Speech on the NHS Risk Register

This week, I have responded to a great deal of correspondence on this matter, and it is not an insignificant one. I welcome the opportunity to have been able to put my views across in such an important debate. A video of my speech will be available shortly.

John Glen (Salisbury) (Con): I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate. I want to begin by echoing the views of many Members and put on record my affection and respect for the NHS and everyone who works in it. Contrary to the way in which the debate has been framed, it is not an honest attempt to examine the Government's intentions for the future of the NHS. It is an opportunistic attempt to use the word "risk" in the context of health to mount a scare campaign. Releasing the risk register is not the key to improving the quality of debate on the Bill. A risk register is routine in all Government Departments, and it allows civil servants to assess measures fully and without fear, and to set out properly, with full candour, their observations when Ministers discuss policy intentions and they give advice.

I want Ministers to receive quality advice. I do not want decisions to be based on advice that is not candid or full, but that will be the consequence of this politically motivated debate if the motion is carried. Is that really the precedent that we wish to set? It would be helpful if many more of us acknowledged that we are not experts on the intricacies of the internal workings of the NHS. If we were deluged with masses of technical comments and hypothetical situations, that would not inform the House or the general public. It would probably alarm the most vulnerable and lead to a complete loss of confidence in the NHS.

The real issue with which the whole House should be concerned is what this legislation is really about: putting this country's beloved NHS on a sustainable footing for the future. As I said at the outset, I believe in the NHS and I love the NHS, but it is totally wrong to say that money alone is the answer. Politicians need to level with the British public. We are putting more money into the NHS—we ring-fenced the budget, contrary to Labour's approach—but competition is not a disease. Even in the NHS, it is a legitimate way to drive up standards. The Bill means that providers compete on quality, not on price. The Bill provides a framework for competition to drive up quality according to need, regardless of the ability to pay. Some 75% of clinical commissioning groups attest that they are willing to continue to work constructively on this legislation.

It must be recognised that spending on the NHS accounts for £1 of every £7 spent by the Government—we are spending £100,000 million each year—so the idea that we can reliably and consistently reduce bureaucracy without legislation is unrealistic. By establishing clinical commissioning groups, we will save £4.5 billion by the end of this Parliament. It takes courage on the part of this Secretary of State and his Ministers to face up to this vicious campaign of vilification, misrepresentation and smear. The biggest risk faced by the NHS today lies in not facing up to the challenge of getting more resources to the front line as more people expect and need more from the NHS for much longer. That is the real risk, not the publication of a technical document to which few inside or outside this House could do justice.

Intervention on Alcohol Abuse

When the Defence Select Committee published its seventh report recently, we became aware that levels of alcohol abuse were higher in the Armed Forces than in the general population. I was glad to be able to make an intervention in a recent Debate on alcohol abuse, and I am pleased that this problem is gaining recognition, and hope the Government will act on our recommendations to improve the situation.

John Glen (Salisbury) (Con): Throughout society there are different instances of alcohol misuse. In the armed forces, in the under-35 age group, alcohol misuse among men is more than double that in the normal population. Does the hon. Gentleman not think that that underscores the fact that a Government approach must recognise pressures in all different elements of society and the different phases at which interventions need to take place?

Jim Shannon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I agree wholeheartedly and I think that all other hon. Members do. There are different levels. I was developing a point about young people, but there is a drink culture in the armed forces as well. Perhaps that is to do with the job that they do or the time that they spend together. Government has to address those issues.

My full views on the Seventh Report are available here, and the report itself is online here.

Adjournment Debate: Soft Power

John Glen (Salisbury) (Con): May I say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Bone? I declare an interest as secretary of the all-party group on the British Council and as a governor of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy.

The purpose of calling this debate is to focus on the role of soft power in British foreign policy and how it is to be used in defining country strategies. Over the past decade, Governments have become increasingly aware of the importance of soft power. I define that as the power to attract and co-opt alongside the hard power of traditional military and economic means of achieving foreign policy objectives. There is a growing acceptance that soft power is an important component of foreign policy and should be seen as a complement to rather than a substitute for hard power.

I want to talk about how there can be better integration between the different elements of hard and soft power. My impression is that, although different institutions work effectively on their own, they could deliver a lot more if they actively collaborated on a systematic basis in all countries where they operate.

I want to share some examples of Britain's soft power assets, and then examine the need for the development of a co-ordinated vision for our foreign policy by addressing some of the practical realities and questions that surround putting that into practice. It is important to recognise at the outset that, compared with many countries, Britain has an immensely rich set of soft power institutions, resources and tools. In 2010, we were ranked joint first in the Institution for Government soft power index. In 2011, we were placed second, behind the USA. Soft power institutions, such as the British Council, the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, Voluntary Service Overseas, the Commonwealth Foundation and the BBC World Service perform a valuable role in developing trusting relationships with overseas countries.

Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con): I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. On soft policy and achieving our foreign policy objectives, does he agree that a fundamental part of winning over people's hearts and minds, as we have seen in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria and Libya, has been the work of the BBC World Service in communicating that we have a lot more that unites us than divides us?

John Glen: Absolutely. I will come on to speak about the World Service in a moment. All those assets deploy so much of what is great about this country: the English language, arts, education, and the values of civil society and democracy.

I pay tribute to the work—since, I think, 1934—of the British Council. It now works on the ground in more than 100 countries, particularly in strategic areas such as the middle east, north Africa and in emerging economies. It may be helpful to know that last year it provided more than 1.3 million hours of English language teaching, supporting 5 million English teachers across the world. It now uses digital broadcasting to reach 100 million students. In addition, it provides exams and qualifications, and links UK primary and secondary schools, universities and arts bodies with overseas institutions in long-term beneficial partnerships. Despite taking a 26% budget cut in this comprehensive spending review period, it has a clear resolve to continue its core work by continuing to win competitive education and development contracts.

As my hon. Friend mentioned, the BBC World Service also makes a massive and effective contribution to the development of the UK's relationships abroad. It reaches 166 million people every week—through radio, television and the internet—in 27 languages, as well as English. Unlike the state-sponsored media of many of the countries in which it operates, its editorial independence ensures impartiality and objectivity. It is that professionalism and impartiality that generate trust and credibility overseas. The audience of BBC Arabic TV increased by more than 80% in recent months, including an increase in the online audience of 300% during the height of the Egyptian protests—clearly, it is a very powerful tool. Recent changes in funding streams and organisation will allow the World Service to work more closely with the domestic BBC, benefiting both the UK and other countries.

The Westminster Foundation for Democracy engages with political parties across the world. That work involves—I have done some of it—training party officials to develop their capacity to create policy, to campaign and to effectively fulfil their function as Government or Opposition parties in emerging democracies. That work builds up democratic institutions and understanding. It also generates long-term trusting relationships between those countries and the UK, and the individuals in those Governments and the UK. All these institutions leave a legacy and impact on the individuals who encounter them and inevitably lead many to develop a natural empathy, respect and affinity for our country.

As I suggested at the outset, given all that these institutions do, there is a need to better co-ordinate their work into an holistic vision for our foreign policy. We have to recognise—this is my experience of being a member of the Defence Committee and working for WFD—that different Departments and institutions naturally have varying perspectives on foreign policy and the status of our relationships with countries across the world. That includes the Department for International Development, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence, as well as soft power institutions such as the British Council and the BBC World Service. For example, the primary objective of DFID focuses on poverty and long-term development goals, but that might not always align with the immediate demands of a military intervention to secure a strategic objective for British foreign policy.

Rehman Chishti: My hon. Friend talks about the work of DFID, one aspect of which is education and its link to our foreign policy. We gave Pakistan £650 million for education to provide people with opportunity, aspiration and a life away from sectarian violence. That has implications for our own security—the training camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan were linked to the terrorist attacks in London in 2005. DFID's work on soft power foreign policy—giving people hope, opportunity and aspiration through education—provides a diversion from sectarian, ethnic terrorist tendencies.

John Glen: I am not in any way seeking to criticise any individual player; my core argument this afternoon is about the co-ordination between those contrasting perspectives. When I went to Islamabad last autumn, DFID's massive contribution was very clear.

Any one of these perspectives—development, diplomacy, military or culture—need not displace the others. Rather than picking one, or one being the lead, the challenge is to skilfully harmonise and develop a single, shared vision for our foreign policy. My experience in Afghanistan—in the DFID compound and then talking to people from the FCO and various military leaders—was that they all had a different perspective. What seemed to be lacking sometimes was a desire to fully integrate different views. If one had a clear development goal, it was very easy to find that goal in conflict with a military objective. Rather than seeing those different views as a barrier, the Government need to work systematically to synthesise those complementary perspectives and refine overall policy definition.

There are some excellent examples of where that already works in practice. The stabilisation unit, which is owned jointly by DFID, the FCO and the MOD, brings together expertise from those Departments with police and military personnel. It despatches taskforces to conflict-stricken areas—for example, Afghanistan—to develop political processes, reduce conflict and violence, and provide a basis for future development. It remains unclear why the unit should be taken out of Afghanistan at the end of 2014.

The challenge to achieve the systematic co-ordination of different departmental perspectives on a large scale is compelling. We must identify different perspectives where they exist across Government. That will mean undertaking the difficult task of recognising where a departmental mindset is preventing co-ordination and collaboration with another Department's activities, perhaps between the FCO and DFID. No doubt some Departments and organisations will need to make compromises to agree a comprehensive strategy for the greater good of diplomatic and long-term relations in a region or country.

It is also desirable to aim for a closer working relationship between soft power organisations and the Ministry of Defence. As the ongoing work of the British Council in Libya has shown, soft power institutions can build relationships of trust ahead of and after military intervention in a country. If that approach can be developed in respect of future military interventions, it could ease the work of the armed forces, particularly when working alongside civilians. Working with soft power institutions and making use of diverse expertise could aid the MOD to define viable exit strategies, rather than just asserting that those will exist. The institutions that I have mentioned have a more nuanced understanding of cultural barriers and attitudes of populations on the ground and can probably more reliably estimate what will be achievable by military means.

We need to recognise that Foreign Office diplomats, wonderful though they are, are not the only actors in British diplomacy. Although diplomats achieve much for British trade and political understanding, arm's length bodies, such as the WFD, working to build civil society and government infrastructures and developing strong relationships with emerging political parties, do much to develop trust and credibility where Britain's historic ties are less strong or apparent.

Our diplomacy must allow soft power institutions to play a more significant role in maintaining mutually beneficial, positive relationships throughout the world. As I have emphasised, the key challenge is overcoming ingrained departmental mindsets and historic positions to harness the complementary perspectives and resources of an increasing range of diverse institutions, especially arm's length soft power organisations.

We must put in place effective leadership, accountability and co-ordinating procedures throughout our institutions to enable what I am arguing for to work properly, and to define a sophisticated foreign policy strategy that serves the interests of the UK optimally across the globe. That will mean determined effort from Ministers and senior civil servants to put vested interests aside, and the instincts of the budget holder being left at the door as each Department recognises that others have something meaningful to contribute. It will also mean having difficult but vital discussions about our vision and objectives with individuals who may have a different starting point at the outset.

It is only through a determined approach of that type that the UK can maintain its unique standing in the world and make best use of these enormously powerful resources and assets that our great country possesses.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Jeremy Browne): Thank you, Mr Bone, for giving me the opportunity to contribute to this short but important debate. I praise my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) for securing it. I agree with his two central arguments: first, we need to ensure that soft power is co-ordinated across the Government and is not just seen in Departments and, secondly, it must be properly integrated with hard power, so that we can bring to bear Britain's collected and varied assets in an effective, focused way on the problems that we seek to address. Let me expand on that, because although that gets to the nub of it, I have the opportunity to speak at greater length.

The starting point for the Government is that there is a great role for soft power—probably a greater role than in the past—in today's international landscape. By soft power, we mean a state's ability to achieve preferred outcomes, not by coercion but by persuasion or attraction, building up networks, engaging with people at all levels to increase trust and respect and being prepared to listen and to show respect in turn.

Soft power is especially important as political and economic power spreads south and west. The countries that have traditionally exercised political leadership in the world over several hundred years are no longer able to ally their political roles with such a big share of the world's economy. Britain—others are in the same position as us—needs to bring to bear a wider range of assets to try to ensure that our position is understood and sympathised with around the world. We have many advantages in our favour, which I will come to.

Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab): I apologise for being late entering this debate.

On the growth of power in the east, does the Minister agree that, although we have an extraordinary historic connection with countries such as India and China, it is clear that we can no longer trade on that historic relationship? As we begin to think about soft power, we cannot think that we necessarily have some cultural competitive advantage any more.

Mr Browne: I basically agree. A slightly more complicated answer would be that our historical and cultural connections, which are extensive around the world, can sometimes put us in an advantageous position compared to our competitors, but they sometimes put us in a disadvantaged position.

We should not assume that, just because Britain has a comprehensive range of historic ties with other countries, we are necessarily the preferred partner of choice of the Governments, or the people and companies, in those countries. We should not think that we are able to rest on our historic laurels. We need to ensure that our soft power advantages are continuously updated and are relevant to the interests of the countries with which we engage. Let me run through a few of them, so that hon. Members better understand my point.

It is reckoned by independent observers that four of the top 10 universities in the world are in the United Kingdom. I think that the other six are in the United States. Another way to make that point would be to say that we are the only country apart from the US with universities in the top 10 in the world. At any point, some 400,000 foreign students are studying in this country. That is a huge soft power asset. If people go to Malaysia, for example, as I do, it is striking how many of the political and business elite have studied in British universities and have a depth of understanding of Britain that is greater than would otherwise be so.

We have the second largest number of Nobel laureates—second again to the US. Our museums and art galleries and other cultural assets are envied and admired throughout the world. In respect of more popular culture, it is striking how popular the premier league football fixtures are around the world. They are watched by, I am told, 4.7 billion people in a season. I suppose that a lot of those people will be counted on a repeat basis. Nevertheless, that is an extraordinary amount of total dedication to watching events happening in the UK on television. UK premier league football is watched in more than 200 countries.

In political terms, we are unique—the right use of that word—in being the only country that is a United Nations Security Council permanent member and a member of the European Union and the Commonwealth. We have ties right around the world that are not replicated even by countries that are as significant as the United States of America and China.

My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury mentioned the BBC World Service and the British Council, and I strongly endorse his support for those institutions. The foremost daily newspaper in shaping global opinion is the Financial Times—a British newspaper—and the weekly periodical that is most influential in shaping opinion around the world isThe Economist, which is a British magazine. A persuasive case can be made for the BBC being the broadcaster that is most influential in shaping political opinion around the world.

All those different areas of thought leadership are amazing achievements, which we often take for granted. Not even the United States or, for that matter, Germany, France, China or Russia is leading the debate globally in that respect. Despite having less than 1% of the world's population, not the British Government but media institutions in Britain are at the forefront of shaping opinions around the world.

I take the opportunity to pay tribute to the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, which my hon. Friend mentioned. It is valued by Members throughout the House for its role in promoting elections, civic engagement and the development of political parties around the world.

I want to talk about co-ordination across the Government—something that my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury mentioned in his introductory speech. Departments and publicly funded bodies are facing the challenge of how we can make the most effective use of the money that we have. There is a role for us to identify ways in which we can work even more closely together. We have already undertaken an exercise on how that might work in practice, and we will publish the results later in the year.

We have to tread warily, however. Many of the United Kingdom's most effective soft power resources are independent of Government control. It is that very independence that makes them valuable—a point that was acknowledged by my hon. Friend in his speech. People who might not wish to talk directly to the British Government will engage with them, so we should not do anything that is perceived as compromising that independence. That does not mean that we should not look for opportunities to work together with our partners as much as possible. I shall give two examples.

First, I was recently in Brazil, where our UK-Brazil season later this year will bring together the Foreign Office, UK Trade and Investment and the British Council, working in tandem with other Departments, commercial organisations and cultural institutions, to promote the UK and to build new dynamic partnerships. Secondly, the Great campaign, launched by the Prime Minister in September, involves the Foreign Office, the British Council, UKTI and VisitBritain. That single campaign brings together all our overseas activity to promote Great Britain under a common banner, to get people from around the world to visit the UK and to do business here. It is expected to deliver 4.6 million extra visitors to the UK, generate tourist spending of £2.3 billion and create almost 60,000 new job opportunities.

The Foreign Office's work on the Olympics and Paralympics has brought in a wide range of partners, both inside and outside the Government, working together to use the 2012 spotlight to build the reputation and influence of the UK right around the world. They will attract almost 15,000 athletes and will be held before almost 11 million ticket holders and an estimated global audience of 4 billion people. It is a great opportunity for us; they are distinctive events. Together with the royal jubilee this summer, that focus on Britain that will be envied by every country around the world—even, I would venture, the United States. The events are important in their own right; they are not public relations events. Nevertheless, we need to be alert to their positive implications for how Britain is perceived globally.

We have been considering how to bring the elements of soft and hard power in a cohesive way into what is sometimes referred to in the jargon as smart power. Military power does not provide the only, or even the best, answer to many of the world's challenges. Economic and social solutions to intractable problems are at least as important. The building stability overseas strategy, which was launched in July, was the first integrated cross-Government strategy to address conflict issues. Earlier in the debate, we discussed how some of that work had been carried out, and Pakistan was cited as an example of where different Departments and agencies are working together to achieve their departmental objectives, as well as the overall objectives of the United Kingdom Government.

Promoting stability in fragile countries reduces the threat of national and regional conflict. Instability and conflict provide fertile grounds for terrorist and criminal activity, thus preventing economic development and promoting migration. As part of that strategy, we have been working not only with the Ministry of Defence and the Department for International Development, but with key international stakeholders including non-governmental organisations and international partners, to improve our ability to anticipate potential conflicts and take fast and effective action to prevent a crisis and to help build robust societies.

Soft power is not an end in itself, but a capability to be used in pursuit of a wide range of foreign policy objectives. To make the most effective use of soft power, we must recognise not only the strengths and weaknesses of our partners, but how we are perceived by our target audiences. We must be prepared to engage carefully and respectfully with those whom we wish to influence, and we must use all the channels available to us. Soft power must also be fully integrated into policy making and delivery.

I believe that soft power will become more important in the years ahead. In terms of expenditure, Britain has the fourth largest military in the world, and we are the world's sixth or seventh biggest economy, depending on how that is measured. As I have said, we possess key advantages such as our permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council, and we are leading members of both the European Union and the Commonwealth. Those formal expressions of power remain important in promoting our national interests and foreign policy objectives, although the ways in which countries exercise influence in the world are often becoming more subtle and varied than the exertion of formal power by a Government.

The United Kingdom has many attributes that are admired, such as our education sector, culture, sport and civic society, and that is a huge asset for the country around the world. Where appropriate, the Government are determined to make the most of such attributes, although many of those things are not necessarily led or directed by the UK Government, but are attributes of British society as a whole.

It has been a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger, and again I congratulate my hon. Friend on giving the House the opportunity to discuss this important issue.

Speech on Defence Reform

John Glen (Salisbury) (Con): As a member of the Defence Committee, I welcome this opportunity to contribute to the debate. Defence reform is a complex matter and it is not easy, in a few minutes, to encapsulate coherently and completely in an incisive contribution how one would move things forward. I say that to mitigate the disappointment when I sit down and to reflect how difficult it is to reform a Department that has so much complexity hard-wired into its fabric. Much analysis and many reports on this issue have been undertaken over the years and I do not want to use my time now to revisit controversial decisions on whether, if or when we will have an aircraft carrier or aircraft carriers, or on the number of senior posts that will be rationalised, or on how those decisions were taken. Neither do I want to examine the different reasons armed forces personnel face a greater likelihood of compulsory redundancy than their civil service counterparts.

The three points I wish to raise today concern culture, accountability and the measurement of outcomes. Regardless of what decisions are made about programmes and the size and shape of the three services, it is in those three areas that lasting, effective and meaningful reform will be achieved. Many people will probably raise their eyebrows at the mention of culture and think it is a soft and peripheral concern. They might think that the culture of the armed forces is well defined and focused, so let me explain what I mean.

I have no doubt whatever that the sense of discipline, service and mutual dependency is fully developed within the culture of the armed services, as is that brave willingness to risk life and limb for country. However, I am increasingly of the view, through all my different interactions with the armed services in the two years I have been in the House, that although in operational terms there is no doubt about how well the different services work together, when it comes to taking decisions in the interests of UK defence at the strategic and policy level, individuals display an undue dependency on their own service, department or section and the affinities that go with them. Often, I feel that decisions on fundamental matters of reform are made on the basis of the relative political skills of the senior individuals involved. Until a culture exists that rewards and prizes fully at all levels the good of UK defence above other ingrained imperatives, lasting and successful reform will not happen. We cannot continue to pay lip service to jointery from a structural and organisational chart perspective but make no real investment in the mechanics of decision making within the MOD.

The second issue I want to address is accountability. The Defence Committee's report of just this week says that

"the MoD could not provide adequate audit evidence for over £5.2 billion worth of certain inventory and capital spares."

My hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) referred to the Secretary of State appearing like the chairman of an international company.

Mr Gray: A very good one.

John Glen: Indeed, but what would happen in a business if such inventory could not be accounted for so that for the fifth year the financial director had to qualify the accounts? My gallant Defence Committee colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), recently told me he had once been severely reprimanded for an unaccounted rifle. That was only a generation ago, yet today £125 million-worth of Bowman radios are still unaccounted for.

Many Members will raise their eyebrows, because the issue has been highlighted so many times in different reports, but poor accountability for decisions and outcomes and for the use of public money needs to be addressed. Accountability needs to be hard-wired in the MOD, not just at the highest level but at every level, otherwise reform will not be successful.

The final issue I want to examine is measuring outcomes. As a member of the Select Committee, I draw attention to our recent report, which notes that we were told that

"88 per cent progress had been made to a stable and secure Afghanistan."

It is a promising statistic, but when we examined it further we were told that

"the performance was not 88 per cent against a full range of indicators of what is happening in Afghanistan, for example on the quality of governance, the economy and security."

In that case, what is the point of such a statistic in the MOD's annual report and accounts? We can debate at length the different aspects of decision making and allocation of resources, but until we have proper accountability and measurement of outcomes we cannot have real change in future outcomes and conduct in our MOD. We need to change the culture. We need real accountability, with consequences. We need to measure outcomes so that effective decision making can be built on well into the future.

Second Speech on Youth Unemployment

John Glen (Salisbury) (Con): I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in the debate. I would like to make three points, but before I do I wish to put on record my grave concern about the issue of youth unemployment. It is most regrettable that when we have debates such as this, Opposition Members seek to label Government Members as being glib and unconcerned about the plight of their constituents who are in real difficulty.

I was put here by the people of Salisbury, and in my constituency 340 young people between the ages of 16 and 24 are unemployed. I readily concede that that number is significantly higher than it was in the previous year, but I do not accept the comments of the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick), who is no longer in his place, that somehow my colleagues and I do not care. I am not complacent about the matter or unwilling to acknowledge the grave seriousness of the problem of youth unemployment, nor am I unwilling to listen to suggestions from Members of all parties of how to tackle it effectively.

I do not see the point of belabouring the fact that the trend from 2004 was in the wrong direction, or that there were 279,000 more unemployed young people when we came to power than there were in 1997. As the right hon. Member for South Shields (David Miliband) said, that trend started in 2004, well before any global banking crisis. Let us therefore be honest in the debate about the nature of the problem and how long we have faced it.

However, we must realise that we owe it to those young people to find a lasting and effective solution. The Opposition suggest that the Government's cuts and tax increases have choked the economy, that our welfare-to-work programmes are failing and that borrowing has increased, so that the solution, very simply, is to tax bankers' bonuses and introduce a permanent bank levy. That is supposed to sort everything out overnight.

I have three concerns about that. Fundamentally, I am worried about the economic literacy of such a proposal. One cannot just buy jobs. That logic led to the current ruinous situation. It is misguided on several levels. The Government are doing things to address the points that the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) legitimately highlighted: the grave frustration and anger about bankers' bonuses. However, the banking levy that the Government introduced, which was effective from January 2011, will yield more than the one-off policy on bankers' bonuses in the last year of the previous Government. That is factually correct.

The Government will take on board the Vickers commission's conclusions, and reforms to the banking sector will be adopted. However, when the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), who is no longer in his place, worked alongside former Prime Minister Tony Blair in No. 10 Downing street, I wonder where the desire to reform the culture and the system of banking bonuses was then. We have all failed to address the creeping callus of immorality in our society.

However, the notion that the Government can somehow just kick-start things and buy a few jobs here and there does not do justice to the macro-economic realities. The financial systems—the markets—will not see more spending as a signal that the Government are serious about tackling the underlying problem of the debt in this country. Interest rates would rise. That would lead to mortgage payments rising and businesses losing confidence in making investments.

Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab): I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman, and I do not want to impugn him or any of his colleagues who are genuinely concerned about, for example, the plight of young people in my constituency. I meet college students who are devastated because of the impact of withdrawing education maintenance allowance and trebling tuition fees, and the fact that there are 10 people chasing every job. However, all the evidence shows that some of the measures, such as enterprise zones, that the Government have introduced have no effect. Would the hon. Gentleman like to comment on that?

John Glen: The Government have not been complacent. They have made, and are making, relentless attempts to deal with the difficulty—the £1 billion investment in the youth contract, 250,000 work experience places and 440,000 apprenticeships demonstrate Government action. The effect is not immediate; things will not change overnight, or in the next three months. We must be realistic about what it takes to rebalance the economy. However, 20,000 extra apprenticeships with £1,500 attached to each will encourage people in the private sector, including small businesses, to take on new people.

We must recognise that there needs to be long-term fundamental change in our economy. We must pay down the debt, reduce the burden of regulations and develop schemes that incentivise private sector employers to make the leap and invest in our young people. We must recognise the reality that we are in an international scenario, and that simply pressing a few buttons in the Treasury will not deliver immediate outcomes. Reheating the flawed logic and instincts of the late 1970s, which said that we could press those buttons and jobs would appear, is flawed.

The most senior economic adviser to the former Prime Minister and Member for Sedgefield said in 1997 that the Government whom he served had a golden economic legacy. That is not what this Government had when they took power nearly two years ago. It will therefore take time, but there is no complacency. There is a determination to face up to the underlying economic challenges. Only when we have done that will we have a sustainable basis for dealing with the problem—the deep and desperate problem—of youth unemployment.

Intervention on Apprenticeships

I was disappointed to not be called to speak in the debate on apprenticeships on Monday night - this was because I have spoken on a number of issues substantively lately, and with 650 MPs to get through, everyone needs to get their turn. However, I was able to at least make an intervention in the debate. I am pleased that nationally, the state of apprenticeships has been invigorated lately - there was a 58% increase in uptake in 2010. In Salisbury, this is also the case: the number of apprenticeships has increased by 36%. I am keen to support apprenticeships; in a time of high levels of youth unemployment, this is one of the most effective ways we can tackle the problem, and I believe the government's approach will be welcome.

Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op): I have evidence to suggest that young people recruited for 12-week apprenticeships have ended up doing only five weeks, with a significant element of that time taken up with stuffing envelopes. The Government have paid for that as an apprenticeship course, which poses serious questions about the value for money that we are getting, the experience that we are offering to young people and the damage to the apprenticeship brand that could arise from it.

John Glen (Salisbury) (Con): I have been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman's remarks. He seemed to suggest that the previous Government's university access policy was delivering something superior and he seems to be denigrating the status of apprenticeships. Is not half the problem that people talk down apprenticeships, which denigrates their status—that status is very important in encouraging people to take apprenticeships up in place of going to university—and delivers an outcome that is no better?

Speech on Unemployment

On Wednesday, as well as speaking regarding Bovine TB, I also made the following speech in the Commons about unemployment:

John Glen (Salisbury) (Con): In my constituency, 997 people are unemployed, which represents 2.3% of those who are economically active. I recognise that that is a modest number compared with many constituencies, but it is an absolute tragedy for every single one of those individuals, particularly the 85 who have been unemployed for more than 12 months.

I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) said about the tragedy of unemployment. It means a loss of self-esteem, poor mental health, losing the pattern and discipline of work and losing hope. Listening to the debate this afternoon, I have found it very difficult to take the charge that all Government Members believe that unemployment is a price worth paying. I do not, but I do believe that it is a very sad economic reality.

The question is how the Government should respond. Should they act as though they have all the solutions and can essentially buy a load of jobs to relieve the misery overnight? Would that be a sustainable solution for the affected individuals in six, nine or 12 months' time? I do not think so.

Looking back to before the general election, I am certain that elements of the future jobs fund were worth while. However, when the Government are constructing a national scheme for getting people into work, there comes a point when they have to consider whether such a programme is the most cost-effective way of delivering sustainable skills and jobs that will lead people to full-time employment for many years.

I believe that two significant matters need to be examined: supply-side reform and macro-economic stability. Many Members have already spoken about the excellent apprenticeship schemes, the work experience programme and the reforms under the new youth contract, but we need to recognise that if small businesses, such as the many micro-businesses in my constituency, are to be confident enough to take on new people, they need to feel that the Government are on their side. They need to know that the Government understand that they do not need so much regulation. They do not need the 14 new regulations a day that they had under the last Government. They want to know that we will exempt micro-businesses from new business regulation and EU accounting rules. Such issues influence whether a small business man takes the leap and takes somebody on in these difficult times.

We also need macro-economic stability. Low interest rates are important, because they condition investment decisions and how people feel about their finances. They cannot spend money that they do not have in a way that is expensive and does not have a secure outcome. The Government will not have all the answers, but they are on the right trajectory to relieve the misery, and I wish them well.

FairFuel Debate

On Tuesday afternoon I was present in the House of Commons for the backbench debate on fuel duty. In the days before the debate I was contacted extensively by constituents, many of whom live in very rural areas, on the issue of high fuel prices. I must start by praising the abolition of the fuel escalator and the implementation of the fair fuel stabiliser by this government, but have three further observations on the matter.

First, as was made clear by many MPs in Tuesday's debate, we must recognise the significant effect of high fuel duties on those who live in rural areas. In Salisbury, I know that those living in our surrounding villages, particularly those who also work in the rural economy, tend to be on low or volatile incomes, further compounding the difficulties they face. These duties also impact the disabled disproportionately. One constituent, representing many like her, wrote to me to say that she relies on her motability car, and is concerned that fuel duty rises will significantly affect those who are disabled.

The trouble is that high fuel prices do not act as a fair "green" tax. The idea of a "green" tax is that consumers switch away from emission-producing products and services to greener alternatives. But most people lack the ability to purchase affordable fuel-efficient cars, and access to suitable public transport networks is not an option in many parts of Salisbury. There is no genuine alternative to travelling by car – and paying the fuel duty that goes with it.

Secondly, high fuel prices are detrimental to businesses, particularly micro businesses - employing very small numbers of people – of which there are a significant number in Salisbury. Micro-businesses cannot absorb significant increases in the price or fuel, nor easily cope with its volatility. Fuel prices are therefore hampering cost control and growth.

The fuel stabiliser is a good start and it begins to address the problem – but further efforts to stabilise fuel prices at the pumps could give small businesses the stability and assurance that are needed to plan for the future. Account needs to be taken of the dynamic effect of a lower fuel duty both for increased revenues and benefits it would provide for the wider economy.

Third, and most importantly, fuel taxes hit the poorest the hardest. When you have no choice of whether to spend money on fuel, and the price is a bigger proportion of a low income, this is a significant problem.

It has been clear from my mailbox this week that the people of Salisbury feel very strongly about this matter. I believe a reduction in the fuel tax and a more robust stabiliser will really help those on low incomes and in rural areas, and will stimulate economy growth by reducing the unpredictably burden on our small businesses.

Speech on Armed Forces Personnel

John Glen (Salisbury) (Con): I begin by acknowledging, as many others have, the welcome and historic breakthrough of enshrining the armed forces covenant in law. However, as the Prime Minister himself has said, the challenge is to make the Government live up to the obligations in it in reality. It is critical that we bring the aspirations that we all have for the covenant together with the realities that we are faced with in trying to deliver it.

The awful reality is that members of the armed forces and their families may have to face death or injury while they are serving. If the worst happens, it is extremely important to ensure that the right processes are in place and to make certain that the wishes of those who have been killed or wounded are carried out. I wish to focus my few remarks on that.

All armed forces personnel are advised in pre-deployment briefings to make a will. A form, MOD 106, is provided for the purpose. Unfortunately, no advice is given on making the will, nor is there any compulsion to do so. Little information is given to those serving on the risk of mental incapacity following a tour of duty, or on the fact that if there are such complications, the management of financial affairs will not be sufficiently dealt with by a will. In reality, members of the armed forces would need to have a legal power of attorney document to be used in those circumstances, but it must be registered before the mental incapacity happens to make it valid for use when an injury occurs.

Many complicating factors conspire to mean that in many cases, our service personnel may not be properly legally protected in such situations. First, there is a cultural battle. Many young men and women who want to serve are less likely to make a will, because they feel invincible before a tour of duty after undergoing sustained training, or sometimes because they do not want to tempt fate. Secondly, a will speaks only from death. Many personnel are under the misconception that a will covers all eventualities, including mental injury, but it will not. That means that there is a real need to deal with the legal power of attorney option properly.

The consequence of not having a legal power of attorney document can be far-reaching and cause enormous problems for those left behind. I have been made aware of the case of a young man who tragically lost his life. He had made a will, but did not have legal power of attorney in place in the right way, which caused some difficulties. The will was also out of date, which meant that the benefits did not go the people he intended them to. Similarly, another person was in the middle of an acrimonious divorce, and his will did not work as he wished. The outcome was that it did not accurately reflect his updated wishes, which caused major complications for his family.

As we know, more people who serve in the armed forces are surviving terrible injuries that they would not have survived 10 years ago. Some are unable to manage their affairs when they have recovered from physical injuries, which means that someone must do so on their behalf. An LPA would solve a lot of problems in such cases. It is true that an LPA pack can be downloaded from the Office of the Public Guardian, but it costs £130 to register the LPA when all the forms are completed. That will seem like a lot of money to service personnel, many of whom are young people who might believe that nothing will happen to them—an LPA is probably the last thing they want to spend their money on. Defence instructions mention that document, but I am given to understand that they lack detail and contain errors.

If no LPA is in place, a deputyship must be applied for on behalf of the injured service person, which can be extremely expensive, as can the ongoing maintenance costs of a professional deputyship. I am aware of one case of a deputyship costing about £60,000 per annum to service. Solicitors who manage compensation claims will choose to instruct a professional deputy when a lay deputy is perfectly viable, which drives up the costs that take away from compensation schemes—they will have to borne by the MOD.

I see this as a specific covenant issue: if we are prepared to send young people off to fight and possibly die or be gravely injured for their country, and if we invest so heavily in the correct equipment and training for them while they are on operations, we must also have a duty of care to ensure that their affairs are in the order that they would wish them to be in if they are injured or killed. We have concentrated on equally important matters until now, but this issue needs to be looked at again in more detail as part of the pastoral care package that is offered to service personnel.

I am not seeking to embarrass the MOD or the Minister—this is a constructive suggestion on which I have worked with hon. Members on both sides of the House—but the Mental Capacity Act 2005 made this issue real, which is why it needs further examination. What should be done? I would like all those on deployment, and ideally all service personnel, to have an up-to-date will and LPA in place. It would be best to have a will pre-enrolment, but personnel should certainly have one pre-deployment.

I have also had meetings with a group who have a proposal for an organisation called the services trust—I met the group earlier this week. They would like to assist the MOD and serving personnel with information on some of the gaps to which I have drawn the House's attention. The group could also help with processing LPAs and could act as deputies if necessary.

It would be useful to train admin officers to give relevant information on the consequences of not writing a will or of having no LPA. In fact, the Office of the Public Guardian held a consultation on what groups of people should be exempted from the £130 LPA fee, but it did not include the MOD. That unnecessary oversight needs to be corrected.

It should be feasible to spread the cost of an LPA over a number of months and to take it from the wage packets of personnel at source. That is done for a variety of costs, and it would be a simple matter to add it to the joint personnel administration system. Payments could even be taken out with payments for the armed forces insurance scheme.

To return to where I began, the Government have made a commitment to the welfare of the armed forces by enshrining the covenant in law. It is essential that that commitment is extended to ensure that not only their financial and operational needs are met, but their legal needs. I respectfully ask the Minister to give an indication of whether he is prepared to meet me and other hon. Members, and representatives behind the services trust proposal, to establish what can be done to address that proven need in our armed forces.

Opposition Day Debate: Youth Unemployment

On Wednesday I attended the Opposition Day debate on youth unemployment and jobs, and have been reflecting on the proposals and arguments that were made in the debate over the past days. In Salisbury, we are fortunate that unemployment is relatively low, with a Jobseekers Allowance claimant rate of 1.8%. However, any unemployment, though, is a tragedy and a waste of potential. This is especially true of youth unemployment, and 34% of JSA claimants in my constituency are under the age of 24.

Without experience of work at an early stage, our young people risk getting trapped into patterns of joblessness and poverty. This can sadly lead to low self-esteem, poor mental health and other problems. More than this, if we do not take measures to reduce youth unemployment, or allow young people to develop the skills needed to compete in the labour market, we are not just failing them: we are compromising the future of our economy.

The approach that Labour is offering does not stand up to scrutiny. One of the opposition's proposals is to tax bank bonuses to guarantee 100,000 jobs for young people. Government does not exist to create artificial jobs – jobs that don't add value to the economy. We could spend money today to create temporary jobs for tomorrow, but what we need are jobs that are sustainable and of real value to the economy well into the future.

We should not have micro-managing government, but enabling government. The solution is to create a framework – of a stable economic climate, low regulation for businesses, low interest rates and wide education opportunities.

The government is cutting red tape for businesses, for example, by exempting micro-businesses from some EU accounting rules, planning to reduce the number of SMEs who have to undertake a full financial audit, and exempting micro-businesses from all new domestic business regulation in the next three years. This reduces their financial and administrative burden to allow them to take on and retain staff. In April, the government will also change employment law to increase the period before unfair dismissal claims can be brought – decreasing the risks for businesses taking on new staff.

This is not to say that there is no more that can be done. I urge the government in consulting on flexible paternity leave to realise that complex regulation on family leave can be a real concern for small businesses in taking on staff, as I heard in a meeting with small business owners at Ambassadors' business breakfast just a few weeks ago. There is a need for clarity over the length and timing of leave to which employees are entitled so that small businesses can plan for this – and as needs will vary between individuals, autonomy should be given to businesses over what form these flexible arrangements can take.

I have also heard concerns over a trend of increasing administrative burdens on businesses over national insurance. The government should resist the urge to pass costs on to businesses – particularly as small businesses do not have the capital base or the capacity to deal with increasing regulatory burdens.

I urge the government to be bold in continuing an authentic Conservative approach. Big government sponsoring jobs is not the solution: it is this government's policies to create an attractive economic climate for businesses that will do justice to our young people and secure our future competitiveness.