicopters beyond 2016; and if he will make a statement. 
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Peter Luff): As part of the review of the search and rescue helicopter project a number of options have been considered, including extending the current search and rescue Sea King helicopters beyond 2016. An announcement will be made shortly.
Tony Cunningham: I thank the Minister for that answer, but will he explain why he plans to spend about £7 billion on American search and rescue helicopters rather than upgrade the Sea Kings at a fraction of the cost? Sea Kings did an incredible job during the flooding in my constituency.
Peter Luff: Apart from anything else, that is the plan we inherited. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that all options are being considered extremely carefully. I repeat that an announcement will be made shortly.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan): The Government place a high priority on the welfare of service personnel and their families and will therefore seek to improve accommodation where necessary. More than 95% of service family accommodation properties in the UK are currently at the top two standards, out of four, for condition.
Ian Lavery: The Minister will be aware that as a result of the sale of the Chelsea barracks in 2007, £959 million was raised. Can he confirm that that money will be ring-fenced for service accommodation and that any future investment during the comprehensive spending review period will be new, rather than previously allocated, investment?
There was a story in the News of the World which was not entirely correct. [ Interruption. ] It was not entirely correct. A great deal of money was raised from the sale of Chelsea barracks but that was some four years ago when I do not recall our being in power. Having checked on this we have discovered that although the money is not ring-fenced, because we do not believe it should be, we have spent the vast majority of it and we will spend well in excess of that amount. As
a matter of interest, on Thursday I was fortuitously at Bulford, where I started the work on a new married quarters estate that will provide 260 state-of-the-art houses for our deserving personnel.
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Nick Harvey): The strategic defence and security review sets out the requirements for the armed forces' contribution to standing commitments and identifies the restructured forces we will need over the next 10 years to meet them. Changes to the armed forces will not affect our non-discretionary standing commitments.
Huw Irranca-Davies: In respect of the cancellation of the Nimrod mark IV maritime patrol aircraft, does the Minister agree with the First Sea Lord, who said earlier this month that he was "very uncomfortable" about it and that
"I don't welcome the loss of the Nimrod"?
Nick Harvey: I entirely agree, as do all Ministers, with the discomfort that the First Sea Lord feels about this; the decision not to bring the Nimrod MRA4 into service was very difficult. We will have to bear some risk-it would be wrong to claim otherwise-but we will mitigate that risk by using other assets in the meantime, just as the previous Government had embarked on doing.
22. Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab): What recent discussions his Department has had with representatives of the defence industry on the effects of the reductions in expenditure proposed in the strategic defence and security review. 
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Peter Luff): Ministers and officials have had many discussions with industry representatives both during and since the outcome of the strategic defence and security review was announced in October, including a full meeting of the National Defence Industries Council, which I chaired last month.
Graham Jones: In October 1,000 people were put out of work by BAE Systems in Lancashire, and last week a further 1,300 job losses were announced, owing to SDSR cuts. Does the Minister think that these job losses are a price worth paying, and does he agree that they will have an adverse impact on the economy of east Lancashire?
The Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Liam Fox): My departmental responsibilities are to ensure that our country is properly defended now and in the future, that our service personnel have the right equipment and training to allow them to succeed in their military tasks, and that we honour the military covenant.
Dr Fox: It would have been highly desirable to make the changes that we envisage ahead of the elections next May. It is unlikely that we will be able to do so in that time frame, but it is clear that change is needed. It is primarily a matter for the Ministry of Justice, but we have had a number of ministerial discussions between the two Departments to try to clarify those plans and to ensure that we have a legislative slot to enable us to implement them as quickly as possible.
Mr Jim Murphy (East Renfrewshire) (Lab): We have heard again today that our armed forces are helping to create new freedoms in Afghanistan. Here at home, the right to protest peacefully is crucial, but in recent days we have seen the appalling violation of the Cenotaph. Will the Secretary of State support an all-party cross-Government approach to see whether our war memorials, which are engraved with the names of many of our country's heroes, are properly protected from the actions of the few of our country's mindless hooligans?
Dr Fox: I fully associate myself with the comments of the shadow Defence Secretary. There must be outrage across this country at some of the scenes that we witnessed last week. In particular, it might be worth emphasising in the House to those students who took part in some of those demonstrations and who seem to take the freedoms that they have so much for granted that those freedoms were won by the sacrifices of previous generations, the names of whom are commemorated on some of those monuments. They deserve to be treated with far greater respect than they were last week.
T2.  Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con): 23 Engineer Regiment is based in my constituency and is one of a number of regiments currently serving in Helmand. The Minister has already taken the opportunity to pay tribute to all those involved in Operation Herrick 13, including our Danish and Estonian friends, but will he also pay tribute to the families of our brave servicemen and women who provide such strong emotional support, especially in this Christmas season?
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Nick Harvey):
I have great pleasure in doing exactly that and paying tribute to all those who are serving in Afghanistan, who will be away from their families over Christmas. Our thoughts are with the families as well. On the contribution
being made in Helmand by our friends and allies from Denmark and Estonia, they have both been terrific and resolute allies to us and it will be my pleasure to visit both countries later this week to thank them for what they are doing and to discuss future co-operation.
"what I am wary of is giving advance notice of leaving. If you were Taliban what would you do on hearing that troops were leaving in 12 to 24 months? I think you would just wait until they had gone. We have to be clear what we are doing and"
Dr Fox: As I said, there are no short-term milestones in terms of numbers, so there is no possibility of us setting out in advance the numbers that withdraw in 12 or 24 months. The Prime Minister made it clear that we may be able to reduce troop numbers if conditions on the ground are suitable.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Gerald Howarth): We have decided to extend our membership of the European Defence Agency provisionally for two years, during which time we want to see the agency focus on capability-building, not institution-creation. The EDA, with the support of most other member states, wanted a 4% budget increase, but I am very pleased to be able to report to the House that at last week's meeting of EU Defence Ministers I was able to secure their agreement, nem. con., on a budget freeze, saving the British taxpayer about £200,000.
Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP): Moray has the most defence-dependent economy in the UK, and recently the Ministry of Defence announced the closure of RAF Kinloss in the region. Given that neighbouring RAF Lossiemouth has already been rated as the best base for the next generation of fast jets, will the Secretary of State confirm that the ongoing RAF basing review is considering the unparalleled economic and social dislocation that would be caused by a double-base closure in Moray?
Dr Fox: The primary purpose of the basing review is to get the best defence outcomes for the United Kingdom. Obviously, those who represent seats in the area, the Scottish Government, the Scotland Office and others will wish to make representations about other aspects, including the social and economic impact, but the Ministry of Defence's recommendations will be based on the military solutions and what is best for the country as a whole.
T4.  Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD):
Will the Minister update me on the progress of the reserved forces review, mentioned in the SDSR, and confirm that there will be no cuts to 56 Signal Squadron? It is partly based in my constituency, and I personally had the good fortune to witness the skill and dedication of
its members during the cold snap, when, if it had not been for them, I think my local hospital would have struggled to stay open.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan): I certainly pay tribute to the Signal Squadron and its work during the cold snap. The hon. Gentleman will understand that I cannot pre-empt the review, which only started less than two months ago, by saying whether there will be any changes to the squadron's configuration. What I can say is that we very much value the commitment and contribution of the reserves both at home and, now, on operational deployments.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab): We are constantly being told that the next Parliament after 2015 will have to take the final decision on replacing the Trident nuclear missile system. Exactly how much money, which would otherwise not need to be spent, will be spent between now and then in preparing for that decision?
Dr Fox: That will depend on the initial gate decision and what flows from it, but it will be necessary to spend money to make it very clear that we are undertaking the research and development work that will be essential in allowing us to make that final decision. On the Government's policy, there is no change: we are committed to a submarine-based, continuous at-sea deterrent, because we believe that it is not only most effective, but cost-effective for the United Kingdom in an uncertain world.
T5.  Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con): I find myself, surprisingly, echoing the comments of the shadow Defence Secretary. Many of my constituents were outraged by the desecration of our nation's most revered war memorial, the Cenotaph, last week by student yobs. No one has the right-no matter what the reason-to disrespect our fallen soldiers, and we should remember that their sacrifices allowed those people to demonstrate in the first place. Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning those acts and in calling for the full force of the law to be used against those who carried out that wicked deed?
Dr Fox: In the spirit of Christmas, my hon. Friend should not be surprised that he now and again agrees with the shadow Defence Secretary. I do, again, echo those comments. Last week we saw a number of students who were peaceful protesters in support of their aim and we saw a number whose behaviour got out of hand, but to my eye we also saw a number of hard-line, anarchist and subversive groups parading on our streets, and that is utterly unacceptable in a free, liberal and democratic society.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op): May I take the Minister back to RAF search and rescue? Does he not understand the concerns of my constituents and the many thousands of people who walk and climb in the Lake district that we might be about to pay substantially more for an inferior service? If it remains the cheapest and best-value option to re-fit the existing helicopters, will he consider doing so?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Peter Luff):
I can reassure the House that the Government are absolutely committed to best-value options, unlike
the Labour party. I repeat that the announcement will be made very shortly and the hon. Gentleman will be able to judge the decision on its merits. I am afraid I can say nothing further until then.
T6.  Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con): Will the Secretary of State give the House an as full as possible update on the ability of the Afghan Government to prevent terrorist organisations from organising within their own borders?
Dr Fox: As I said, along with the international community, we are making a major investment in the capability of the Afghan national security forces-both the army and the police-to establish a permanent rule of law and security in Afghanistan. The command structure of the Taliban and al-Qaeda has recently been disrupted, but it is worth the House noting that it is not simply the Government of Afghanistan who are involved in this. We require the constant co-operation of the Pakistan Government if we are to make that very vulnerable border between Afghanistan and Pakistan as safe as possible and give terrorists as little chance as we can of having a safe haven.
Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op): The Secretary of State will be aware of the 1,400 job losses announced by BAE Systems as a result of Government cuts. That is a tremendous blow to the people of Preston, particularly those working at Samlesbury and Warton. Will he undertake to support tranche 3B of the Eurofighter Typhoon project, which they have not yet approved, and the joint strike fighter aircraft for the new two aircraft carriers?
Dr Fox: It is always regrettable when there are job losses. We remember that, behind every number, a family will undergo financial hardship as a consequence of such decisions. I give the hon. Gentleman an absolute assurance that we will be promoting Typhoon at every possible opportunity. I had a number of discussions in the Gulf last week on that issue and I recently visited India to try to boost the Typhoon bid. We are fully committed to the joint strike fighter, which will give us a fifth generation capability far greater than anything we currently have and offer intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance-ISTAR-capabilities, which will see us well into the first half of the century.
T7.  Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con): My hon. Friend will be aware of the sacrifice of the thousands of men and women of Bomber Command during the second world war. That sacrifice has never been properly recognised by the award of a campaign medal. When will it be?
Mr Robathan: May I take this opportunity to pay tribute to those of Bomber Command and, indeed, to the whole of the Royal Air Force during the second world war? They fought to defend our freedom so successfully and we owe them an enormous amount.
A review into medals is taking place-indeed, there are meetings his week-and I am also having meetings about a Bomber Command memorial, which will go up opposite the Royal Air Force Club in St James's park. It is a very fine memorial, and I look forward to it being erected and to paying proper tribute to Bomber Command, which I know some people feel has been slightly forgotten.
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab): Further to the Secretary of State's earlier statement that there will still be British troops in Afghanistan post-2015, will he confirm whether Afghan national security forces or someone else will be responsible for their security?
Dr Fox: It is very clear that the aim is to have the threat degraded and the capability of the Afghan national security forces increased, so that they can take control of their own security. Some assistance with training and support may be required, but it is very clear-President Karzai has repeatedly made it clear-that it is the wish of the sovereign Government of Afghanistan that they take control of their own security by the end of 2014.
Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD): What possible strategic advantage would there be in the closure of RAF Leuchars in my constituency, when the base is uniquely geographically positioned to provide comprehensive air defence for the northern half of the United Kingdom?
Dr Fox: My right hon. and learned Friend makes an eloquent bid for the retention of the base in his constituency, as he has also done in private. As I said in answer to an earlier question, the basing review will be based purely on what gives Britain the best defence network. We will be taking those decisions over the coming months. We understand that there will be other considerations but, in determining our bases, it is the Ministry of Defence's job to consider what makes Britain safest.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab): When will the Secretary of State face the truth that his irrational optimism about a victory in Afghanistan is based on three collapsing foundations-the Afghan Government and the endemically corrupt police and army? Will he ask himself the question that haunted Senator Kerry in the last days of the Vietnam war: "Who will be the last soldier I will send to his death for a mistake?"?
Dr Fox: I do not believe for a moment that it is irrational optimism that drives a coalition of 48 countries to want to see not only better security, but better governance in that part of the world, which has a global impact. I would far rather be a victim of hope than despair.
T9.  Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con): Will my right hon. Friend pay tribute to our armed services, including reservists, who are prepared at a moment's notice to mobilise to help in a national emergency such as that in Edinburgh last week?
Dr Fox: Our armed forces responded in a number of parts of the country to the snow emergency that we saw last week. In response to the request from Edinburgh city council, we immediately made armed forces assets available. I am sure that it is to the delight of the whole House, and especially to the Scottish Government and the Scottish nationalists, that it was Her Majesty's United Kingdom forces whom we were able to deploy for that purpose.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab):
I think we can all agree on the overriding importance that this House places on the defence training needs of the whole of the
UK armed forces tri-services. In a debate last week, we tried to get an answer to the question of what is the future of the defence training academy at St Athan after the news of its cancellation, but answer came there none. Can the Minister now give us an update with some clarity on what is the future for St Athan?
Nick Harvey: The defence training requirement across the three services is being reviewed in the light of the collapse of the project at St Athan. We are identifying possible sites either for tri-service training or taking the three services separately, and we will make an announcement when we have concluded that work in the spring.
T10.  Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con):
Will my right hon. Friend update
the House on Britain's role and strategic involvement in the middle east following the talks held in Manama?
Dr Fox: There has been a substantial amount of diplomatic activity by all parts of the Government, including the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Office. There have been a number of visits to Gulf countries as part of our Gulf initiative to strengthen the relationships in what is a very important strategic part of the world. At the Manama dialogue, I had a number of bilaterals where I had discussions with the United States and some of our most important allies in the region.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May): With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the appalling violence that took place during last week's protests outside Parliament.
I want first to express my gratitude to those police officers and commanders who put themselves in harm's way. They showed great bravery and professionalism in the face of violence and provocation. It was this bravery that enabled this House to engage unhindered in democratic debate, and I know that the whole House will want to send them our thanks. I also want to thank Sir Paul Stephenson, who led the Metropolitan Police Service through a difficult operation and who serves London as commissioner with distinction.
Hon. Members may find it useful if I recap last week's events. On Thursday, 3,000 people assembled at the university of London union to march through central London. By the time the crowd reached Parliament square, police estimate that the number of demonstrators had grown to 15,000. The police maintained a barrier system outside the Palace of Westminster that allowed pedestrian access and the business of the House to continue at all times. Concerted attempts were made to breach the barrier lines. Protestors threw bottles, stones, paint, golf balls and flares, and attacked police with metal fencing.
A cordon was placed around Parliament square, but, throughout, those who remained peaceful and wished to leave via Whitehall were able to do so. A large number of protesters remained, many of whom committed acts of violent disorder, damaging historic statues in Parliament square, breaking windows and starting fires. Sporadic disorder also took place in the west end. It is quite clear that those acts were perpetrated not by a small minority, but by a significant number of trouble makers.
Some students behaved disgracefully. However, the police assess that the protests were infiltrated by organised groups of hardcore activists and street gangs bent on violence. Evidence from the other recent protests shows that many of those who caused violence were organised thugs, as well as students. It is highly likely that that was also the case last week.
I want to be absolutely clear that the blame for the violence lies squarely and solely with those who carried it out. The idea advanced by some that police tactics were to blame, when people came armed with sticks, flares, fireworks, stones and snooker balls, is as ridiculous as it is unfair.
Thursday's police operation involved 2,800 officers. More than 30 officers were injured, of whom six required hospital treatment. All six have been discharged from hospital. Forty-three protesters were injured.
The Independent Police Complaints Commission has begun an independent investigation into the incident that left one protestor seriously injured. Right hon. and hon. Members will understand that it is not appropriate for me to comment further on that incident while the IPCC investigation is ongoing.
The Metropolitan police have confirmed that 35 people have been arrested so far. I expect that number to rise significantly as the criminal investigation continues. I confirm that there has been a good public response to the police's request for information on the 14 key perpetrators of violence, photographs of whom were published on Sunday. The Met will continue to publish pictures of key individuals in the week ahead.
I also want to inform the House about the attack on the royal car. The House will be aware that on their way to an engagement in central London, the car carrying the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall was attacked by several protesters. There has been much speculation about the Duchess being struck through the window of the car. I understand that some contact was made.
The Metropolitan Police Commissioner has ordered an urgent review of the royalty protection arrangements that were in place on the night, which is due to report by Friday 17 December. Hon. Members will understand that, for security reasons, the public details of the report may be limited. I will await the findings of that review before deciding what, if any, further action is needed.
The Prince and the Duchess have already expressed their gratitude to the police. I am sure that the whole House will join me in condemning all the acts of violence that took place last week. I call on the organisers of the protests unequivocally to condemn violence as well.
Ed Balls (Morley and Outwood) (Lab/Co-op): All Labour Members understand and share the dismay, anger and injustice that are felt by hundreds of thousands of students and young people at the deeply unfair hike in tuition fees and the abolition of education maintenance allowance. All Labour Members also share the Home Secretary's anger and outrage at the way in which last Thursday's legitimate day of action was hijacked by a small but significant minority bent on provocation, violence and criminal damage.
The whole country was shocked and appalled at the cowardly and despicable attack on the car carrying His Royal Highness, the Prince of Wales, and the Duchess of Cornwall. The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police and the Home Secretary have our full support in taking all the steps that are necessary to bring the perpetrators of that violence to justice.
Scenes of mass violence and protest on our streets are sights that all in this generation hoped we would not see again. We all have a responsibility-from student leaders and police chiefs, through to politicians and Prime Ministers-to do everything we can to avoid such confrontations in the future: we have to keep the peace. Here, there are lessons to be learned, and I have some detailed questions for the Home Secretary that I hope she can answer.
I start by saying that I agree wholeheartedly with the Home Secretary that the right first step is to await the report of the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police and to resist jumping to any hasty conclusions. There is clearly a difficult balance for our police leaders to strike
between containment to control violence and ensuring that the innocent are not caught up, harmed or held for lengthy periods. If there are individual cases in which police officers overstep the mark, the right first step is for the IPCC to investigate, as is happening in the case of Mr Meadows. The commissioner is right to demand that all police officers must display their identification at all times.
It is important, too, that we recognise the bravery and commitment that our police officers showed last Thursday in the face of extreme provocation and physical danger. Without their professionalism and restraint, there would have been many more casualties.
I wish to ask the Home Secretary about royal protection, prosecutions, resourcing and police tactics. On royal security, given that this was the fourth time in a few weeks that a protest descended into violence, did she personally ask for and see a thorough assessment of the security of the royal family and other key individuals and buildings in advance of last Thursday's protests? At a time of rising security threats, and with the royal wedding coming next year, will she agree to shelve the cost-cutting review of royal security that is currently on her desk? When she sees the report from the commissioner on the particular lapse in royal security last Thursday, will she commission a new and wider review of the current level of threat to, and the security needs of, the royal family, including cars used for travelling around London?
On the protests more widely, people were appalled to see on their TV screens pictures of protestors urinating on the statue of Winston Churchill, swinging on flags on the Cenotaph or causing widespread criminal damage. It is important that those who commit violent acts are brought, and seen to be brought, to justice, so will the Home Secretary tell the House not just how many protestors have been arrested but how many have actually been charged following these and earlier disturbances? It is important that we know that fact.
On resources, the Met deployed 3,000 officers last Thursday. On the day when the Home Secretary is announcing the biggest peacetime cuts to police funding in more than a century, can she confirm that next year and the year after, our police will still have the resources to police major events and keep our communities safe? Given that the biggest cuts in police budgets and numbers in London and across the country are scheduled to fall in the year of the Olympics, can she explain why, despite previously telling the House that the £600 million budget for Olympics policing and security would be protected, she is now seeking to cut it to £475 million-a 21% reduction that will put further pressure on police budgets-as she has announced this afternoon?
I turn to police tactics and the future use of water cannon and rubber bullets. Will the Home Secretary agree to set aside her own views and respect the operational judgment of the head of the Association of Chief Police Officers, Sir Hugh Orde, that the use of water cannon and rubber bullets in protests would be a blunt instrument and very difficult, and would risk escalating matters and doing more harm than good?
Finally, given that we have Second Reading of the police Bill this afternoon, and that for the first time we will have a single elected individual with the power to direct policing, can the Home Secretary tell the House what would happen if, in future, an elected police
commissioner were to make a manifesto commitment to introduce water cannon and rubber bullets? Who would decide how best to keep our streets safe-the chief constable or the politician?
Mrs May: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's comments about the police who so bravely stood up to the demonstrators and ensured that Parliament was protected last week during the demonstrations, and indeed the police who took action and policed London during the demonstrations that occurred on two previous days.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me a number of questions, including about royal protection and whether there should be a wider review in future. We regularly examine the provision of the protection scheme for members of the royal family, and indeed the protection that, as he will be aware, the Metropolitan police provides to other individuals in the UK, including a number of politicians such as members of the Government. It is important that that is done. It is also important that we clearly identify what happened in this incident and whether any issues need to be addressed as a result, and factor that into any considerations in the review of royal protection.
As the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, the number of people who have been arrested is varying, and is a moving feast. If I may, I will update him on the number of people who have been charged, but he will recognise that it will be changing over time-
Mrs May: Information will be provided to the office of the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) separately. We will do that to ensure that he knows the figure. He mentioned resources, but I have to say to him that, as someone who worked closely with the Chancellor and the Prime Minister under the previous Labour Government, and who has made something of a name for himself on the issue of figures, he really needs to pay a little more attention to the figures- [ Interruption. ] He says he is not asking about that, but he specifically asked me about Olympic security, and said that we would no longer be providing the £600 million we had set aside for that purpose.
"Safety and security for the 2010 Olympics and Paralympics is a priority for this Government",
Mrs May: I am very happy to read the next bit. The right hon. Gentleman does not understand this, and it tells us quite a lot about his and his colleagues' attitude to funding. That £600 million has been protected; he said that it had not been, but it has. It has been possible, through efficiencies, to look at the amount we currently consider it might be necessary to spend, and we go on to say that we are confident that we can deliver this for around £475 million, but we are protecting- [ Interruption. ] Oh, so the right hon. Gentleman does not believe in trying to save money! That tells us a lot about him.
The right hon. Gentleman also mentioned the general issue of resources, and, yes, the funding allocations for individual police forces have been announced in the written ministerial statement today. I simply remind him that the Metropolitan police, in dealing with the incidents and demonstrations that took place last month and this month, are largely operating on the budget that was set by the Labour Government.
The right hon. Gentleman commented on tactics, and he mentioned rubber bullets. I do not think that, so far, either I or anybody on this side of the House has suggested the use of rubber bullets. I will clarify the position on water cannon. It is of course the responsibility of the Home Office to set the legal parameters for measures that can be used by the police, and, as I speak, water cannon have yet to be approved as a piece of equipment that can be used by the police. Then, senior police officers have the operational responsibility to decide what equipment they use, currently in agreement with police authorities and, in future, in agreement with police and crime commissioners. In relation to London, that decision would be agreed with the Mayor of London, who is the equivalent of a police and crime commissioner. I think that that mixture of legal oversight, professional discretion and democratic consent has to be right. However, I do not think that anyone wants to see water cannon used on the streets of Britain. As I said in my statement, if the right hon. Gentleman heard me, we have a different attitude to the culture of policing here in the UK. We police by consent, and that depends on trust between the police and the public. A range of measures is available to the police, and I do not think that water cannon is needed.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about police and crime commissioners, and said that, in future, they would have the power to direct policing. In advance of our debate later this afternoon, may I tell him that that is precisely what the police and crime commissioners will not have? Operational independence of the police chiefs will be maintained with police and crime commissioners, and if he does not understand that he obviously does not understand the Bill we shall debate later.
The police did a good job last Thursday, as they have done at previous demonstrations. They did make some errors, as the commissioner admitted, in relation to the first day of student demonstrations. We should thank them for all that they do to ensure that Parliament can carry on its debates unhindered by protesters.
Mr Speaker: Order. Many right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. There are two further statements to follow, before we even reach the main business of the day, so if I am to accommodate the maximum number of colleagues on this statement, brevity in question and answer alike is essential.
David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con):
Having faced rioters in Northern Ireland, I think that the fundamental problem was the route, which put thousands of potentially infiltrated marches down Whitehall, with symbols of authority on both sides. It would have been much better to route the march to a public park-Southwark park
or Hyde park-which I understand the National Union of Students wanted for the first march. Why are we not using snatch squads to take out the ringleaders before they can incite violence?
Mrs May: I thank my hon. Friend for his observations. Difficult judgments are made about the routes of these marches. He refers to the decisions, or the desires, of the NUS. One of the disappointments of what has happened so far is that, although the police have engaged with the NUS and discussed possible routes, a significant number of people have, sadly, come along purely to cause trouble, and the police have been dealing with them as best they can.
Mr David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab): I endorse what the Home Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) said about violence helping only the exact opposite cause to that which the students seek to espouse. Will the report that will be produced on Friday deal in detail with the breakdown of and lapse in intelligence and communication, which is highly unusual with the protection service? Above all, will she say whether, under the police Bill, she would report to the House at all if such a demonstration took place in London, or more likely in Leeds, Liverpool or Sheffield, and there was a breakdown of law and order?
Mrs May: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks. In relation to what the report on royal protection will go into, he referred to a couple of matters on which there has been press speculation, such as the communications equipment. That is exactly the sort of issue that the report will consider. It will look in detail at exactly what happened, and will come out on Friday, although the amount of information that can be made public will be limited.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD): Does the Home Secretary agree that there should be no knee-jerk reaction to this cowardly attack? We do not want to change the relationship between British citizens and the royal family, nor should we change policing tactics radically by introducing water cannon or rubber bullets.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab): I am most grateful to the Home Secretary for agreeing to appear before the Home Affairs Committee tomorrow, when I am sure she will be probed on these and other issues. She is right that the police did an excellent job in protecting the Houses of Parliament, but there were concerns about other areas of the city. Although there will be an internal investigation, does she not consider it appropriate that Sir Denis O'Connor, chief inspector of Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary, provide guidance, not just for the Metropolitan police but for police in other areas, as that would be of great value to those who have to police such demonstrations in different cities in the future?
Mrs May: I look forward to appearing before the Home Affairs Committee tomorrow. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will have a number of very pertinent questions. There has already been a review of public order policing, but Sir Denis O'Connor is looking again at that review, in the light of what has taken place.
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con): Does the Home Secretary acknowledge that one problem is that the police know that any attempt to deal with violent protest will be met by a barrage of complaints to the IPCC, which some in high places will support? Does she accept that it is time that we started to think a little more about the human rights of police officers to do their jobs free of assault and injury?
Mrs May: In any such instances, the police have a balance to attain when policing protests. It is right that they should be accountable for their actions, and that the IPPC looks into questions and complaints about police actions, as with the individual who was seriously injured. However, it is also right for us to make it absolutely clear that the violence was the fault of those who came along determined to perpetrate it.
Alun Michael (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op): I was particularly impressed with the intelligent, engaged and reasonable way in which many students came from my constituency to the House to lobby me as an MP, but is it not sad that the Home Secretary said nothing about them in her statement? What is she doing to encourage the police and the protest organisers to work together so that the voice of reasonable, legal protest is not silenced?
Mrs May: The police have the job not only of protecting Parliament and keeping our streets safe at such times, but of ensuring that peaceful protest can take place. That is what they were doing. Significantly, they ensured that pedestrian access to the House was open at all times so that a number of students who wished to come and lobby their Members of Parliament could do so. They had their voice heard and Parliament was able to debate unhindered the topic under consideration, and the police did a very good job.
Mr Speaker: Order. I must just remind the House that in keeping with very long-standing convention, Members who were not here at the start of the Home Secretary's statement should not expect to be called.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con): Does the Home Secretary accept that it is just as unacceptable for violent extremists to be present at student demonstrations as it would be for provocative foreign preachers to be present in the country when they have threatened to burn the Koran?
Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab): May I join the Home Secretary in what she said about the violence and the conduct of the police last week? Unlike some of my hon. Friends, I would not completely rule out consideration of the use of water cannon, although nobody should think of that as a panacea. It is worth recalling that the last time water cannon was used-in Belfast-it was in the face of sustained attack from blast bombs and live rounds. Does she agree that the commissioner's priorities on days such as last Thursday must be good intelligence, effective communication and the earliest possible arrest of those who come looking for violence?
Mrs May: Indeed. The importance of intelligence and understanding what could happen is a significant element in the policing of such events. The use of water cannon has not traditionally been a part of the British model of policing. It has been used in Northern Ireland on occasions, but when there has been live fire, as the right hon. Gentleman said, which is a different sort of circumstance. It is important that we take operational advice from the police. Ultimately, such matters are operational police decisions, but, as I said, in England and Wales, it is a matter for the Home Office to determine whether using such measures is legal.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con): Does the Home Secretary share the dismay of my constituents from the garrison town of Warminster at the truly gross acts perpetrated against the Cenotaph in Whitehall? Does she hope, like they do, that the criminal justice system is particularly severe on privileged and expensively educated people who should know better?
Mrs May: It is absolutely essential that all those who perpetrated acts of criminal damage and violence feel the full force of the law on them. The vast majority of the public of this country were dismayed to see a privileged young man desecrate the Cenotaph in that way, and attempt to desecrate the memory of our troops. They will contrast the bravery of our troops in Afghanistan with the actions of that individual.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP): I welcome the Home Secretary's statement and associate myself with her condemnation of the thugs who invaded parts of this city last week. I also observe, however, that parts of the police operation, especially the royal detail, gave the appearance of being a shambles. That will require a serious report. Can she comment on whether a request has already been made for two water cannon to be drawn from the stock of six available in Northern Ireland? Is she aware of any conversations in that regard between the Metropolitan Police Commissioner and the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland?
Mrs May: On the tactics used by the police when policing demonstrations, the police will always consider all the available options. I have set out clearly the current position on the use of water cannon in England and Wales, but that has not yet been approved by the Home Office-
Mrs May: That is a correct statement of the facts. None have yet been approved for use in England and Wales, but of course such decisions must be taken in the light of the operational advice of the police.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD): I absolutely deplore the violence and recognise the challenge that the police face in trying to ensure a proportionate response. However, does the Home Secretary recognise that there is still concern about the use of kettling and the handful of police officers who allegedly covered up their identification numbers? Will she look into these matters and make a statement to the House?
Mrs May: Of course I was not actually down there talking to every protester. The police have assured me that a significant number of peaceful protesters left Parliament square, that that option was open to individuals, and that they facilitated it.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab): Does the Home Secretary recall that in last year's policing White Paper it was suggested that a protocol be compiled by police officers, police authorities and the Government on the policing of protests? Will she update us on the progress of that protocol?
Mrs May: It is clear that there should be regular reviews of how public order policing is undertaken. I have already said, in response to a question from the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, that HMIC, having looked at public order policing, is now further considering the matter in response to the recent incidents.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con): There are occasions when the national community spirit of what is right and wrong can be as powerful as the law itself. I was encouraged to see a sense of national disgust and outrage at the events on Thursday, particularly the deliberate damage to the Cenotaph and the statue of Churchill-an insult to the people who championed the very freedoms that allowed the protesters to stage their protest in the first place.
Mrs May: Indeed. My hon. Friend is absolutely correct to say that the damage done to the Cenotaph and the sort of behaviour we saw there brought those demonstrators into disrepute. Also, many members of the public felt sick at the sight of a privileged individual behaving in that way, especially given that our brave troops in Afghanistan are putting their lives on the line for us every minute of the day.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab): No one here-I include myself in that-wants to condone any act of hooliganism, but does the Home Secretary accept that the large majority of people protesting on Thursday did so peacefully and lawfully? In my view, they had every justification for protesting. Will she let us know as quickly as possible why apparently-I repeat, apparently-attempts were made to prevent Alfie Meadows from being admitted to the hospital where he was later operated on for some three hours?
Mrs May: In response to the latter question, I can say, as I did in my statement, that the IPCC is investigating what happened to Alfie Meadows, who had serious head injuries. It is not appropriate for me to comment on that matter; it is for the IPCC to investigate it fully and properly. Of course a large number of people came to protest peacefully on Thursday. However, unlike in the previous demonstrations, the violent protesters were not a small minority-there was a significant number of violent demonstrators.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con): Given that we saw a feral mob intent on riot and desecrating important national symbols such as the Cenotaph, the statue of Churchill and the Supreme Court, will the Home Secretary praise in particular the restraint shown by the police in the face of such provocation and attacks from protesters?
Mrs May: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The police very bravely faced significant provocation last Thursday, and they did indeed exercise restraint. A number of incidents are being investigated, but overall the police showed restraint, ensuring that Parliament was able to conduct its business and that people could access this place for the right and proper democratic debate that we wanted to take place.
Malcolm Wicks (Croydon North) (Lab): I support the Home Secretary's condemnation of violence, and I recognise the no win situation the police find themselves in in such demonstrations, but what is her view of kettling, including of children? It is becoming more common, and when it goes on for hour after hour, does it not become a form of open air imprisonment that has nothing to do with the right of peaceful protest in our country?
Mrs May: The whole issue of kettling has been looked at previously. It has been supported as an appropriate technique that is available to the police to use. The operational decision on when it is right to use kettling-or not-must be left to the police. It is not for us as politicians to say, on any one occasion, whether it is appropriate to use kettling, but overall as a tactic it is appropriate.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con): My constituents will be incredibly concerned about reports that suggest that some agitators came from overseas countries, such as Latvia and Germany. If that is the case, what steps will my right hon. Friend take to ensure that such agitators do not come from overseas in future?
My hon. Friend is trying to tempt me down a road that it is not necessarily appropriate for me to go down on this occasion. All I will say is that it is
important that we look at the make-up of the crowd. As I said in my statement, sadly what we saw was a significant number of people who came not to protest peacefully but to perpetrate and encourage violence and criminal damage.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab): Is not the point of a kettle that it brings things to the boil? Is the Home Secretary comfortable that largely because of her Government's decisions on the education maintenance allowance, minors and other young people were caught up in the kettle? She says that those who remained peaceful and wished to leave Whitehall were able to do so, but can she confirm that the IPCC is investigating a number of complaints about young people not being able to leave?
Mrs May: The police did ensure that it was possible for peaceful protesters to leave Parliament square on Thursday. They put those arrangements in place, and a significant number of protesters took advantage of that and were allowed to leave by the police.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD): What support can the police give to the organisers of public protests to help them to ensure that their protests are not infiltrated by malevolent forces who wish only to exploit and not enhance their cause?
Mrs May: My hon. Friend raises an important point about those who organise such demonstrations and who want to be able to carry out peaceful protest, so that their cause is not damaged by any violence that takes place. The police do engage with protesters: they were speaking with the National Union of Students and the University of London Union before last Thursday's demonstration, making every effort to work with them on what would be appropriate to enable the peaceful protest to take place. However, I was very concerned when I saw one of the stewards of last Thursday's event interviewed on the BBC. When asked whether he would condemn the violence of the protesters, he said no, he would not. It does not help if organisations only appear to want to encourage peaceful protest.
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab): Is the Home Secretary aware that these protests had echoes of the poll tax demonstrations from years ago? As then, we now have a nasty, right-wing Government bringing in violent policies that people have only one way to react to-on the streets. And they will do it again, so long as this right-wing Government, with the Liberals as their allies, bring those policies in.
Mrs May: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. I had thought that perhaps in his many years in this House, he had mellowed slightly in his approach. I am very sorry that he spoke about violence but did not seek to condemn those who undertook violent protest, criminal damage and damage to individuals, including police officers.
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con):
Will my right hon. Friend commend the officers, particularly those of the royalty protection branch, for their admirable and extraordinary restraint when dealing with the disgraceful attack on the Prince of Wales and the Duchess
of Cornwall, and recognise that the vast majority of protection officers in other countries around the world might well have resorted to deadly force in similar circumstances?
Mrs May: I am happy to join my hon. Friend in commending the restraint shown by the royal protection officers, as did the Metropolitan Police Commissioner on Friday morning in his radio interview. It was important that the officers concentrated on getting His Royal Highness and the Duchess of Cornwall to their venue, which they did admirably and in a short space of time. They did indeed respond with restraint.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab): I met a number of students last Thursday evening who were shocked and distressed. They were entirely peaceable people, but they had been held for seven hours against their will on the streets of this capital city and they were terrified when horses charged into them while they were taking part in a demonstration to raise their legitimate concerns. Will the Home Secretary have a serious discussion with the Metropolitan Police Commissioner about the use of kettling tactics and corralling people against their will when they wish only to demonstrate peacefully against what they see as-and I agree with them-the monstrous imposition of a fees increase.
Mrs May: I am afraid that the picture of what happened last Thursday as set out by the hon. Gentleman is somewhat different from what happened. Yes, there were peaceful protesters, and the police were making sure that those protesters were able to leave the Parliament Square area if they wished to do so. I hoped that the hon. Gentleman would join me in condemning the violence shown by the significant number of people who came to the demonstration intent on creating criminal damage, trouble and mayhem. I hope he will also condemn the appalling behaviour of the individual who sought to desecrate the Cenotaph.
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con): I agree with my right hon. Friend that the only people responsible for the violence were the thugs who committed it. I too commend the actions of the police, which I saw from my office window. Will she give us some idea of when the substantive report into the violence will be brought forward and acted upon, because after three marches and three occasions of increasing violence, surely something needs to be done?
Mrs May: Of course the Metropolitan police look at what happens in any demonstration, decide whether they need to use different tactics and look to see what lessons can be learned from the previous one. That is entirely right and proper, but decisions about the tactics that will be used for any demonstration are operational matters for the Metropolitan police.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab): The Home Secretary was reported yesterday as appearing to contemplate the use of water cannon; today, she appears to be ruling out the use of water cannon. Will she clarify this beyond any doubt: will she rule out the use of water cannon on British streets?
I made it clear in my earlier comments that I do not think anybody wants water cannon used on British streets. What I said in the interview yesterday is
that the Metropolitan police will of course look at the range of tactics available to them to consider whether there is any tactic not yet used that they might wish to use. Currently, as I speak here today, the legal position is that water cannon are not approved for use on the streets of England and Wales. If the hon. Gentleman had listened carefully to my interview yesterday, he would have heard me make the point that we have a different approach to policing in this country from what is seen in many continental countries. I have reiterated that view in my statement today and in further responses to the questions put to me. In Britain, we police by consent, which depends on the link of trust between the police and the public-and long may that continue.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con): Given what some student leaders have said since the scenes that we saw on Thursday-many are still refusing to condemn the violence-does the Home Secretary expect similar violent protests in the coming weeks? Will she assure us that everything possible is being done to ensure that the scenes that we saw on Thursday are not repeated?
Dr Hywel Francis (Aberavon) (Lab): The Home Secretary will be aware that the Association of Chief Police Officers has excellent guidelines on kettling or containment. Does she agree that in the future-never mind what has happened in the past-it would be good to focus specifically on communication between the organisers of demonstrations and the police?
Mrs May: Yes, there are guidelines on the use of kettling, when it is appropriate and how it should be undertaken. As for communications between the police and organisers, one of the features of the demonstrations that have taken place so far is that although the police have taken great pains to communicate with the organisers, sadly the organisers have then not appeared to be able to maintain the demonstration as originally suggested. We have seen a number of violent people doing what they want to do, which is to create criminal damage and violence at the heart of those demonstrations, and that is something that we must all condemn. Peaceful protest is appropriate, and we want to enable it to happen, but violent protest is not.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab): I accept that the police had a very difficult job to do last Thursday, but last night when I met students at the university of the West of England who had been in London to carry out a lawful and peaceful protest, I was disturbed to hear their accounts of how they felt the police had overstepped the mark, to see video footage of horses charging into protesters, and told of injuries from truncheons and so on. Can the Home Secretary assure me that if I write to her giving personal accounts from people who were there on Thursday, she will treat their complaints seriously?
Mrs May: Of course the hon. Lady is free to write to me about those matters. There is a formal process which is appropriate if individuals wish to make complaints about the way the police have treated them, and a number of complaints are currently being investigated. However, let me point out to the hon. Lady and to any other Members who may agree with her that we should not focus on how the police responded. They should be accountable and complaints should be investigated, but we must ensure that we focus on those whose responsibility it was for violence to occur in the first place. That was not the police; it was the protesters.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab): I, too, wholeheartedly condemn the deliberate violence-mongering that ruined what would otherwise have been a perfectly admirable peaceful protest last Thursday, but the Home Secretary seems to be equivocating a bit on the question of water cannon. She said that they were not legal yet, as if she was implying that she might be persuaded to change her mind. As one who experienced water cannon in Chile in the 1980s, I can assure her that they are entirely indiscriminate, can lead to panic among those who are protesting, and can cause serious injury. The last time they were used in Stuttgart was a couple of months ago, when two people were blinded by them. Will the Home Secretary therefore rule out giving permission for the use of water cannon in this country?
Mrs May: I have made the position absolutely clear to the hon. Gentleman and others. I do not think that any of us want to see water cannon being used on the streets of England and Wales. I have said that several times in response to questions on my statement, and I think that the hon. Gentleman should have listened to my earlier answers.
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Eric Pickles): With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement on finance for English local authorities for 2011 to 2013.
The spending review set out how the Government would tackle the catastrophic levels of public debt by delivering necessary reductions in public spending to accelerate deficit reduction and put the public finances back on a sustainable footing. This has involved difficult, but essential and responsible, decisions. Every part of the public sector needs to do its bit to help to reduce the highest deficit in the UK's peacetime history and the rapidly rising national debt that this Government have inherited.
Last year, the Government borrowed one pound in every four they spent. That threatened our economic credibility. In contrast, our plans to eliminate the current structural deficit over five years have won the backing of the International Monetary Fund, kept our credit rating steady and held interest rates down. The Office for Budget Responsibility's forecast confirms we are taking the right steps. Its message is that Britain's recovery is on track.
I have sought to achieve a fair and sustainable settlement for local government by listening to what the local government community has asked for. It will be a progressive settlement that is fair between different parts of the country. First, we have focused on the most vulnerable communities with significant social challenges. These are often the areas that are most reliant on Government grant, so equal grant reductions would leave the poorest places worst off. We have insulated them by giving more weight to the levels of need within different areas and less weight to per capita distributions. We have also grouped councils into four bands, reflecting their dependence on central Government. More dependent places will therefore see proportionally lower falls than more self-sufficient places.
Secondly, we have listened to concerns about the front-loading of the reductions. The Local Government Association asked me to focus on local government total spending, including not just grants but income from council tax and NHS funding to support social care and benefit health. It said that reductions in spending should be limited to 8%. As far as possible, I have given the LGA what it asked for. I have made sure that no authority will face more than an 8.9% reduction in spending power in either 2011-12 or 2012-13. In fact, the average reduction in spending power for 2011-12 is 4.4%. To fund this, I have transferred an extra £30 million of my Department's budget to local government for 2011-12. I have also provided a grant of £85 million for 2011-12 and £14 million for 2012-13 to fund councils who would otherwise have seen sharper falls.
The spending review also announced that the Government will protect the public from excessive council tax rises. We have set aside £650 million so every council can freeze council tax next year without hitting local services. We will provide councils that freeze council tax with the equivalent of a 2.5% increase in funding instead. That will provide real help to hard-working families and people on fixed incomes, such as pensioners. The
Government also want to ensure that council tax payers are protected against authorities that reject the offer and impose excessive council tax rises. We will introduce powers for residents to veto excessive council tax increases through a local referendum. In the meantime, the Government will take capping action against councils that propose excessive rises.
When the House debates the final local government finance report next year, I will set out the capping principles. I will also publish shortly details of the figures that will be used to compare authorities' budgets between years, should capping be necessary. The previous Government had planned to cap the police authorities of Greater Manchester and Nottinghamshire after they set excessive increases in 2010-11. Subject to challenge, we will ensure that, should they decide not to freeze the council tax, neither can impose an increase of over 2.5% in 2011-12.
This settlement also supports the Government's commitment to adult social care, providing councils with sufficient resources to protect people's access to care and to deliver improved quality of outcome. That includes £150 million of NHS funding in 2011-12 to support social care services, promoting integrated working between primary care trusts and local authorities and benefiting the health system. The settlement directs more formula grant to authorities that deliver social care.
Despite all the actions we have taken, I recognise that local government still faces significant challenges. The vast majority of councils have been making sensible plans to address them. I support that and I am restoring real power to councils, ensuring that Whitehall interference, red tape and the burdens of inspection and regulations are gone. The Localism Bill, published today, will deliver a new democratic settlement to local councils, overturning decades of central Government control.
For too long, councils have been barred from using their initiative and creativity to improve services. The limited "power of well-being" acted as an obstacle to cost savings, such as mutual insurance companies. Today's Bill will fundamentally change councils' freedom to act in the interest of their local communities through a new general power of competence. That will give councils the legal reassurance and confidence they need to innovate, drive down costs and deliver more effective services. I am also giving councils greater control over their budgets.
With very few exceptions, we have ended grant ring-fencing so that councils can decide for themselves how their money is spent. We will also allow them to borrow against future business rates receipts. Councils now have the freedom and responsibility to concentrate on what residents want: protecting front-line services. To support them, I have set aside £2 million to help councils to modernise and reduce back-office costs.
Councils can protect front-line services by sharing services and back-office functions, improving procurement to get more for less, bringing increasing senior pay under control and using transparency to cut waste. Proactive councils are already taking the opportunity radically to rethink and transform their services. There are also substantial incentives available for councils to invest in long-term projects, which include the new homes bonus and £1.4 billion of regional growth funds over three years-a fund that goes well beyond the working neighbourhoods fund. There will now be a
statutory consultation on the settlement for 2011-12 and I look forward to hearing representations from councils.
Finally, this is a transitional settlement, using an inherited system. That is why I have set out details only for the next two years to strike a balance between the need to help councils plan and the need to reform the system. This system, based on redistributing business rates, makes councils heavily reliant on handouts from central Government-some depend on us for up to 75% of their spending power. It is part of the trend that has led to some areas of the country becoming completely dependent on the public sector. It makes planning difficult, weakens local accountability and stifles local innovation. There is no incentive for councils to invest in their local economy as they will see most of the proceeds disappear.
That is why I have set up a review of business rates with the intention that, in future, local government will be able to keep more of what it collects. Ultimately, the councils that invest and support the local economy will be able better to use the finances themselves. The local government resource review will begin in the new year. I commend the statement to the House.
Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab): I thank the Secretary of State for giving us 40 minutes' advance notice of his statement and its 11 attachments. Obviously, we will have to look very carefully at the detail of today's settlement because, as we all know, the devil is in the detail. I welcome his acknowledgement of the concerns about front loading caused by the comprehensive spending review profile. Many have made that case, although even today the Minister for Housing and Local Government seemed to deny, on a programme that we both appeared on, that front loading would be a problem. The fact is that it still exists, even after the Secretary of State's statement, but it is a shame that it was not uppermost in his mind when he raced to the front of the queue to settle his Department's cuts with the Chancellor.
At first sight, there is little else to be thankful for, because today's announcement includes heavily front-loaded cuts to local government that are not only damaging but deeply cynical. The Secretary of State comes to the House with his statement in one hand and a localism shovel in the other, because he thinks that today is a good day to bury bad news. We have been inundated with empty rhetoric about localism, three written ministerial statements on localism, the publication and First Reading of the long-awaited and much-delayed Localism Bill and a stream of articles and briefings over the weekend, including appearances in which he has waxed lyrical about devolving power to local government. All those promises ring hollow when at the same time he imposes unprecedented cuts on town halls the length and breadth of the country. He is offering councils devolution while holding a gun to their head.
Today we find out what the Government really plan to devolve to local councils: the most devastating cuts in funding for a generation and the blame for difficult decisions. What is worse, the Secretary of State does this with barely disguised relish and to the cheers of his Back Benchers. Time and again, he has spoken of the virtues of local government. He promises to free local councils from the shackles of Whitehall and pledges to
give them extra freedoms and powers, but if he really believes in local government why has he imposed cuts on town halls up and down the country bigger than those for almost every Whitehall Department? Does he really believe that the regional growth fund, which has been sliced enormously, can make up for the losses that local government is facing? Why has he still front loaded the cuts so that the heaviest reductions will fall in the first two years and why has he refused to give councils the help and flexibility they need to meet the cost of redundancy payments? I think that he meant to refer to £200 million to help with costs rather than £2 million, which is what he said. Even so, the Local Government Association is asking for £2 billion-worth of flexibility to handle the redundancy payments that will have to be faced across England.
What further assurances can the Secretary of State give that the poorest councils will not bear the heaviest burden? Like others, I was intrigued when he talked about the spending power of local authorities. Will he explain in more detail how he has worked out each council's total spending power to enable him to claim that no authority will face more than an 8.9% reduction in spending power from 2011 to 2013? Why does he not talk about the revenue support grant and the cuts to that rather than mixing in council tax revenues and spending provided by the NHS? For someone with so much to say about town hall communications, bin collections and Christmas celebrations, and given that barely a speech passes without being spiced up by a reference to curries, the Secretary of State has so little say about the impact of these cuts. Local councils, the people whom they employ and the communities they serve deserve better than that, as do their partners in the big society. Today's settlement means that far from community groups and the voluntary sector being liberated to do more, as the Government promise, they might be so hampered that they end up doing much less.
Be in no doubt: these cuts will hit front-line services and cause massive job losses in the public and private sectors. For all Ministers' traipsing around the TV studios pretending that savings of this magnitude can be made by efficiency drives and sharing back-room functions alone, the reality is very different-and everybody knows it. Even Baroness Eaton, a Conservative peer and the chair of the Local Government Association has admitted:
"These cuts will hurt. We know this means there will be fewer libraries, more potholes going unrepaired, parks shutting earlier and youth clubs closing."
This is not about whether or not local government funding should be reduced. Across the House, we all accept that the deficit needs reducing-[Hon. Members: "Ah!"] Yes, and that would have meant cuts to local government funding whoever won the election-I made that clear in last week's debate and I say it again today-but the Government have made their choice. They have chosen to impose cuts on local government harder and faster than in almost any Whitehall Department. There is nothing localist about that. We on the Labour Benches are in favour of empowering local councils and giving people a greater say in the way they run their local communities and in how services are provided, but if the Secretary of State thinks that he can get away with using localism as a smokescreen for unprecedented
cuts to local government which still, even after today's statement, fall heaviest in the first two years, he had better think again.
The Secretary of State announced today the dawn of a new constitutional settlement. I therefore look forward to his confirmation that, in line with convention, the Localism Bill will be considered in Committee on the Floor of the House.
In last week's Opposition day debate I set the Secretary of State three challenges: to spread the cuts more evenly over four years; to protects jobs and front-line services by ensuring that councils have sufficient capitalisation funds to meet the cost of redundancy payments; and to ensure that the burden of cuts is spread fairly around the country and between our communities. Despite today's assurances, he has not convinced us that his localism is any more than a cover for cuts. People up and down the country will pay the price for his failure.
Mr Pickles: Well, so much for gratitude. I do not want to start up the hunting debate again, but we have shot the right hon. Lady's fox and she has been less than gracious. The first thing we did was to change relative needs level from 73% to 83%. Then we introduced banded floors, and then we introduced a special damping for authorities more dependent on grant than others. This settlement-this formula-is more progressive, protecting vulnerable communities, than anything that the Labour party has produced.
As for the right hon. Lady saying, "What are these figures?", it is not so long ago that the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) was demanding this way of measurement-that we should not just take basic grant and that we should include the question of council tax and money coming from other grants and from the national health service which PCTs are spending. It is good to see along the Front Bench my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary, who has done so much to ensure that local government is getting additional powers in this area.
We have delivered everything that the Opposition identified. We have protected the most vulnerable. The right hon. Lady seemed to start saying that we had not done too bad a job, but found that she had notes prepared earlier condemning us.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con): I very much welcome this truly progressive statement. I congratulate my local authorities in Crawley and West Sussex on the significant efficiency savings that they have already made. Can the Secretary of State confirm that, as we develop the funding formula, it will become more transparent?
Mr Pickles: I can confirm to my hon. Friend that that will be the case. The present formula is very difficult to operate. In developing it I had worries with regard to balancing need against sparsity. It is always difficult to do that. We had to move extra money across from my Department in order to protect certain vulnerable districts that are not benefiting from the increase in spending in respect of adult social care and the extra help being offered in conjunction with PCTs.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|