Queen's Speech Debate on Economy and Growth

John Glen (Salisbury) (Con): I rise to speak in the debate this evening with the words of the recent public discussion between business leaders and my right hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench ringing in my ears.

The essence of that debate seemed from the business leaders' side to be, "The Queen's Speech did not do enough for business," and from Government Front Benchers, "It is business, not Governments, that create jobs. Governments can create only the conditions for growth." Frankly, both sides of the debate share a common aim: to see business prosper, more jobs created, more tax revenues and growth in our economy.

When we step beyond the headlines, which inevitably, as ever, over-simplify and polarise statements, we see that the issue before the country, as expressed by the Institute of Directors and other business organisations, is the pace and scope of reforms. Businesses want to see an extension of the sunset clauses for regulation and for the one-in, one-out regime. They might also like to see more moves towards no-fault dismissal and flexible structures, so that the decision to take on a permanent employee does not require so much deliberation.

The CBI said: "We hear a lot about regulatory reform, but the big prize for businesses would be to major on the new power for 'sunset clauses' on regulation and regulators. Every new bit of regulation should be time-limited and then reviewed."

Mr George Howarth: Has the hon. Gentleman seen the Business Department's own survey of small and medium-sized enterprises? The priorities that they cited were what was happening in the economy and what was happening in the banks, and only 6% responded by saying that regulation was an issue.

John Glen: I have seen plenty of businesses in my constituency which have argued consistently over the past two years that their real challenge is dealing with unnecessary regulation, and I agree. The Prime Minister, although in favour of no-fault dismissal, could not unfortunately persuade our coalition partners to agree, so it did not go forward.

Some primary legislation will be helpful and desirable, but I do not believe that in a Queen's Speech the Government can legislate to create jobs, so I am somewhat confused by the logic of Justin King, who has questioned the consistency in Government policy. From the very first Budget, the Government have been consistent on the need to reduce corporation tax, but in 24 months there is only so much consistency that they can demonstrate.

Mr King says that he wants to know where the "big bets" will be placed, but he might like not only to reflect on the state of the public finances and on the limited room for such investments, but to grasp the fact that on High Speed 2, on health care and on schools the budgetary certainties were put in place a long time ago, and the announcements were made in the first few months of this Government. The reforms to planning, especially the radical simplification of planning regimes, should enable big employers such as Sainsbury's to get on with their primary role of creating jobs.

Let us turn to small businesses, which constitute such a high proportion of the jobs in my constituency and throughout the UK economy. For them, the Queen's Speech offers a great deal. The groceries code adjudicator should rebalance the relationship between small businesses and large supermarkets; perhaps a fear about that led Mr King to make his remarks last week. I am concerned, however, about how flexible maternity and paternity leave will work out in practice for small businesses.

Small businesses and small business people know how to look after their employees through good times and bad and life-changing events, and an employee has a reciprocal responsibility to work hard, providing dependability, a willingness to demonstrate responsibility and a responsiveness to economic conditions so that rewards are brought to him and his employer.

I hope that the Government consider the implications of the masses of paperwork that will be introduced if the measure is not considered and adopted carefully. As the Forum of Private Business said:

"The UK already has one of the most generous parental leave systems in the world", and small firms must not be "stung financially at a time they can ill afford any more business costs being foisted on them."

What happens when managers find themselves having to arbitrate on competing requests for flexible leave? Could not this time be better spent establishing new markets and growth opportunities?

A debate on business and the economy at the current time would not be complete without reference to the eurozone crisis. There can be no doubt that the uncertainty in European economies, centred around the state of the euro, is causing many in this country to put off vital investment decisions. Fear of a slide in equity values, anxiety over the dependency on hidden "toxic debts" in European banks, and frustration at the gap between the political will and the economic reality are draining our economy of a great deal of optimism.

I always resist the simplistic call that the solution is, "Pull out of Europe and all will be well," but I do feel that the Government, and politicians in all parts of this House, need to begin to explore what the world will be like when Greece defaults and leaves the euro. What will happen when the Hollande rhetoric cannot fix chronic indebtedness? We are not insulated from the euro; our economies are interdependent given that 48% of our trade is with the EU 27.

We should look to the future with some trepidation. The future will primarily be in the hands of business leaders, but the conditions for investment decisions need as much certainty as possible. All good business strategies have contingencies and reserves. The emerging challenge for the leaders of our Government is to demonstrate a contingency for the scenarios that are evolving in the eurozone.

Contribution to Assisted Dying Motion

Over the past few weeks, I have been contacted by a number of constituents who are concerned about the impact of a change in the law concerning assisted dying. I was glad to be able to echo their views on a subject I feel passionately about. 

John Glen (Salisbury) (Con): I want to open my contribution simply by saying that I endorse and support the DPP's published prosecution policy. I do not support any move to change the law or the prosecution policy or to put that policy in statute law, and I am concerned that in reality that is the pathway that will follow this debate. I oppose any moves in that direction on the basis that the current law works well in practice. Let us be clear that it does so because of the stop-gap between Parliament and the CPS, which allows a criminal investigation into any case if required but, as with all criminal law, has the element of discretion that allows consideration of mitigating factors in all cases.

I want to offer two practical objections to changing the status quo. First, the law is about protection. We are talking about protection for the most vulnerable members of our society, those with terminal illnesses, those who might be severely disabled or those who might be depressed, confused or anxious. For this reason, we should not have a law that encourages, or is unable to prosecute, any case of coerced, encouraged, pressured or uninformed assisted suicide. Consider the situation for a 97-year-old elderly lady nearing the end of her life. Despite the best motives and intentions of her family, knowing that the option of assisted suicide exists, and given strong ties of loyalty, subtle cues from the family create the risk that she will feel compelled to assist with their emotional and financial uncertainties by agreeing to a premature ending of her life.

When I visited the spinal unit in my local hospital in Odstock in Salisbury last Friday and spoke with the consultant, he told me of the frequent situation for those who become tetraplegic after accidents. He said that their attitude towards their future changes markedly while they come to terms with their situation and their future quality of life. Exemptions to the law on assisted suicide will not provide a deterrent or discouragement in those cases, nor will they provide grounds for investigation or prosecution, if needed. The only way to ensure that every single case is amenable to robust deterrence and proper investigation is to have a blanket law against assisted suicide.

We must also focus on prevention, and that means doing everything we can to aid people when they are suffering towards the end of their life, so I endorse the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), with its renewed focus on palliative care. We have all commended the hospices in our constituencies, as we know that they are an under-used and a misunderstood resource of which so many more people wish to, and could, take advantage.

When we discuss the issue of suicide, we immediately raise the need for counselling and caring for those who are depressed. The same should be true for those who are near death. My submission today is that if we were to create a painful moral dilemma and significant areas of legal uncertainty and ambiguity, we would put at risk the well-being of many people. We should leave the status of the law as it is.

Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con): It is an honour to speak in a debate that has shown this House at its best, and I too congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) on moving the motion and the Backbench Business Committee on finding time to debate it. I am in an unusual position, as I can happily support the motion and both amendments—and will do so if we go into the Division Lobby later.

I will start at the end by supporting amendment (b) on palliative care, which my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) tabled and with which I wholeheartedly agree. I join other Members in paying tribute to the hospices that serve their constituencies.

My local hospice is the Treetops hospice in Derbyshire, which does amazing work, and, speaking as someone who has lost a partner to a cancer, I have seen the great care that it gives people in the final stage of their life. We never talked about whether she would have chosen a quicker, less painful and more dignified way of dying, but I remember sitting there for four days while she lay dying, thinking that if I ever got into such a situation I might prefer to go in a less painful and more dignified way.

I join those other Members who support changing the law to allow people that very difficult choice at the end of their life, but that is not what this debate, the motion or the amendment that stands in my name and that of the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock) is about; it is about endorsing what the Director of Public Prosecutions has done. His guidance is admirable, I have no criticism of it and I hope that it remains in place and is applied consistently.

I do not think any Member wants the issue to be subject to a different court decision, which moves the line in the sand back or forward a bit, or subject to a different DPP changing the tone of the guidance. Parliament should draw that line, saying, "This is what we think is acceptable; anything beyond that, we think not," and if the line is to move, that should be down to Parliament as well. That is why I support amendment (a), and I do so not because I want to list loads of criteria in law.

If someone compassionately assists a loved one in ending their life when that is their choice, Parliament should say that that is not a crime. What should be a crime is trying maliciously to encourage someone to end their life when that is not their choice, when it is not what they want and when it is not done through compassion.

John Glen: My hon. Friend is making a powerful case, but in reality is it not the practical, individual decisions that matter? Even if Parliament did come up with a set of criteria, would it not be their application individually that mattered? It would therefore be entirely inappropriate for Parliament to try to set criteria that could be binding in every individual situation.

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.

Debate on the National Planning Policy Framework and Hampton Park II

On Thursday I continued taking the subject of Hampton Park II to Westminster, and raised the issue in a debate on the National Planning Policy Framework.

John Glen (Salisbury) (Con): I broadly support the intentions of this new framework. For far too long, the planning process has been riddled with uncertainty and ambiguity, leading to widespread misunderstanding and frustration. In particular, I welcome the simplification of the guidance from a bewildering 1,000-plus pages to a manageable 52 pages. I also welcome the removal of top-down pressure by the abolition of the unpopular regional spatial strategies. That has resulted in a reduction of 20% on the previous Government's insistence that 12,400 houses should be built in south Wiltshire, where my constituency lies.

I also welcome the framework's safeguards for the green belt, areas of outstanding national beauty and sites of special scientific interest, as well as the acknowledgement of the need to protect wildlife, biodiversity and our cultural heritage. However, I have considerable concern about how the principle of localism will work in reality. Frankly, the devil is in the detail, and the precise mechanisms for collating, calibrating and putting together local views to create a local core strategy need to be clarified.

In Salisbury, there was a decision on Hampton Park II four weeks ago. The Secretary of State overturned the decision by a local planning inspector, thereby approving the building of 525 homes, which has fundamentally undermined confidence in the planning process. That may be due in part to the previous Government's determination to abolish the district council in Salisbury by amalgamating other district councils to form a Wiltshire unitary authority. The price of this change has been the perception of a considerable distancing in decision making, and that is particularly keenly felt in planning.

I wish to pay tribute to Councillors Moss and McLennan, who have done so much to champion the concerns of the Laverstock and Ford parish. Councillor McLennan expressed his views to me. He said that

"from a local perspective, the core strategy was a poisoned chalice. The forward-planners of Salisbury district, who morphed and increased under Wiltshire council to become 'spatial planners' had our strategic gap in the frame...However, we were negotiating until the remote spatial folk from Trowbridge overruled the locals."

He recognises that other parishes will be able to determine the nature of the housing that should be built, but in this transitional period the consequences of unclear guidance have been devastating.

Specific concerns about the need to include a strategic gap—a piece of land that acts as a barrier between new planned development and the separate parish—have not been recognised. In fact, Ron Champion, chairman of Laverstock and Ford parish council has told me that

"the views of this parish have been wholly ignored in regards to the numbers appropriate for the development known as Hampton Park II and Wiltshire council got itself into a position of opposing a development of 500 homes on the site in front of one inspector—whilst supporting the 500 homes in front of another."

The inadequacy of the consultation process on the development of the core strategy to replace the RSS has left a bitter taste. In essence, there is much confusion over the definition of the word "local". When parishes are motivated to make, and indeed do make, a constructive, considered and meaningful contribution to a core strategy only to find that three weeks before it is formally adopted the Secretary of State overturns an individual planning decision by a local inspector on the basis that the core strategy is still awaited and so only limited weight to its provisions can be given, that means my local constituents' views have, in effect, been set aside. That is how they see it.

My constituents are angry. They believe that the Secretary of State could have delayed this decision by a few weeks to await the protection that the core strategy could have provided, because it is in the detail of those provisions that good individual planning applications and decisions are enabled. My local parishioners were not saying, "No housing here." They made a serious attempt to define the design qualities required to fit in with the local community's wishes, but they now have a scheme, approved by a Minister, that is sub-optimally designed and does not fit with what is in the core strategy.

I ask the ministerial team to review the guidance and procedures adopted by the Department in handling appeals, so that when core strategies are not quite adopted some serious attempt is made to acknowledge what is in them and they can have a bearing on decisions made. I do not want any more of my constituents to say to me, "What does 'localism' mean? We did what was expected. The core strategy gave guidelines that contradict the logic of the Secretary of State's decision and, had he known about it, it would have had some meaning." The new framework must not simply be a codification of sensible rules for the future; it must also deal with the practical contradictions and realities of the present, and with the pipeline of unadopted core strategies that appear to give opportunistic home builders a smooth ride to build sub-optimal developments.

Adjournment Debate on Innovation in the NHS

John Glen (Salisbury) (Con): It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I requested this debate in order to raise important issues about the ongoing review of how the national health service extracts the full potential from innovative, commercially realisable ideas generated by NHS employees, and to seek clarification from the Minister about the scope of the Carruthers review of innovation in the NHS announced this July.

I was led to the subject by my involvement with Odstock Medical Ltd in my constituency, a company that has grown from Salisbury NHS Foundation Trust. OML has pioneered a technique called functional electrical stimulation that produces contractions in paralysed muscles by applying small pulses of electrical stimulation. Having experienced it myself, I can attest that it assists walking. OML has developed a range of neuromuscular stimulators to improve the functional ability of people with neurological conditions such as multiple sclerosis. The devices have been developed during many years of collaboration among clinical engineers, clinicians and patients at the National Clinical FES Centre at Salisbury NHS Foundation Trust.

Last year, it came to my attention that, because OML is partly owned by the local NHS foundation trust, under EU rules, it cannot be classified as a small or medium-sized enterprise, and therefore cannot access grants and support through normal Department for Business, Innovation and Skills channels. That seems ludicrous. I met the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk), who has responsibility for small business, along with Professor Ian Swain from OML. Little progress could be made, although attempts were made to access specific funds and schemes. It is a systemic failing.

Anxious to overcome that barrier and explore other aspects of innovation in the NHS, more recently, I met with Alun Williams, the CEO of NHS Innovations South West, who has an office in my constituency and is here today. Alun is wholly committed to the NHS and is passionate, as am I, about finding ways to develop streams of revenue for the NHS. I thank him for his support and advice as we have discussed the subject in recent months.

My key concern is this. As populations age, as the cost of drugs and treatments rises faster than inflation and as medical science, thankfully, finds ever more treatments for human ailments and medical conditions, the NHS must be more radical in exploiting the bright ideas of its staff to ensure that the commercial potential of those ideas are realised fully by the NHS.

Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab): I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this enormously important debate. I was brought to the subject by NHS Innovations South East. Does he agree that NHS staff can come up with innovations—examples cited to me include improvements in child protection investigations and adolescent mental health programmes—that do not readily or easily translate or crystallise into commercial benefit? Is it therefore not short-sighted for the Government to insist, as I understand they are, that innovation bodies must be totally self-supporting commercially?

John Glen: I certainly contend that there are significant pockets of innovation. The challenge is bringing those ideas to their full commercial potential and getting them into the NHS so that they are cheaper for the user. The adoption and uptake of NHS-grown ideas is not wide or deep enough, few hospitals showcase their ideas and the wider benefits are not really felt across the NHS. Some ideas, when fully exploited, might realise significant streams of revenue, easing the cost pressures that I mentioned.

The review led by Sir Ian Carruthers, announced at the beginning of July by the Department of Health, will seek in its report next month to inform the strategic approach to innovation in the modernised NHS. However, it must not simply set up another framework or broad aspirations; it must deal convincingly with the gritty realities of what is needed to take a proven idea that has been honed, challenged and assessed by the innovation hubs to its full commercially realised potential.

The report must also recognise that, unless a way is found to invest in such ideas, their commercial potential will be exploited by private sector entrepreneurs who can move more rapidly and access finance more quickly. Intellectual property will thus be patented not by individual NHS trusts, as is desirable, but by the private sector, which will then charge the NHS for products and services at rates that the NHS would rather not pay. I urge the Minister to push the boundaries and ensure that we do not risk allowing the ideas of excellent NHS employees to be lost, thus losing the value and savings that could accrue.

Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con): I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Does he agree that, although it is important for the NHS to realise the commercial value of innovation, it is also fundamental to the improvement of patient care that innovations take hold more rapidly? Did he see this morning's comments by Professor Williams, president of the Royal College of Surgeons, who warned of a 20-year wait before innovations start saving lives if we base innovation progress on previous experience? He cited reduced deaths from bowel cancer as a result of keyhole surgery, which took years to become widespread practice.

John Glen: I thank my hon. Friend for that extremely helpful intervention. I met Professor Williams last week, and he made that point to me. That is the nub of the matter. If the NHS does not move quickly on such ideas, someone else will, and it will cost more. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The impact on outcomes is negative. We must move matters forward so that the advantages can accrue to the NHS.

It is important to realise that, in the big picture of NHS politics, there is an almost pathological fear of doing anything that could imply the use of the word "cut" or the even more toxic P-word, privatisation. I am not arguing for either, but I am saying that, unless we adopt savvy practices to incubate and develop proven concepts more speedily, I fail to see how the NHS can deal with the increasingly more intense systemic supply and demand pressures that it will face. Efficiency savings and ring-fenced budgets, although welcome, will not be enough to save the NHS and provide the money that it needs to continue in its present form. We need more realism about that, and a radical solution that has the potential to create more money.

I recognise that it should not be the NHS's primary objective to develop income streams from medical devices, new treatments or services. Equally, given that great ideas are an unintended by-product of taxpayer investment in providing a world-class national health service, it would surely be wrong not to look hard at making innovation work to the NHS's advantage. So many ideas derive from employees whom the state pays quite handsomely.

Furthermore, after initial investment, funding innovation could be self-financing, using royalties from previous successful investment. It just needs to unlock that potential. Alongside producing efficiency savings, this significant reform need not require significant capital outlay at the outset.

It feels as if successive Governments have been so concerned to avoid the tag of allowing the waste of capital on ideas that do not immediately point to a return, or being portrayed as blurring the boundaries of the NHS, that they have not fully established the means and mechanisms of making ideas realise their potential. Lip service is paid to the desire to innovate, but practical measures that make it possible on anything like the scale that is possible are not in place. It is more a question of whether the NHS can afford not to exploit the potential savings and revenue streams presented by these ideas.

I am aware that the current position is not completely bleak. The Minister will be able to cite a pipeline of ideas and he will know that the UK has established capabilities in this field. The medical device sector alone makes a significant contribution to the UK economy, with an industry turnover of £13 billion and 55,000 employees. That industry, however, is generally a supplier to the NHS. We need to move to a situation in which the NHS itself generates devices that can save—with a small s—the NHS from bearing the full commercial costs of products that the private sector has developed in its place. Why is it not possible for the Government to establish an innovation strategy with a real focus on extracting value from the pipeline?

I am not suggesting that there should be centrally driven, random speculative investment of taxpayers' money in half-baked ideas suggested by any clinician. The regional innovation hubs are already primed to sift ideas. For example, NHS Innovations South West has criteria that each product has to meet before it can receive further assistance. First and foremost, it must bring significant benefit to patients in terms of better outcomes and quality of life. It must also be patentable. The return on investment must meet a minimum threshold and it must be commercially viable—that is, there must be an assessment of a global need for the technology, making it a worthwhile investment for commercial partners.

Once that has been established, the issue is how to develop the ideas to their full potential. Several ideas exist in the south-west. A cancer diagnostic endoscope and meniscus knee repair device are both, subject to completing clinical trials, able to meet the criteria to which I have referred. Given that oesophageal cancer is one of the fastest growing cancers globally and early diagnosis can have a significant impact on savings in the NHS, it is highly desirable that that progresses quickly. The meniscus device should significantly improve patients' quality of life and postpone the need for an expensive total knee replacement by up to five years, thereby again saving the NHS huge sums of money.

My concern is that it is purely by chance that the private sector has not taken this work further. The current NHS process for capitalising on these innovations is not quick enough. There is limited access to NHS funding, and progress is inhibited by insufficient incentives and enabling mechanisms to encourage trusts to invest in such promising cost-saving technologies. Hospitals exploit these ideas elsewhere in the world and significant royalty streams accrue. They would make a recurring contribution to the much required efficiency savings that the chairman and chief executive of my hospital trust are desperately trying to find at present.

In conclusion, I believe that the NHS is a powerhouse of innovation, but that that is not being harnessed sufficiently to accrue the tens of millions that would be available to individual NHS trusts if a bolder approach were taken by Government. I urge the Minister to consider carefully the potential of the ideas in the NHS and to do all he can to ensure that the scope of the Carruthers review is broad enough to deliver recommendations that will allow the huge value that exists to be realised.

The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Simon Burns): It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) on securing this debate on what is widely recognised as an important issue for the NHS because of the crucial role that innovation plays in the present and will play in the future. Given his ideas, views and thoughts, he might seek to arrange a meeting, if he has not already done so, with my noble Friend the Earl Howe, who is the Health Minister with responsibility for innovation.

I shall respond by first setting out the Government's approach to innovation, before looking at the specific issues that have been raised by my hon. Friend. As we all know, and as he has reiterated, we face a significant challenge. Without real change, the cost of health care will grow faster than the rest of the economy. Moreover, the quality of care in vital areas such as cancer will lag behind other countries, and the gap between the best and the worst NHS care will continue to grow. More of the same simply will not do. We cannot afford it and patients do not deserve it. We need, in other words, to innovate, as my hon. Friend has said.

Fortunately, there is a vast reservoir of innovation to tap within the NHS. It has a long history of innovation, invention and research by great people and great institutions. Ian Donald, for instance, pioneered the use of ultrasound in the 1950s. Sir Peter Mansfield's work led to the MRI scanner in the 1970s. The Sanger Institute developed the first working draft of the human genome in 2000. We continue to lead the way in cutting-edge research, as the recently announced first European trial of embryonic stem cell research at Moorfields eye hospital demonstrates.

The creative spark that kick starts the long and difficult journey from initial idea to widely adopted treatment is a precious and delicate thing. We need to do all we can to encourage that creativity within the NHS—to grow and propagate the ideas that clinicians and others have for the benefit of their patients. While we continue to achieve great things, we must always strive for more.

Innovation does not happen when power is centralised and people are told what to do, so the single biggest thing that we are doing to encourage innovation is to devolve power to clinical professionals, trusting their professional judgment and their desire to do their best for their patients.

Our modernisation of the NHS will encourage innovation in three main ways. First, it will place the patient at the centre of decision-making about their own care—informed, empowered and able to choose the best possible appropriate care—so that providers will have to innovate to stand out. Secondly, it will have a resolute focus on improving health outcomes—publishing the data and rewarding excellence—so that hospitals and others will have a powerful incentive to innovate and improve. Thirdly, it will place power in the hands of local clinicians, thereby getting rid of the huge and wasteful bureaucracy that can strangle and frustrate innovation, and let the knowledge and expertise of clinicians drive innovation locally.

That will lead to a more personalised NHS, with services tailored to patients' needs; a more integrated NHS, with solutions that tackle inequalities, improve access and deliver care closer to home; and a better quality NHS, with every provider encouraged, rewarded and incentivised to constantly improve outcomes for patients.

There is also a wider economic imperative for innovation. The health care sector, including pharmaceuticals, medical technology, research, equipment and services, directly or indirectly employs hundreds of thousands of highly skilled people in companies, from small and medium-sized enterprises to global giants, generating billions of pounds in revenues, all helping to drive future economic growth. Innovation in health care applies to everyone—scientists, nurses, doctors and managers. In fact, it applies to all those working to deliver better health, better care and better value. We must ensure that innovation is not simply the preserve of elite minds at the top of august institutions, because it is not just about the latest drugs or high-tech pieces of equipment. The spirit of innovation should be part and parcel of every part and every level of the NHS.

One of my favourite examples of innovation in action is a jug—a health care assistant in Milton Keynes decided that patients whose fluid intake needed close attention should each have a bright red water jug. That particular innovation gave ward staff a clear visual reminder of those patients' specific needs, helped them to better care for patients, avoided the need for drips, reduced the risk of infection, cut patients' stays in hospital and consequently cut the cost of their care. That is all because of a bright red jug and one very bright idea from a health care assistant.

We have also made a strong and ongoing commitment to innovation through research. The Government's plan for growth cements our commitment to health care and the life sciences as a force for growth in the economy. The Government's National Institute for Health Research aims to support outstanding individuals, working in world-class facilities and conducting leading-edge research focused on the needs of patients and the public. We have recently announced a record £800 million in additional NIHR funding for experimental medicine and translational health research. We will also streamline regulation and improve the cost-effectiveness of clinical trials, speeding up the process of translating research into better lives for patients, their families and their carers.

However, no matter how extraordinary the innovation or how miraculous the invention, it is worthless if it is not used, as my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury said. Any innovation that is not widely adopted is a tragic waste. Like many large organisations, the NHS's uptake and spread of innovation has often been slow. We need to raise our game, as my hon. Friend alluded to. We need to do more to recognise the contribution that innovators and innovative organisations make and to encourage adoption and diffusion across the NHS on a scale never seen before.

Mr Andrew Smith: In that context, can the Minister say what future he sees for the work presently being undertaken by the regional NHS hubs, especially in the area to which I alluded earlier where there might not be an immediate commercial return?

Mr Burns: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I will certainly come to that matter during my comments and before we finish the debate.

A substantial amount of work is already under way, including the £60 million that has been invested in regional innovation funds, which support front-line staff to develop and spread new ideas and validate the notion that it is good to challenge the way things have always been done. The funds are massively over-subscribed and have to date given money to more than 300 projects. Further work includes the innovative technology adoption procurement programme, which aims to encourage the NHS-wide adoption of high-impact innovative medical technologies, and the innovation challenge prizes, which reward the ideas that tackle some of our big health and social care challenges, improving productivity and the quality of health care. The first innovation challenge prizes—ranging from £35,000 to £100,000—were awarded in March. Winning entries helped to reduce waste and increase the benefits of medicines, helped people with kidney failure to lead a more independent lifestyle and helped in the early diagnosis of cancer. An expert panel is going through this year's round of applications and I very much look forward to seeing the results later in the autumn.

There is also much of value in the innovation hubs, to which the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith) referred. Identifying, developing and commercialising new ideas within the NHS is a must, and we need to adopt a systematic approach to that. We also need to ensure that all parts of the innovation pipeline—invention, adoption and diffusion—are more efficient and effective. The NHS chief executive's innovation review will consider that and how we can achieve better value for money.

As announced in "The Plan for Growth," NHS Global is being developed to help NHS organisations to compete in the global market. NHS Global seeks to build and grow the NHS brand and reputation overseas, enabling the NHS to compete in the international health care market and to exploit the commercial value of its technologies, products and knowledge. In doing so, NHS Global acts as another mechanism to support great ideas generated in the NHS being widely accepted across the world.

In the case of the company mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury—Odstock Medical Ltd—if it has not done so already, I suggest that it contacts the NIHR's invention for innovation scheme. i4i supports product development and the guided progression of innovative medical product prototypes, and I strongly advise the company to get in touch with it if it has not done so.

The Health and Social Care Bill, now passing through the House of Lords, will place a legal duty on the NHS commissioning board and on clinical commissioning groups to promote innovation and research. Soon the NHS chief executive, Sir David Nicholson, will set out achievable, high-impact recommendations that will inform the strategic approach to innovation that is so important within a modernised NHS. We will open up NHS procurement to small and medium-sized enterprises, simplify the process and challenge them to come up with solutions to problems within the NHS. We have committed £10 million to the small business research initiative.

Innovation can never be mandated and it should never be restricted to a particular group. Innovation in health and social care will come from a wide variety of partners, for example, NHS staff and patients, private companies, the voluntary sector and academia. They all have a crucial role to play in pushing forward the boundaries in developing and dreaming up innovative products and services to meet the ever increasing demands of a modernised NHS.

Innovation is not easy. It takes more than just a good idea to innovate; it takes courage to speak out against how things have always been. Innovators have to hold and develop an idea often in the face of opposition and keep pushing forward until it begins to bear fruit. I fully appreciate that the process of innovation can be a very frustrating time. We must encourage people, so that they do not become frustrated and give up. They should be able to pursue dreams and ideas that will bring a greater improvement to the general provision of health care and the NHS.

Let us imagine a world without antibiotics, without insulin, without cancer screening. Then let us imagine a world with a cure for cancer or where we can reverse dementia and end heart disease. Without innovation none of that would be, or could be, possible. Innovation is essential for the future of our NHS and for the future of the UK economy. I assure hon. Members that the Government will do everything in their power to continue to promote innovation, so that it can flourish and develop along the lines that we would wish.

Adjournment debate on Home Ownership in the Armed Forces

John Glen (Salisbury) (Con): I welcome the opportunity to bring this important matter to the Floor of the House. It is a vital matter for serving armed forces personnel, and I speak today as someone who wants to make some constructive suggestions to the Minister in order to improve the uptake of mortgages. I do not think that that will mean new financial commitments from or undertakings by the Government, but I hope that it will deliver meaningful savings, if implemented well. I am particularly grateful for the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) and the hon. Members for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert) and for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller), who will contribute later.

Before I focus on access to mortgages, I pay tribute to Heropreneurs, a new charity founded by Richard Morris with the relatively simple aim of providing those who leave the armed forces with an entire business package, including start-up capital via a debt-for-equity model, pro bono legal and financial advice, a dedicated mentor, access to second-stage funding and a support network of people who have already made that journey from military to civilian life.

One beneficiary of Heropreneurs is Nick Cowan, a former colour sergeant with 23 years' service in the Royal Green Jackets, who has set up a not-for-profit company called Mortgage for Life, which enables those in the armed forces to buy accommodation at significantly reduced cost via special deals that it sets up with developers, banks and building societies. Mr Cowan has met various hon. Members, including the Minister for the Armed Forces and the leadership of the Council of Mortgage Lenders.

In discussions with Heropreneurs and Nick Cowan, however, it has become clear that there are specific issues with enabling service personnel to get on the housing ladder prior to their exit point, so I want to focus on that and on how the Ministry of Defence and the Department for Communities and Local Government can enable more serving armed forces personnel to overcome the particular inhibitors of their employment status in order to access the housing market in the same way as their civilian peers.

Despite the investment of Governments before and after the general election, the National Audit Office has found that the MOD did not have sufficient accommodation overall to meet current demand; that, if it did, the properties were in the wrong location; and that many did not match the need among those families in the right places. The NAO estimates that it will take two decades to sort that out, so the MOD is spending £38 million on maintaining vacant properties and paying out £16 million annually on private rented accommodation.

One way to resolve those issues and high costs is to make home ownership a more accessible alternative option. It is potentially a cost-saving alternative to private rentals, and the MOD is responding. Giving the military covenant statutory force means that we have some confidence in the seriousness with which it takes a range of issues, and the Minister for Housing and Local Government, who is in his place, has also made encouraging announcements in the past week.

Housing agents will be dispatched to barracks throughout the country and abroad to help troops apply to buy a home under the £500 million Firstbuy scheme, which aims to help more than 10,000 households purchase a new build home over the next two years. There are some questions about that, however. Who are the agents? Will they be paid? Will they be on commission? How often will they visit personnel? And, what qualifications do they have?

The first indications from those who have been observing this matter are that, in the Firstbuy paperwork, priority for housing will be given to existing social tenants and MOD personnel, so service personnel will not receive quite the priority that was suggested in the announcement by the Minister a week ago. Though that was welcome, it is still the case that there is very little social housing in this country and most property is owned by housing associations. If we want to tackle this problem in its entirety, we have to unlock the issue of housing associations having the autonomy to decide what to do with properties. The challenge is to make them open up the categories of person to whom they let property. An ongoing concern is that service personnel no longer receive a discount towards purchasing their social housing or housing association property. In the past, time served in service families accommodation would count towards the discount when buying their council house. The removal of that rule offers some challenges.

The challenges remain significant. As a member of the Select Committee on Defence, I am clear that thousands of personnel will leave the services in the next six months and, while specific initiatives will assist in the short term, we need to do more to change the lending culture towards the armed forces. The Council of Mortgage Lenders has confirmed that the industry supports measures to help overcome barriers to home ownership for military personnel. The mortgage application process will be refined and lenders will accept the principle that serving men and women should not be disadvantaged, but the details are important. It is critical that this is put right.

I understand that we will shortly get to the point where lenders' systems do not reject applications because they come from British Forces Post Office addresses, so we should be in a situation where prospective lenders take applications from military staff out of their automated response processes, where appropriate. It is astonishing that there are these barriers to service personnel that mean that they cannot get beyond the application stage.

I understand that that industry is producing top tips for prospective borrowers from the services to assist them with key elements of the mortgage application process, and that is welcome. However, it is critical that the Minister ensures that this recently announced initiative is embedded in the mindset of the MOD. We cannot have the MOD saying, "Well, we've been doing it this way for some time and we don't need your assistance, thank you." We need a cross-departmental approach to ensure that the best outcomes are secured for these people who do so much for their country. There are real barriers that materially disadvantage service or ex-service personnel in securing a mortgage—in short, they cannot get credit scored simply because of their profession.

I shall set out some of the key issues for consideration. Heropreneurs and Nick Cowan have written a mortgage manifesto, which addresses how staff in retail branch networks handle mortgage applications and how they should have clear and consistent guidelines on how to treat certain savings products. Armed forces personnel should have access to the best possible discounts and fixed and tracker products, in line with those that civilian members of the public can access. Lenders should no longer be able to charge serving armed forces personnel more for life assurance premiums in relation to policies that are required to support a successful mortgage application than they do civilians of the same age. The Council of Mortgage Lenders, the British Bankers Association and their respective members should have a dedicated armed forces and veterans page on their retailing banking websites to give specific financial advice to those clients.

Strong consideration needs to be given to providing better quality advice within the armed services themselves. It is critical that, embedded within training at different stages, serving personnel can get advice and access to independent financial advisers. I am not saying that the Minister or the MOD should become IFAs, but they should facilitate wise advice. If investment decisions are made when people are in their 20s they tend to determine how people will fare in their 40s and 50s, and they will have an impact on the generation that comes after them.

All serving armed forces personnel should have the opportunity on at least an annual basis to receive specialist advice. The issues relating to the use of long service advance of pay should be simplified as a matter of urgency, so that there is a clear presumption in favour of the money being used to put down a deposit or pay for the legal fees associated with a mortgage application. At the moment, that seems very difficult to deal with. The resistance to allowing people to secure a buy-to-let property also inhibits take-up.

Let me finish by acknowledging that the Minister has taken a lead in addressing some of the issues. I am here to urge him to go further, to work with his MOD colleagues and all Ministers across Government to ensure that our armed services personnel get the best that they deserve. The core concerns underlying this debate are beginning to be addressed. The matter has such serious implications for the financial well-being of our servicemen that we need to look broadly and deeply into this issue and at every aspect of it to ensure that we achieve what rhetoric and headlines would have us believe will be the outcome.

Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab): I congratulate the hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) on picking up the baton on this issue. Like me, he met Richard Morris from Heropreneurs a couple of weeks ago. I first knew Richard when he was involved in the Bright Ideas Trust and he is an extraordinary character who puts an amazing amount of energy into helping other people, and all credit to him.

There are the beginnings of a solution in the pilots that the Minister inherited from the previous Administration. There was a £20 million shared equity scheme, which was jointly supported by the MOD and the Department for Communities and Local Government.

The scheme was a good idea, but what the hon. Gentleman has highlighted is a whole range of different parts of this problem that go much deeper than we first thought. The matter requires fresh thinking on a cross-departmental basis to ensure that we can persuade the various lending authorities to treat service personnel in the way that the hon. Gentleman has described. Service personnel are special to us and they deserve special treatment in all sorts of ways.

I am quite convinced, having looked at the challenge, that it is perfectly feasible for any self-respecting building society listening to the debate to find a vehicle that will work for this category. If a single building society can do it, perhaps others will, too. I should like the Minister to commit the Government to work with the private sector to bring that about.

Such work needs to cross a number of boundaries. With long-term planning for service personnel, their family situations would be more stable, and they would stay in the services for the longer term. Part of that work spills over into education. The Minister needs to liaise with his colleagues in education, so that we overcome the other little barrier: the placement of young schoolchildren when people leave the forces to ensure that they are in stable school environments within the geographical areas where their families plan to live. A holistic approach is needed, and the problem can be solved with a bit of joined-up thinking.

The Minister for Housing and Local Government (Grant Shapps): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) on calling this debate on a subject that is enormously important to many hon. Members and to people beyond. The constructive and helpful manner in which he has addressed the issue is appreciated. It is right that we do everything possible to honour those who have served this country, who have gone out of their way and put their lives on the line. In my view and, in fact, that of the Prime Minister—he said it from this very Dispatch Box earlier today—it is not enough simply to remove the disadvantages that having been away from home might bring. If we put ourselves in the position of those who defend the rest of us, we see that it is fair to expect them to be given a foot on the housing ladder as well. I want to make it a specific goal of the Government to ensure not only that we are removing those disadvantages but that we are actively helping.

My hon. Friend raises a number of key points, some of which we have already been talking about. I will try to address his concerns. He refers to the Firstbuy initiative that we launched recently and ensuring that those who have served this country are at the top of the Firstbuy list. He rightly points out that it should help 10,000 or 10,500 families to purchase homes. I want to ensure that our ex-servicemen are at the front of the line to do that, and we have said that we will ensure that they are. They are being prioritised right at the top, along with people at the top of the housing waiting list, it is true to say. None the less, I intend to ensure that we properly promote the scheme to those who are in the target category. In doing so, we will send Firstbuy special agents into military bases here and abroad, as my hon. Friend mentions, to ensure that we find the right people, so that they know about the schemes. That activity is already under way, and I can put my hon. Friend's mind to rest about the detail of that scheme by letting him know that the network of Firstbuy agents is already in place and active. For example, I have the marketing material that they are sending to barracks to promote the scheme.

My hon. Friend mentioned social housing. Of course, people do not always want to return to purchase houses, as that might not suit their situation. They might return and want to get on to the social housing waiting lists. Again, I have some good news for him: I intend to consult on how we can better handle their position on the social housing waiting lists. I am determined—I am sure that the whole House is—to ensure that people do not return and find themselves languishing at the bottom of the housing waiting lists, perhaps because a local authority is trying to apply a local connection rule. That is completely wrong, so I reassure my hon. Friend that we will consult on a better way to ensure that returning squaddies are at the top of that list.

Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD): First, on social housing, I urge the Government to ensure that those councils with large garrison communities have additional resources if that priority is to be meaningful. Secondly, I seek the Minister's assurance about the failings of an organisation called Blue Force that was based in my constituency and operated from the former Colchester barracks with MOD phone numbers. It was set up to encourage serving personnel around the world to buy, but it went under owing hundreds of thousands of pounds, with many serving military personnel losing thousands individually.

Grant Shapps: On the first point, my hon. Friend is absolutely right that resources need to follow. He will be aware that we have launched not just the Firstbuy scheme to build 10,500 homes for purchase, but a range of different schemes for affordable rent that will very much apply across the country and aim to build 150,000-plus homes. Of course, as I announced a few moments ago, we will ensure that military personnel are right up there on that list. I intend to consult on the matter after the Localism Bill has finished its progress through the other place. The case of Blue Force is not one with which I am familiar. I would be happy to receive further information on it.

It is interesting that my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury raised the issue of right to buy and whether time outside the country counts towards the right to buy qualification. I am reliably informed that nothing has changed since the Housing Act 1985. This Government certainly have not made any changes, and I do not think that the previous Government did either. Again, I invite him to provide details if he has any concerns about that. Someone who serves abroad should certainly not lose that time, when it should count toward their right to buy.

As my hon. Friend knows, I have promoted these issues, particularly by holding a military housing summit on 16 May, the same day that the military covenant was launched. I sat around a table and held discussions with a range of military leaders, charity workers, defence officials and many others about how we can improve the situation. I reassure him that a whole range of ideas came out of that meeting—from the Firstbuy discussions, to what more we can do to let our armed forces have a fair crack of the whip at social housing, and to the problems that he eloquently outlined involving how British Forces Post Office addresses have not qualified, until now, with the credit reference agencies that all the mortgage lenders use when assessing a mortgage application. That is an extraordinary problem that should be solved easily. I can inform the House that we have been working to resolve it for several months, since the coalition came to office. We are fairly close to a resolution.

Andrew Miller: The Minister is making an important point. Will he send a strong message to all credit reference agencies that both the Government and the Opposition are incredibly proud of BFPO? It reflects an important part of our society, and we regard it as an insult to our troops that they should be treated in that way by credit reference agencies.

Grant Shapps: The point has been made clearly, and I hear that other hon. Members agree, as do the Government. We have been discussing the matter and are close to resolution. It is an example of how a tiny piece of bureaucracy can cause complete mayhem for somebody's future life. The inability to score highly on a credit record is important, and it is only a matter of a software change—the computers at Experian and elsewhere simply need to be able to accept BFPO postcodes so that they do not create a problem. Indeed, it could be part of the solution, because once it has been flagged up that somebody has been in the military, all the additional assistance that I have mentioned— for example, Firstbuy—could be brought to bear simply through that information coming to light. I have found the Council of Mortgage Lenders and others to be very helpful in trying to resolve the problem, and we are not far off making an announcement. That is good progress.

I can also report that the scheme managed by the MOD that the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller) mentioned is expected to help a minimum of 250 families into affordable home ownership. I know that that will be widely welcomed. Of course, there are several other key challenges, and I intend to pick up on those themes at a further first-time buyers' housing summit, which I will hold on 5 July. I will add some of those items to the agenda so that we can keep proper tabs on where we have reached.

I believe that we are considering an issue that one cannot simply approach once and expect it to be resolved.

Andrew Miller rose—

Grant Shapps: We have to keep returning to the matter, just as the hon. Gentleman is about to do with his intervention.

Andrew Miller: Will the Minister please add to his agenda the special tools that are needed to enable people to transfer from buy-to-rent to buy-to-live-in? A special vehicle is needed for military personnel in that category. That would help them to buy early, which would obviously help later in their careers.

Grant Shapps: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I have not examined that so far, and I am certainly happy to add it to the agenda and give some thought to how we could assist.

We are trying to assist in many different ways. One strange problem is that, six months before someone is discharged, they get a notice of cessation, which tells them that they will be moved out of their military accommodation. There is not much connectivity between that and the local authority, which may not know that those people are about to come down the line and may be in need of housing help, advice or assistance. We intend to join that process up as best we can. That is important.

The more I have looked into the matter, the more it strikes me that the key is joining all the dots. It is not that the country is not grateful and nobody wants to help—far from it. My experience has been the opposite. However, the dots have not been sufficiently joined up.

The bureaucratic barriers have got in the way. I commit us to ensuring that, in every possible way, we will seek out and actively try to destroy those barriers, taking on board the excellent ideas that have been presented in debates such as tonight's and any others, wherever they come from. It is my goal and the Government's intention to ensure that when those who have bravely served in the military come home, that bravery and the job that they did so selflessly is recognised by everybody in the country, particularly when it comes to housing needs.Adjo

Congenital Cardiac Services for Children

John Glen (Salisbury) (Con): In view of the time, I will be as brief as possible. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) for initiating this debate, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr Brine), who has provided much sound advice and support as we have brought this case to the House.

Two issues about the calculation of quality have come to my attention through my constituents Joanne Diaper and Richard Maguire. Southampton scored extremely well, but I am concerned about the differences between the various hospitals and how they have scored. If there is a range of difference of up to 20% on outcomes, I am concerned that the review could institutionalise mediocrity, not excellence.

There is a consensus throughout the medical world that, as the Children's Heart Foundation chief executive says,

"the majority of parents recognise that paediatric cardiac surgery is a specialist service,"

and that there will need to be some rationalisation nationally. She goes on to say that parents

"support the concept of larger but fewer centres of excellence"—

not of centres that are quite good but could become better over time. Given the complexity of the procedures that need to be undertaken, it behoves those reviewing the decision to note excellence and to embed it in future provision. We need to drive up standards in areas that do not have excellence.

Some clinical experts may move to the other side of the country, or perhaps to another country altogether. Most parents of chronically sick children with conditions that can be treated only by two or three specialists will travel any distance because they want to know that they have the best chance of having their children's lives extended. The motion makes a sensible case in recognising the need for partnerships, and I welcome the partnership that exists between Southampton and Oxford.

It was announced in the Safe and Sustainable pre-consultation business case that 400 surgeries constituted a minimum threshold, but the mix could be extended to include surgery on adults as well as children. It is vital to look at what is clinically the right thing to do instead of imposing a threshold that seems convenient but does not do justice to the skills that exist in individual hospitals.

In the interests of time, I will now conclude my remarks to allow some of my colleagues to make, I hope, some different points.

Pensions Bill

John Glen (Salisbury) (Con): I would like to open my remarks by reflecting on a tale of two 64-year-olds. My great-grandfather died in Salisbury in 1944. In the words of my grandmother, who is now 90, he was seen at the time as an old man. Next week, my father will turn 64. He will retire having done a manual job for 48 years, and with the expectation of perhaps living, as his father did, to 90 or 92. But we do not know, which goes to the heart of the problem faced by the Government: changing expectations of how long we will live and what to do about it versus the reality that decisions will have to be made with finite resources.

I think that the Government have made an excellent start with this Bill, which addresses three interlocking issues. The first is our ageing population. Only a few weeks ago a lady came to my constituency surgery, sat down in front of me and asked whether I could help her. I said I would do what I could. I really thought it would be about an issue of care for herself or her aged husband, but in fact she wanted to talk about her 99-year-old mother. We have a ticking time bomb that, over the past two generations, Governments of all colours and parties and at all times failed properly to grasp. We cannot go on like that.

Sheila Gilmore: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that it is a gross generalisation to say that this problem has been ignored? The Bill makes a relatively minor change compared with the major changes proposed in the Turner report and the last Pensions Bill. It is wrong to suggest that this has not been looked at.

John Glen: I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I think I will address the thrust of her comments in a few minutes.

The second issue is our active ageing population. Notwithstanding the remarks of the right hon. Member for Croydon North (Malcolm Wicks), who pointed out the differences in life expectancy between regions and socio-economic backgrounds, many people expect to lead an active retirement, which is why I welcome the proposal to remove the default retirement age. That will be important in allowing people to do more and to continue working if they wish.

The third problem that the Bill addresses is the lack of saving. It has been said that 7 million people are not saving enough for retirement. The problem is the general sentiment that things will be all right on the night—people expect to be able to sell a property or make some money to put in a pension pot. The Government are facing up to these tough issues, and have realised that that is not a realistic proposition.

I recognise that there is a gap between the long-term solution and the needs of those currently near the pensionable age, and many have acute concerns about what will happen—many Members have referred to the cohort of women who face a particularly tough time. All the indications are that the Government are prepared to acknowledge and address those concerns, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the pensions Minister will have an ingenious solution. However, I would like briefly to draw the House's attention to a few specific issues.

Despite the welcome introduction of the triple lock, it is clear that pensioners feel a great sense of vulnerability. They know that they have a reasonable expectation of living many years, and are anxious that at a time of low interest rates and little investment income their basic state pension should grow. I therefore welcome the Government's proposal. I recognise that it will cost a lot of money and will take time to work out, but its general thrust is the right one.

It has to be acknowledged that we have seen massive changes as a result of the increase in life expectancy over the past 50 or 60 years. Life expectancy at 65 has grown upwards of 10 to 15 years over the past two generations, and it would be helpful if the Government set out what we are aiming for. Notionally, we will have parity between genders over the next 10 years, but what are we aiming for? Are we saying that everyone should have a right to expect a fixed number of pensionable years? Are we seeking to address the statistical evidence on demographics and regional differences, or should we recognise, building on the comments of the right hon. Member for Croydon North about the level of complexity and a complexity deficit, that we will not be able to make the pensions system sufficiently complex to address every one of those factors?

We have to recognise that we need to do something, particularly about the 33,000 women who face this two-year delay, but it would help if we set out some broader principles. My generation—those under 40—will have to bear a much greater responsibility. I expect to work much longer, although I might have a different job from my father, who worked on the land. We need to send the message so that the next generation and those after know to put more into their pension pots and expect to retire later. My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) has already mentioned the fact that 10 million people now living will live to 100. That is beyond the realistic expectations or assessments of most people today, but it will impose strains on public finances, health care costs and end-of-life care, which are the issues that we must address. We must not fail to consider my generation and those that come after because they do not seem to matter today.

I welcome the changes to auto-enrolment, but I ask the Government to avoid unnecessary and bureaucratic changes for small business people, especially those in the tourism or retail sectors, where staff turnover is high. Too often justice is not done in the detail to the headlines of Government. We need to ensure that small employers do not bear a disproportionate cost.

The free eye tests, free prescriptions, free bus passes, free television licences for the over-75s and the free winter fuel payments, along with the Government's commitment to solidify the £25 payment in bad weather, are welcomed by many. Certainly, they are welcomed by the poorest members of my constituency—in Bemerton Heath and the Friary, for example—who rely on the payments year in, year out. I hesitate to say it, however, but is it really fair for those earning more than, say, £50,000 a year in retirement to have that extra money? There is usually a snigger, a gasp and a "Well, we don't really need it". However, in the assessment of true fairness, what value accrues to the public purse from expenditure on those people?

I welcome the Bill, which establishes the right direction, but there is still work to be done in certain areas, which I hope I have set out. No Government, past or present, will get everything right. I applaud the work of my hon. Friend the pensions Minister and wish him well as he unravels these complex issues and develops a pensions system fit, in all respects, for the nation we live in and the number of years we can expect to live.

Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan and Pakistan

John Glen (Salisbury) (Con): I want to take this opportunity to make some observations about the situation in Libya and Syria, and to address the wider issue of British foreign policy in that rapidly changing part of the world. Our foreign policy is perhaps seen as one of intervening when we can, but not always where we should. There is a perception that the moral component of our motivation or justification for intervention does not always seem to apply everywhere with the same degree of seriousness. When it comes to that part of the world, I do not see an appetite in either this House or the country at large to seek out theatres of war. However, I seek to discern some consistency, even if the consistent application of principles will not mean that the same action is taken in every country.

Back on 21 March, I supported the implementation of the no-fly zone, which seemed entirely appropriate, not simply from the perspective of seeking to prevent mass slaughter in Benghazi, but on the understanding that all diplomatic efforts and avenues had been exhausted. Walking away when an evil tyrant was about to murder his own people would have been an abdication of responsibility by the international community. At the same time, however, I listened to the many excellent speeches in the Chamber, and the many warnings, especially from some of those hon. Members who are present this evening, who feared that the solution would not be quick and easy. Sure enough, it has proved not to be.

I am slightly concerned about the way in which the debate has unfolded over the past eight weeks. Nowhere in the UN Security Council resolution does it prescribe a time frame. There was a great expectation that the operation would all be over immediately and that everything would be fine, but that was never my expectation when I voted for the no-fly zone on 21 March. Across the House, however, there seems to be a great need to bring the operation to a close, as though the international community's other weapons—diplomacy, economic sanctions and exerting our influence over what other countries in the region do—will have no effect. I was never tempted to assume that Gaddafi would quickly emigrate to Venezuela, or that his iron grip on his media would somehow dissipate overnight. It is true that he enjoys widespread support in Tripoli today, but there are horrendous things happening in Misrata. This is a moving situation, despite the notion that the world somehow stopped on 21 March.

Jeremy Corbyn: The hon. Gentleman is making some important points. All wars have to end with some kind of political settlement and some kind of deal. Does he think that it might not be the west that brings about such a settlement, and that an effective diplomatic intervention from the African Union, the Arab League, the Turkish Government or someone else would be more likely to stop the bloodshed and bring about some form of peace?

John Glen: Quite possibly; that is my point. Given recent events, I believe that the notion that we can bring the situation in Libya to a neat, precise conclusion by the extension of targets will prove erroneous.

These operations have significant implications for our armed forces. Last week, the Defence Committee, of which I am a member, interviewed the heads of the three services. It was quite clear, when we read between the half-answers and the attempts not to address the issue directly, that all the services are under massive strain. It will be an abdication of responsibility if the Government do not address that point and allocate appropriate resources. I was very concerned to hear that there is to be a review of defence expenditure over the next three months, as we try to squeeze out more resources. Concern was expressed following the strategic defence and security review about putting off decisions on expenditure until future years.

We need to deal with the reality, and a number of scenarios could evolve. We could find ourselves in a perpetual stalemate. Alternatively, we could have a little more humility about the way in which this awful situation could be resolved, and realise that it will not happen very quickly. We must realise that a change in regime achieved by the rising up of internal forces against Gaddafi is hardly likely to happen in just a few weeks or months, given the grip that he has had on his country over so many years. It is necessary for us to maintain the current posture and continue to develop diplomatic pressure and the role of the regional players. Yes, it is messy and uncomfortable, but it is right to hold the line and to continue to strengthen and broaden the base of support. We must continue to show resolve and to provide as much support as possible. It is also clear that going down the route of putting boots on the ground is never going to be acceptable in the current environment.

We acted on the basis of stopping an evil man from murdering his people. We may find the process since then rather uncomfortable, but it is not one from which we can pull away.

Some parallels have been drawn with Syria. There, we have seen numerous efforts taken to impose travel bans, to freeze assets, to provide medical supplies and so forth. There, too, the answer is in diplomacy and securing concessions one by one rather than necessarily threatening military action. The reality is that each country in the region is different, which means we cannot have a one-size-fits-all policy; we need the slow, sober, determined, persistent and measured policy that this Government are undertaking. We need to recognise that we do not have the right or the means to solve this problem overnight.

Protection of Freedoms Bill

I have just spoken in the Protection of Freedoms Bill debate, sharing my views and support for the Bill. I focussed on section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986, which I have recieved much correspondence on from constituents. I believe that it needs to be changed. An article has been written about my speech and that of Edward Leigh, which can be found by following this link.

John Glen (Salisbury) (Con): One of the beliefs that unites Conservatives and Liberal Democrats is that the past 13 years of Labour Government saw a squeeze on civil liberties. The Leader of the Opposition admitted that the Labour Government were "too draconian on aspects of our civil liberties".

1 Mar 2011 : Column 252
He is right. That is why the Bill is so welcome, trimming away, as it does, some of the vast undergrowth of legislation that has undermined our traditional liberties. DNA retention, CCTV, wheel clamping, vetting and barring have all become synonyms for the erosion of freedoms, and most people will be glad to see the Bill tackle them head on. However, there is something else that concerns a wide cross-section of the general public and, sadly, has not been addressed in the Bill: the way freedom of speech has been undermined by what we might call over-enthusiastic policing. It is often generated by the pressures of political correctness and causes officers to overreact to situations when no harm is being caused.

To voice one's opinion without fear of punishment or censorship is a fundamental human right. Without it, political action and resistance to injustice and oppression are impossible. It is a precious right, and we must not allow it to be undermined. Several pieces of legislation have been suggested for amendments to improve free speech, but I want to focus, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh), on section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986, which outlaws threatening, abusive or insulting words if they are likely to cause distress.

As we have heard, section 5 has been at the heart of several high-profile cases in recent years. Liberty wisely took up the cause of a 16-year-old protester who was given a court summons by police for holding a placard outside a Scientology centre stating, "Scientology is not a religion, it is a dangerous cult". The boy claims that police told him that he could not use the word "cult". City of London police gave him the court summons and confiscated his placard after he refused to take it down. They referred to the Crown Prosecution Service an allegation that the sign was "abusive or insulting". When Liberty took up the issue, there was widespread criticism and the CPS dropped the case. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough has said, the defence of the existing law has been that guidance can be given to the police, but it did not work and has not worked in a number of cases.

Dale Mcalpine, a Christian street preacher, was arrested in Cumbria for answering a question from a police community support officer about his views on sexual ethics. He said that the Bible described homosexual conduct as a sin. He was arrested and detained by police for nearly eight hours. Even the president of the National Secular Society has said that the police response was ridiculous and over the top. I find myself in agreement with the renowned campaigner, Peter Tatchell, who said:

"If offending others is accepted as a basis for prosecution, most of the population of the UK would end up in court."

He is quite right.

In a similar case, another street preacher, Anthony Rollins, was arrested, handcuffed and kept in a police cell for four hours after a passer-by was offended by him reciting a biblical list of those who would not inherit the kingdom of God. I am a Christian, and personally I might not agree with that method of evangelism, but the idea that someone can be arrested for reading from the Bible in public is very worrying. Once again, the guidance from the Association of Chief Police Officers did not work. Mr Rollins got help from a Christian campaign group, the charges against him were dropped and they helped him bring a legal action against the police. The court decided that Mr Rollins' right to freedom of religion and freedom of speech had been breached, that he had been wrongfully arrested, had suffered assault and battery by being handcuffed and had been unlawfully detained. However, the police are appealing against that ruling. Despite everything, West Midlands police think that section 5 of the 1986 Act allows them to arrest street preachers for reciting the Bible. Clearly, the police have difficulty applying the law and the guidance that the Home Office says should deal with the problem.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough said, some cases are just plain ridiculous, and it is astonishing that the police waste time with them. In 2006, demonstrators in Worcester protested against seal culling by using toy seals coloured with red food dye-a harmless way of making a point. They were, however, threatened with arrest and the seizure of their property under section 5. The police told them that the toys were deemed distressing by two members of the public, and they ordered them to move on. Ridiculous.

As the grandson of a police officer, I feel sorry for the police. They have to make extremely tough decisions day in, day out, and often under the most extreme pressure. They are criticised by all sides for being too rough, too soft, insensitive or over-sensitive. They just cannot win, and the media rarely give them a break. I do not want to run down the police. I want to focus on what we as legislators can do to avoid putting them in the situation where they have to decide whether a complaint from someone who feels insulted should result in an arrest.

Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con): My hon. Friend is making an important and strong case. Is he aware that, before he became a Member, whom we welcome, the House was occupied with debates about public order, particularly when dealing with cases of homophobic hatred? Many examples were cited and many concerns were expressed about application in that case. Such examples lend themselves to the issue of section 5 and its wide interpretation and the need for us to take a proper, thorough look at it. This is an important opportunity to do so.

John Glen: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention. He makes a powerful point and underscores the fact that this Bill should take account of that anomaly. It is unfortunate that it does not.

We have to ask ourselves, "Should the law really criminalise insulting words?" Surely insult is in the eye of the beholder, so how can the police be expected to regulate that? Abusive behaviour is clear cut: we all know it when we see it, and it is right that the law addresses it. Threatening behaviour is absolutely unacceptable, and we need laws to tackle it. But "insulting"? What would debate be like in this Chamber if an hon. Member could be silenced by an allegation from another hon. Member that he felt insulted by what was said?

In July last year my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister told us that this Bill would

"protect hard-won liberties and repeal unnecessary laws".

The Government have made a good start, but they should seize the opportunity that the Bill presents to bolster freedom of expression by removing "insulting" from section 5 of the 1986 Act. There will be freedom from wheel clampers, but no freedom of speech. It does not make sense.

Education Bill

Below is a copy of the Hansard transcript from my speech to the House on the Education Bill.

John Glen (Salisbury) (Con): I will make four points on four aspects of the Bill.

In Salisbury, I am blessed with some amazing schools, from the Trafalgar school at Downton in the south to Stonehenge school in the north. I have visited them all at least twice since I was elected. The school I am most proud of is Sarum academy, which operates in one of the most challenging communities in my constituency. When I first visited it a few months after being elected last summer, the headmaster would not show me round the school. He sat me down and explained many of the difficulties he had encountered. To his credit, he had made great progress in the previous 12 months in meeting some of the targets that had been set for him.

A few months later, I visited the school again. The excellent new principal, Ruth Johnson, took delight in showing me round, perhaps because she was keen for me to take up the case for greater investment in the school. I am pleased to say that the Government duly heard those pleas and money has been forthcoming. She said that what was critical was not only the investment in buildings-I acknowledge what the previous speaker said about that sometimes being critical to lift the morale of teachers and pupils-but the discipline that she was able to instil because of the culture of the school.

8 Feb 2011 : Column 235 I welcome the provisions of the Bill, which give massive encouragement to teachers who have been struggling with discipline and pupil behaviour in recent years. It may be true, as was said by those on the Opposition Front Bench, that the cut in advertising will have an impact on recruitment. However, I suspect that the bigger reason for the drop in the number of people who want to go into the profession is that they have been unhappy at the level of discipline that they have had to deal with, and the level of support that they have been given, in the classroom. I am delighted that the Bill gives teachers practical powers to search and confiscate possessions when there are reasonable grounds for suspecting the possession of prohibited items. They need that detailed provision to deal with some of the situations that they face. It is a scandal that a quarter of school staff have been subject to false allegations. It is important and welcome that teachers will be able to impose detentions immediately, without having to give 24 hours' notice.

The Bill could go further. Like other Members, I am concerned about the provision for excluded children, particularly those who suffer from special educational needs and who need extra provision. I hope that when the Government bring forward proposals in this area, there is special investment for individual children who need extra help from the state. Vulnerable children who are excluded still have to access education and support. For the past six months, I have been battling along with my constituents Stuart and Emma Verdin to secure the right provision for their son James, and it has not been an easy process. Finding the appropriate discretion and finance for such individual cases needs to be taken seriously.

I am delighted by the provisions on raising standards in schools. Currently, I do not think that educational standards have the full confidence of employers, parents and universities, particularly with respect to the examinations system. There seems to have been a conspiracy of affirmation that does not acknowledge the reality of grade inflation over the past 20 years. Every summer, every politician goes out of their way to praise the improvement in the quality of teaching. Some of that must be true, but I am not convinced that it is all true. Schools are choosing less rigorous subjects for their pupils to ensure that their league table position is maintained. That is not healthy. The provision for Ofqual to ensure that attainment standards are improved is welcome.

I urge the Government to think again about the great contribution that religious studies could make to the English baccalaureate curriculum. I have been lobbied about the matter by a number of my constituents, and having studied the subject myself to the age of 18, I believe that it is of great assistance to critical thinking, teaching pupils to respect themselves and other religions, beliefs and cultures.

I welcome, too, the simplification of the scrutiny process and the fact that Ofsted inspections will focus on four key areas. I welcome the fact that outstanding schools such as Bishop Wordsworth's grammar school in my constituency-soon to be, if not already, an academy-will not need to be inspected unless their performance indicators fall. That seems to me a reasonable and practical step for schools that do not need masses of attention from regulators and scrutiny by the state.

8 Feb 2011 : Column 236 I shall finish by addressing early-years provision. I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Jessica Lee), who endorsed the Bill's provision of free early-years education for two-year-olds. It is critical that the Government have a joined-up policy across education and welfare reform, which we will discuss in a couple of weeks, to ensure that poor children do not become poor adults. I endorse the report by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), who has done so much to raise awareness of the critical importance of that issue.

We need to go further in recognising that there is too much micro-management in early-years provision. I remember visiting a school in my constituency last autumn and seeing pads of yellow Post-it notes lined up as the teachers and teachers' assistants were getting ready to photograph every single element of behaviour in order to demonstrate change. It is right that parents want to see some evidence of progress, but do they really need a blow-by-blow account of every time their four-year-old blows his or her nose?

The Bill will make a massive contribution for children in this country and in my constituency. I have suggested a few improvements, but I welcome it massively. Those improvements can be taken on in Committee, and the Bill will make a massive contribution to education in this country.

Westminster Hall Debate on the Army and RAF Lyneham

I was given the opportunity to speak in the Westminster Hall Debate on the Army and RAF Lyneham, a topic that I have taken an interest in, due to my work with the Defence Select Committee and because I grew up in North Wiltshire. It's an issue for which Wiltshire MPs have been fighting for, and I must thank James Gray MP for securing the debate.

The transcript of my speech is below, or you can view the whole debate on the Hansard Website.

John Glen (Salisbury) (Con): First, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) for securing this debate. As someone who grew up in north Wiltshire and who is aware of the footprint that RAF Lyneham has in the local area and in the county more widely, I also pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend has done during the past seven years in campaigning to keep the RAF at Lyneham and to the work that he is now doing, as he reflects the reality of the decisions that have been made, looks to the future and seeks a constructive way forward.I speak as both a Wiltshire MP and as a member of the Select Committee on Defence. It seems to me that there are three significant reasons why this case for having the Army come to RAF Lyneham needs to be carefully examined.

26 Jan 2011 : Column 85WH
The first reason is that it is quite clear that there is huge symbolic significance to RAF Lyneham and its relationship with Wootton Bassett. It is impossible for the Government to pay great tribute, with one voice, to the people of Wootton Bassett, which is just a few miles down the road from RAF Lyneham, for all that they have done to recognise the huge contribution of all those who have fallen in battle, and at the same time, with another voice as it were, not to go out of their way to recognise the impact that this decision, if it does not go the right way, would have on the local community. Effectively, RAF Lyneham is the gateway between the UK and Afghanistan, and over many years the people of the surrounding area have made a massive contribution to the well-being of service personnel's families.

The motto of RAF Lyneham is "Support, Save and Supply". As my hon. Friend has set out fully this morning, the opportunities for RAF Lyneham to continue to serve the armed forces-in this case, the Army-are significant. The infrastructure is in place, and I do not need to point to the long history over the past 50 years of the people of Lyneham and Wootton Basset's service to the nation, but the decision has clearly been made to move the RAF to Brize Norton. We have to acknowledge, however, that we cannot make such decisions wholly without emotion and without respect for the wider issues at play in the vicinity.

The second reason is the economic value of RAF Lyneham. The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) knows that the Defence Committee, of which I, too, am a member, looks at the strategic issues, but the economic arguments are massive. There are about 2,500 civilian and military personnel at Lyneham, and several thousand acres of land are connected with the base. The impact on the local economy has been estimated at about £90 million a year, so if Lyneham were to no longer have a significant military footprint, a considerable gap would be left which, as the chairman of Wootton Bassett chamber of commerce has pointed out, would be unsustainable. If the decision does not go the right way, there will be a direct adverse impact on the economy of Wootton Bassett.

Thirdly and finally, the strategic defence and security review has reached some uncomfortable conclusions, and it has made some difficult assessments of what needs to happen over the next 10 years, driven by the acknowledged financial mess that the Government have inherited. With 10,000 to 15,000 troops returning to the UK, we need to find the right situation for them to locate to, and it is absolutely clear that in Wiltshire the Army has a very welcoming home. In my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Claire Perry), there are so many strategic reasons why it would make sense for the Army to locate to Lyneham. It has been suggested that the Royal Logistics Corps could move from South Cerney and Hullavington to the Lyneham base, but a number of other options are available.

I ask the Minister for a timely decision, because considerable ongoing debate would leave the local economy open to lots of uncertainty. If that is not possible, we must ensure that we put in place a clear plan for the economic regeneration of the area, and allow the options to be fully explored and quickly executed. If there is a problem with the transfer of assets from the RAF to the
26 Jan 2011 : Column 86WH
Army, it needs to be worked out and dealt with quickly and sensibly, rather than allowing internal wrangling in the Ministry of Defence to stop progress.

The case seems very clear: Lyneham is a symbolic home of the armed forces and should continue to be so, whether for the RAF or the Army. There is an absolutely sound economic case for that, and it also presents an effective, practical solution to a problem that will need to be dealt with over the next 10 years. An Army base at Lyneham makes sense, but we must ensure that it happens quickly, so that the people there can have some reassurance after their massive contribution over the past 10 years.

Westminster Hall Debate on Defence Spending in Wales

 This morning, I took part in the Westminster Debate on Defence Spending in Wales, where I outlined my views on the need to harmonise the Defence Training of our three Armed forces. There has been too much duplication so far and a more efficient system needs to be implemented.

You can view my participation in the debate on Defence Spending in Wales by following the link, with my main contribution beginning at 16:09.

The Hansard transcript is below, complete with all five interventions:

John Glen (Salisbury) (Con): I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate, Mr Gray, and it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. As a member of the Defence Committee, although not a Welsh MP, I take a keen interest in these matters. As the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) will acknowledge, the Committee's report pulled no punches when it came to reviewing the Government's attitude to the strategic defence and security review, and in reporting its conclusions.I agree with the concept of a defence training college. One of the critical challenges facing the armed forces is the need to avoid duplication and streamline training processes. When the Defence College of Electro-Mechanical Engineering-DCEME-was formed in April 2004, it brought together a number of separate service training organisations, all of which delivered different forms of engineering. The aim was to exploit synergies, improve training delivery and increase efficiency and effectiveness.

The notion of a defence training college is sound. There is a lot of training duplication across the three services, and anecdotally, there are many common factors to basic engineering training programmes, although that is not always acknowledged by the different services. It is clear that St Athan should play a key role in delivering a harmonised service.

In theory, a further rationalisation to one site could reduce costs and save money. That should bring areas of expertise and excellence together and lead to greater co-operation between the services. However, it is not clear whether the work has been done by the three services to align their training requirements. There are always good reasons to compromise, and different services have different needs. Such matters need to be ironed out, and we must be clear what we are aiming for in this investment.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I appreciate the fact that the hon. Gentleman is taking part in the debate. It is important to have members of the Defence Committee in the Chamber, because this discussion is not only about Wales but about what is best for the armed forces. I appreciate his train of logic, which steers us towards the rationale of having tri-service training on one site-we hope that it will be in Wales, but please let it be somewhere-for the good of the armed forces. However, the hon. Gentleman is approaching a compromise.

I do not want to digress from the subject of the debate, but when the decision was taken on Sheffield Forgemasters, there was an undertaking that discussions would continue. However, nothing has happened. We hear that the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns) is delighted that discussions are continuing
8 Dec 2010 : Column 75WH
on this matter, but yet we have heard nothing. Will the hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen), or perhaps the Minister, illuminate us on what exactly the future holds for the tri-services and St Athan?

John Glen: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I am confident that my hon. Friend the Minister will deal with that point; obviously, I am not in a position to verify it. However, I will point out that the defence academy at Shrivenham is a good example of successfully bringing together different service needs in delivering training. That defence academy has proved a resounding success. The majority of training there is postgraduate, with accredited civilian qualifications the result for many people.

Geraint Davies: The question was asked: where is the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns)? Given that this issue is so strategically important for his constituency and that he is the new MP for the constituency, and if he is saying things about discussions, why is he not here? Where is he?

John Glen: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I understand from colleagues that my hon. Friend is working in the Vale of Glamorgan today. Obviously, I cannot account for the movements of other hon. Members.

The concept of St Athan was good, but it was decided that the project was undeliverable by the Metrix consortium. It is clear that a huge number of courses across the services need harmonising.

Alun Michael: I am a little puzzled about the decision. What the hon. Gentleman refers to was clearly decided-he is right about that-but it does not seem to have been decided on the facts, which demonstrated savings for the armed services as well as efficiencies from the proposals, which were assessed very carefully before the decision to go ahead was made. So why was the decision made to change that? It had all-party support. There was careful examination of the benefits to the services. Where did the decision come from?

John Glen: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. No doubt the Minister will want to deal with the point about the logic of the Government when they made the decision.

What is confusing to me, as someone who has taken an interest in defence matters, is the extent of the investment at St Athan. Let us say that three services are coming together and, for example, work is being done on ship engines. How reasonable and cost-effective will it be to get engines from Portsmouth to St Athan? Is that the right option? To what extent will all that work be cost-effective? Presumably it would be helpful to have a driving range for tanks if people wanted to test the tanks on whose engineering they had been working.

How does the Minister reconcile the fact that, as the hon. Member for Swansea East (Mrs James) said, Wales receives the second lowest "investment" from the MOD with the arguably bigger imperative to achieve value for money for the MOD as a whole and for UK defence as
8 Dec 2010 : Column 76WH
a whole? Looking to the future, I am clear that defence training needs to be harmonised. That issue needs to be considered on two levels. Where would be the best place to site such a college from a UK defence perspective? In addition, such a decision should not be wholly based on relative under-investment in one region of the country or another.

Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Glen: No, I shall make a little more progress and come back to the hon. Gentleman in a minute.

If the best place is St Athan, there is a need to bring certainty to the decision and clarity on the time scale and scope of the project. However, I do not believe that money should be spent in Wales just because it needs the investment. That is just one part of the decision. It is critical to ensure that any consolidated training college addresses the broadest possible needs.

Mrs Moon: I am extremely pleased to see my colleague from the Select Committee on Defence here today and I pay tribute to the work that he does as a Member for whom I have a great deal of respect. However, what he is suggesting today is that the Ministry of Defence has failed over the past three years rigorously to examine the proposal for St Athan. He is suggesting that civil servants and Ministers have neglected to consider all the issues that he has raised. That is just not true.

John Glen: I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I have a great deal of respect for her and her knowledge of this subject, but it was her party that was in government for several years and had an opportunity to bring this matter to a conclusion before the election. I wonder why it did not do so.

For me, the challenge remains the need to rationalise defence training and spending across the three services to the broadest possible extent. Let us consider leadership and management training. There are a huge number of locations throughout the UK. There are separate leadership schools and centres of excellence. There are vast numbers of adventure training establishments and music schools. I am frustrated that there is not enough clarity about taking the process that I have described to the furthest extent and perhaps giving greater scope for initiatives such as those that I am discussing.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Glen: Yes, but this will be the last time; I have nearly finished my speech.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I worry that what we have here is a softening up. The hon. Gentleman serves on the Defence Committee. Surely he has the ear of the Minister and speaks to him in the corridors, as we try to do as well. Our suspicion is that discussions will continue about St Athan till the cows come home on the pastures of St Athan and that we are being softened up for the tri-service academy not going ahead in any shape or form that we recognise. It will be dispersed somewhere else in the UK or to various other sites in the UK. That is what the hon. Gentleman is hinting at.

8 Dec 2010 : Column 77WH
John Glen: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Obviously, not being the Minister, I do not have the ability to make those decisions. I am just flagging up the wider defence interests that are at play. A serious examination is needed of what is right for UK defence interests as a whole and the efficient delivery of tri-service support. I am making the case for that to be as broad as possible and for the right decision to be made for the UK.

Disability Allowance

I made my first intervention in a Westminster Hall debate on Disability Allowance .

John Glen (Salisbury) (Con): The issue is that this element of funding is not always duplicated. My constituents have expressed concern that there is great confusion because they are told that there is a duplication, but that is not the case for them. Given that the sums involved are so critical to the quality of life of the individuals affected, it is a great concern when that argument about duplication does not match their reality.

You can read the full speech at: Full Disability Allowance Speech  with my intervention taking place at 10:30am.

Strategic Defence and Security Review

John Glen (Salisbury) (Con): As a new member of the Defence Committee and, indeed, a relatively new Member of this House, I do not approach these matters as an expert. However, having listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), I contribute with some trepidation as a former strategy consultant. He seemed to say that, essentially, there is a lack of strategic thinking throughout government. I suspect that the real problem is the interaction with strategic thinkers and politicians. That is what has bedevilled the process.

I shall make four observations and then some brief concluding comments. Overall, the conclusions of the strategic defence and security review were the best that could have been achieved in the time available and in the circumstances that existed. Legacy issues were the first instrumental factor in defining the outcome of the SDSR, and I make that point broadly, without any intention of launching into a partisan attack. It is absolutely clear that over the period from 1997 to 2007, spending on defence stayed at broadly the same level-2.5% of GDP. However, the number of commitments grew massively, and in that context it was going to be difficult not to delay some decisions or over-spend. The right hon. Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth), the former Defence Secretary, this afternoon disputed the idea of over-spend, but in reality, with that commitment and with the unintended expenditure that emerged, there was bound to be a problem.

4 Nov 2010 : Column 1131

Mr Kevan Jones: I am interested that the hon. Gentleman should be using 1997 as his starting point. Does he agree that some of the cost pressures on the procurement budget were down to the incompetence of previous Conservative Governments? I am thinking particularly of how Nimrod was procured and of programmes such as HMS Astute, to name but one other.

John Glen: Quite possibly, but we can make cheap points or look at the fundamental problems that go back more than 20 years.

The hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) was looking at the respective contexts for the reviews-the one in 1997-98 and the one this year. The fundamental difference is the economic context. As the chief economic adviser to former Prime Minister Tony Blair said, the Government had a golden economic legacy. That was not the case this time, and that is a reality. We talk about strategic reviews, but they are within the context of the reality of the spending environment. There was no way in which the spending review could have been completed at a time scale different from that of the SDSR. That is just the reality, it seems to me.

There seems to be a legacy, going back to '97 and beyond, in which decisions were delayed. The decision last year to slow the rate of the QE class carriers was absolutely the right thing to have done in the context of the bigger pressures to release money for Afghanistan, but that will mean that £600 million in extra spending will be required later. The top 15 equipment programmes are £8.8 billion over budget, with a 32-year cumulative delay. These are real challenges.

As a layperson, I look at the situation of Nimrod. I look at how the number of aircraft ordered was reduced from 21 to nine and the cost per aircraft was increased by 200%. When I also consider that it was eight years late, I see that there are fundamental problems in the whole system of government.

The second factor is making Afghanistan the No. 1 priority in the review. We can say with some confidence that the decisions made in the SDSR were completely necessary and absolutely right in respect of our commitments-more than 9,000 troops in the theatre of war. That costs a lot of money. The problem of all defence reviews is that they seek to address the long-term strategic issues. That, however, can never be done in isolation; it has to deal with current realities.

There will be some positive consequences. Those listening to the debate who have family members in Afghanistan can be assured that the full range of training and equipment is now available. Support for families is as it should be and the previous Government took good steps in that direction during their last year in power. The doubling of the operational allowance is also to be welcomed.

I am trying to be as quick as I can. The third issue that I would like to touch on is procurement. Procurement issues are systemic; there is no clear balance of power-or the balance is not right-between the MOD and the defence industry. The relationship is probably flawed. I hope that, as we see the defence industrial strategy emerge-after the SDSR, unhelpfully-we will have a serious examination of what is going on and what is required. I fear that sometimes the political pressures
4 Nov 2010 : Column 1132
that obviously influence the MOD's decision making have led it to prop up industry ahead of making the best decisions in defence terms.

I acknowledge the contribution made by the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson); of course there needs to be an understanding of what long-term capabilities we need to invest in, but that must not always be as a substitute for making the right defence decisions for our country's long-term interests. Often, we do not have the same person managing the procurement process. There is a change of scope and a lack of ownership. The MOD suffers and the taxpayer suffers, too. That is a critical issue that needs to be addressed.

My fourth point is about the capacity to change, which does not exist across the services in sufficient quantity. One commentator over the summer referred to the SDSR debate-or discussion, or negotiations-as a knife fight in a phone box, which is a pretty horrible analogy but one borne out by an assessment in the immediate aftermath of the SDSR announcements of which services won. I do not think that that is helpful in edifying the consequences and impact on the defence of this nation.

Let us consider some of the specifics. We have heard a lot this afternoon about the decision on the Harriers, but my concern would be about the extent of that gap in capability and how long it will take us to get the capability in place to fill that gap. Will the Tornadoes be viable for the length of time that they will potentially need to fill the gap and how much money will be required to fill some of the gaps? There is a great deal of supposition about how some of these things might work out. That might be from necessity-it is absolutely right to say that the financial pressures have been dominant in the entire decision making process-but some real concerns about capabilities that might be lacking in the near term need to be addressed.

As my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) said, by 2020 more than a third of our energy will be delivered by water-borne means, particularly liquefied gas. We have seen the emergence of piracy on our seas. Such things might proliferate and it is difficult to determine the risk that will face our country. I am concerned that there will be a delay in the readiness of capabilities.

It is absolutely clear that there needs to be greater capacity among the services to harmonise-for example, to harmonise the frequency of deployment, particularly as the Navy and the RAF will be working more closely together. As significant reforms of allowances will need to take place, it is important that that is done with care and fairness. I was talking to a constituent just a few weeks ago who has moved with his family nine times in the past 11 years. I hope that when decisions are made about the continuation of the CEA-the continuity of education allowance-they will be made fairly so that people can have continuity in their education. That seems to me an appropriate need, not a perk.

The SDSR could never have achieved all that it set out to achieve, because of the legacy, the challenges of procurement and the real issues to do with managing a budget that was pretty restricted. It was always going to be difficult, but I think there are grounds for optimism. I commend the Secretary of State for fighting hard and doing the best he could in extremely difficult circumstances.

Armed Forces

I was again called on to speak about the Armed Forces at the Straegic Defence and Security Review. The full text of my speech can be found on Hansard at:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm100916/debtext/100916-0003.htm#10091616001356

John Glen (Salisbury) (Con): At the core of the debate are three interlocking factors. I want to examine them and draw some conclusions from them. First, there has been a massive reduction in the defence budget since the war. It is now clear that, in the past decade, funding for defence has fallen too low. During our recent two foreign wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the sheer number of urgent operational requirements is evidence of the lack of investment in defence. We do not have the equipment in place for the engagements that we have chosen to pursue. Resources are scrambled at the last minute-at times, that leads to concerns about the adequacy of provision for our armed forces in theatre.

Secondly, we need to recognise that the debate cannot occur in the abstract. As we have just heard, it concerns men and women who are prepared to lay down their lives on our nation's behalf. We must remember the very real needs of the 9,500 men and women who are currently serving in theatre in Afghanistan. Any outcomes of the continuing review must give them the highest priority in investment and spending.

Thirdly, the conclusions of the debate on the SDSR hinge on our assessment of the threats that we may face in future. Some see Afghanistan as the template for future operations, and want our armed forces configured on that basis, whereas other intelligence suggests that additional threats from different sources-such as interstate conflict, threats from failed states and cyber warfare-should be given greater consideration. The tension between those three factors must be resolved to reach the right conclusions on the future shape of our armed forces.

In short, while the Afghan commitment dictates our current priorities, it must not be allowed to dictate Britain's future capabilities and defence posture. There is much discussion about the nature of the future threats. Some failed states show no signs of compromise, and history demonstrates the dangers of cutting defence spending in the belief that interstate war is over.

In future, an attack is as likely to come from disruption to our computer and IT networks as it is from a conventional military force. The debate is about the design of our defence capability and the extent to which it should be shaped on current or contingent operations, or on the threats we may be expected to counter in 10 or 15 years. Although we must ensure that our forces are armed properly and can fight and win in any combat operation with which the Government may task them, we must also make sure that we are a leader in countering cyber warfare. We must invest in Britain's intelligence capacity as a priority, both in the armed forces and in other Government agencies. Whatever the challenge may be-terrorist attack, invasion of a dependent territory or NATO article 5 commitment-it will probably come when we least expect it. The capture of the Falklands, 9/11 and the gas shortages a few years ago have all demonstrated that, whatever the nature of the threat, it frequently comes from out of the blue.

Our front-line forces need strength, flexibility and the capability to fight all foes. It is clear that there is an irreducible minimum for each service if they are to remain viable, credible and capable of dealing with the threats that we ask them to counter. Whatever short-term economic pressures exist and however they weigh in this debate, they should not shape the strategy of our defence spending. As a member of the Defence Committee, I endorse the comments made by several Members, especially my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot). I remain concerned that a budgetary straitjacket, imposed by the Treasury, will dictate some of the SDSR outcomes, despite the best efforts of the ministerial team and the Secretary of State.

The UK's decisions on defence need to be made in conjunction with the obligations and alliances that we have in NATO, as well as our commitments to the UN and in the EU. These are foreign policy areas and perhaps outside the scope of this debate, but the hard facts mean that defence comes at a cost-either we pay for it or we reshape the role and expectations of influence that we have.

I wish to offer a few observations about where savings can be made, such as in training. Rightly, the armed forces invest heavily in training, but in many areas that training overlaps among the three services, necessitating many initial training establishments with all the associated duplication of costs. There is scope for areas of joint training between the services, which will further reduce costs. This kind of cut will always generate a rearguard action from the services but we need to be bold. It is not a case of abandoning one service or another, but the question needs to be asked whether distinct establishments are needed when they have significant elements of training in common. However, it must be acknowledged that people, and by that I mean service personnel, are still required in significant numbers-for servicing equipment; for maintaining aircraft; for fire fighting and damage control on board ship; and for dominating an area on land.

These are tough times. The Treasury, as one would expect, has a tight grip on the spending review process-perhaps too tight for some of us-but this should not lead the SDSR to make decisions today that will cost more tomorrow. The capabilities to be deployed at times of critical but undefined threats in the future should not be sacrificed to deal with imminent budgetary threats. Anything we cut for good today will not be easily recovered tomorrow. I hope that the SDSR will make wise decisions that put our serving forces first. I hope that it will take tough decisions based on rational analysis rather than tradition, while acknowledging that if we do not look beyond the spending review to the risks and threats the nation will face in 10 or 15 years-and invest in research into new capabilities-this review will have failed.

Future of Armed Forces

Today I was on my feet in the House for my first speech after the recess. The debate was about the future of the Armed Forces in Afghanistan and being a member of the Defence Select Committee and of course representing the constituency of Salisbury I was keen to take part in the debate.
You can read the full text of my speech in Hansard http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm100909/debtext/100909-0003.htm#10090911002160

I wanted to highlight the courage, commitment and professionalism of our armed forces which has been consistent and inspiring throughout this whole period. However the nature of the fight in which they have been engaged is beyond anything which had been anticipated. When the former Secretary of State for Defence - John Reid said that ‘no shot would be fired', I do not believe that many people understood the full implication of committing ourselves to the engagement in Afghanistan.

However, committed we are and as such I believe we need to find a solution which has to be ‘comprehensive', not only a strategic ‘joined up' approach, but one which views the challenge as international - requiring unity of effort across the coalition, across borders and across a myriad of government departments and agencies; Everything from financial investment from the IMF at one end of the scale to providing teacher training at the other. The solution, to be most effective requires diplomats and generals, economists and policemen, engineers as well as trainers.

Our Armed Forces need to be in Afghanistan for moment however I believe we need to be clear and honest about the success we can achieve as opposed to what we would like to achieve.

With this in mind a clearer approach needs to be employed in measuring success. If we are counting the handover of control to the ANSF who will then be able to maintain a secure and stable country - that is fine - but we are endeavouring to train recruits with a literacy rate of approximately 28% so training delivery has to be designed taking this into consideration.

We need to state explicitly what our objectives are, how we propose to achieve them and on what basis we grade ourselves. Once that measure has been identified there should be no further mission creep (shifting goalposts). If the mission changes the British military is destined to remain in Afghanistan for potentially many decades.

We have heard much in the media about the timetable for withdrawal, whilst I agree that some form of timetable is useful, our strategic plans for Afghanistan must not be driven by an artificial political timetable. The plans must be driven by an honest rationalisation of what we wish to achieve.

I think that by setting realistic and honest targets we can achieve success in Afghanistan; however we measure it, and eventually leave the country in a more secure and stable state than when we entered it.

Consequently there is a requirement for our Armed Forces to remain in Afghanistan to deliver a realistic prospect of a reasonably secure Afghani state but we need to have a pragmatic path to that end point.

Next week I am hoping to be called to speak in another defence debate about the Future of the Armed Forces, which is very relevant at present, given the current Strategic Defence and Security Review, the outcome of which will have far reaching consequences for our Armed Forces both short and long term.

Porton Down

John Glen (Salisbury) (Con): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to bring the issue of Porton Down's future to the House this evening.

My purpose in requesting this debate is to highlight the critical role that the Centre for Emergency Preparedness and Response plays in the life of this country, and to raise the question whether the current outline business case that the chief executive and board of the Health Protection Agency have put before the Department of Health to move the CEPR to a site in Harlow is right for the country's public health needs and right for many of my constituents who work at Porton.

First, it may interest colleagues to know that Porton Down came into being almost 100 years ago, as a response to the horrific chlorine attacks on allied soldiers during the first world war. The institution has been active and working for almost 100 years. It was a chemicals research centre in 1916. In 1930 it became the Chemical Defence Experimental Station, and in 1940 it began looking at biological warfare and carrying out experimental investigations into anthrax.

The current CEPR building was built between 1948 and 1951 and named the microbiological research department. Thirty years later it became the Public Health Laboratory, and subsequently it split from the Ministry of Defence facility at Porton Down, now the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory, which is co-located next door.

In 1993 Porton became an independent agency of the Department of Health, and in 2003 it became one of the founder establishments of the Health Protection Agency, being renamed the Centre for Emergency Preparedness and Response. Now co-located on site with DSTL, it is treated as one site by the Health and Safety Executive. DSTL provides a back up of containment level 4 laboratories for the highest microbiological risks. The work at Porton is complex, involving the study of dangerous pathogens of humans, animals and plants. They can be major threat to public health and include anthrax, swine flu and foot and mouth.

Porton is a world leader for examining diseases that spread rapidly: for example, insect-borne diseases such as West Nile fever and malaria spreading to new areas. It is a world-class centre for translational research that helps to ensure that new discoveries are developed and translated from the mind of the scientist into real benefits of tested medicines for patients. It routinely works with partners to develop tuberculosis vaccines and vaccines for whooping cough, meningitis and anthrax. Porton has the biggest TB group in Europe. It also has an aerosol delivery function using specialist equipment.

The CEPR is routinely asked to do work by the US Government, as it is one of very few centres in the world with the capability and experienced staff to carry out that work. Through its work, Porton manufactures Erwinase, a drug developed there for the treatment of childhood leukaemia, estimated to save 1,400 lives annually. It has the rare capability to manufacture emergency vaccine in response to emerging disease threats. Porton
22 Jun 2010 : Column 270
receives a massive amount of its funding-between 70 and 80%-from the work that it does for academia and Governments overseas.

I wish to make the point that the CEPR at Porton Down has been very long established in my constituency, and it does critical work that is vital to this nation and to the world. However, I am a reasonable man, and if I felt that the proposed move was in the best public interests of the country as a whole, I would have to concede reluctantly and accept the proposals that have been tabled. I do not believe that that is the case.

On the day when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has indicated that future capital spending should be prioritised on those items of expenditure that give "significant economic returns", and at a time when £1 in every £4 is being borrowed, why has the option of allowing more operational autonomy for the CEPR not been examined carefully? It is my contention that the best way to maintain excellent service for the public health needs of the country, while achieving cost-effective solutions, is not to spend the estimated £400 million on a move to Harlow when the financial benefits set out in the outline business case would accrue after 60 years. I believe that a cheaper solution exists, whereby the risks of investment can be shared with a new co-operative led by experienced Porton-based scientists who are keen to take on the challenge of building new revenue streams from the US Government and academia while maintaining their vital commitments as an HPA establishment.

Let me move on to the background behind the outline business case proposing a move to Harlow. In 2008, the previous Government announced a major funding initiative-Project Chrysalis, a rebuilding programme to update the facilities at Porton, which was, I acknowledge, much required. Then, in October 2009, out of the blue, a proposal for Terlings Park in Harlow emerged as a option. Then, in January 2010, a new preferred option emerged-the GlaxoSmithKline New Frontiers site in Harlow. Now, the outline business case is being pushed through.

Project Chrysalis has already spent about £10 million on the plans for the rebuild at Porton Down on an adjacent site to the current one. It has been ongoing, assessed and developed over two years. The move to the GSK site in Harlow has been considered only since January this year, and it is thought that the project team are still undertaking assessment of the site. There is therefore significant cause for concern that insufficient information is available to substantiate a compelling business case to make this decision. The £85 million that was budgeted for the moving costs has not been fully scrutinised, and it is likely significantly to understate the true costs of the work required. The GSK site currently undertakes neuroscience research, and the laboratories are mainly chemistry-type labs that are not suitable for easy conversion to the sort of work that is undertaken at the CEPR. At so many levels, the move does not make sense.

Some questions need to be asked about the proposed move to Harlow. As there is to be a break of synergy with the DSTL, which is immediately adjacent to the CEPR at Porton, will it be acknowledged that the new CL4 lab in Harlow, which is to be the same size as the one formerly proposed for the new build at Porton, will cost more in reality? There will be no benefits from having a similar lab next door, as we do at Porton, because there will be nothing next door. What costing
22 Jun 2010 : Column 271
and risk assessment has been undertaken with respect to the travel arrangements between Porton and the densely populated town of Harlow?

Has the planning process to allow the construction of such sensitive facilities, where such difficult work is undertaken, been examined? During any proposed transition, staff will need to be trained on both sites in both CL4 labs to ensure that there is no interruption during a national emergency. How will that be achieved initially and kept workable if the CEPR is in Harlow, when I am told that up to 80% of the experienced scientists do not want to move? Has a skills availability assessment been made as part of the outline business case?

What functional dependencies exist with other agencies of the HPA? It is my contention that although their technologies may be similar, the functions of the different HPA agencies are very different. Does the outline business case set out explicitly the financial business case for the co-location of the different agencies of the HPA? The head of the CEPR has said to me that the detailed synergies have not been worked out yet, but it seems that the logic for the business case relies on the notion that all the HPA agencies can be brought together at some time in the future. He also said that potential synergies would be looked for, but they have not been established yet. At a time when every penny counts and the health budget is facing severe pressure, why should we back a move in relation to which the co-location potential and synergies will be "looked for"? Furthermore, if co-location is such a panacea for the operational effectiveness of the HPA, can it be confirmed whether the costs of moving the other HPA agencies from Chilton and Colindale to Harlow have been worked out? When are those moves likely to take place?

Having visited Porton, I am unsure of what overlap there really is. There is the possibility of some animal facilities being shared with the National Institute for Biological Standards and Control, and that some microbiology labs may also be shared. However, any sharing is not really possible, and money cannot be saved, until all agencies are on the same site, and there are no plans in sight for that to happen. Currently, the plans are therefore notional, uncosted and unproven. If the proposed move goes ahead, it will break up translational research-that is, scientists taking stuff from the desk to tested medicine. Manufacturing will remain at Porton, but the key translational function will be lost.

It remains my contention that the proposed Harlow move has not been properly thought through. The benefits of co-location had not been mentioned before the first Harlow site came on the scene, so opportunistic were the uncosted arguments for co-location. The well intentioned arguments to move the Porton Down facility to Harlow have not taken into account the opportunity that exists for Porton to generate its own income and increase its own revenue. That should be explored before the Government back a move to Harlow, which would be expensive, is unproven and would put at risk the unique, world-class facility that we have operating successfully at Porton.

The CEPR has its own funding stream from royalties from various vaccines, and it is almost self-sufficient. To upgrade its facilities, it would need help only with capital costs, which it could repay if given the operational freedoms that I have suggested. It has unique synergies with the defence establishment next door. Eighty per
22 Jun 2010 : Column 272
cent. of the work force would not like to move. It is important when working in those high containment laboratories to have experienced staff-their combined experience stretches back over many hundreds of years. If those people will not move, the challenge to the public health of this country is significant, putting it at risk.

Maiden Speech

John Glen (Salisbury) (Con): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for calling me to speak for the first time in the House. It is a great privilege to follow three excellent speeches by the hon. Members for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) and for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), who I am sure will contribute much to Conservative Members' understanding of issues around the environment and climate change.

I have the considerable honour and privilege to represent the people of Salisbury and south Wiltshire. It is with great pleasure that I also offer heartfelt praise and positive words about my predecessor, Robert Key. Robert was an outstanding Member of Parliament for 27 years. Elected in 1983, he had the great privilege, as have I, of being brought up in Wiltshire and of representing Salisbury.

Robert's Westminster career developed somewhat auspiciously in 1984-the heyday of the then Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher-when the Chief Whip called him in and sat him down to offer him the position of Parliamentary Private Secretary to Edward Heath, the former Prime Minister. Robert, a dutiful public servant, was delighted with his new role, but his local association members did not immediately grasp the significance of his privileged position. None the less, as with everything Robert has done for Salisbury over the years, he tackled his task with good humour and enthusiasm. Robert went on to find a home in Salisbury for his boss-Arundells in the Close-where Edward Heath lived for 20 years until he passed away in 2005.

It was six years later when Robert's next big opportunity arose. On one autumnal evening, Robert took a call from the Prime Minister's office and was summoned to
27 May 2010 : Column 389
the great lady's suite at the party conference. He arrived and it is said that he was led through to her bedroom and she asked him whether he would like to join Her Majesty's Government to be a Minister in the Department of the Environment. As Robert excitedly accepted and bounded out of the room, he realised-this was October 1990-that he would be responsible for taking the poll tax through Parliament. A month later, the Prime Minister resigned and the poll tax was axed, but Robert went on to serve in two further ministerial roles. He was a Front Bencher in opposition and latterly a highly regarded member of the Select Committee on Defence and a member of the Chairmen's Panel.

Having examined a number of maiden speeches, I have noted how the previous MP is often referred to as having passed on or moved on to another planet, but I am happy to report that Robert Key is alive and well and continues to live in Salisbury with his wife, Sue. I am sure that they will continue to be regarded with great warmth and affection for the many years of dedicated service they have given to Salisbury and south Wiltshire.

Robert's presence in Salisbury marketplace on Saturday mornings is a tradition that I intend to follow; the people of south Wiltshire expect it of me. I also intend to stand up for the stallholders of the marketplace, many of whom-or, rather, their predecessors-have been there since 1227, and are anxious to know that the mooted changes to the marketplace are going to be modest and not waste public money.

My constituency stretches from Tilshead on the Salisbury plain to Hamptworth on the edge of the New Forest, and from Cholderton in the north-east to Ebbesbourne Wake in the south-west-the finest pocket of English countryside anyone could wish to find. With the constituency reduced in size since the last boundary changes, I hope that the Government's intention, as set out in the Queen's Speech, to reduce the number MPs and equalise constituency sizes will allow Salisbury to reclaim the Nadder valley-a beautiful seam of England which, sadly, got cut out of the Salisbury constituency at the last boundary change. I look forward to lively conversations with my neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) and with the boundary commission in the months ahead.

One cannot mention Salisbury without mentioning the cathedral-an iconic building for Christendom, an institution in itself, certainly making a big impact on the culture, heritage and landscape of the medieval city. As my grandmother used to tell me when I was a child, its spire, 404 feet tall, was the highest in Europe when it was built, and it remains the highest in Britain today. We also have a vibrant Christian community in the city and the surrounding area. As a committed believer myself, I hope to be a parliamentarian who will stand up for Christian values and the importance of marriage and the family in our society.

The housing, shops and businesses in my constituency were laid out in a chequer system of streets in the 13th century, and that system remains today. Although I could focus on the considerable challenge that my constituency faces to deal with the need for more housing- I am pleased to note that the new Government will allow more local discretion in the number of houses that need to be built and where they should be built-I
27 May 2010 : Column 390
wish today to make the case for greater care for the rural communities that make up such a large portion of my constituency.

As one who grew up in a small horticultural business in Wiltshire, I am keen to see the new Government reduce unnecessary red tape and regulation in the farming and horticultural sector, a move that I am sure will be welcomed throughout south Wiltshire. I also hope that the new Government will be able to trust farmers more. Too often, Governments of all persuasions have considered it necessary to regulate a little more here and a little more there, but to little lasting effect. I hope that in the near future the Secretary of State will provide more detail about proposals in the coalition programme to reduce the regulatory burden on farmers.

I am delighted by some of the moves that have already been announced, including the commitment to investing in broadband, which is desperately needed in parts of my constituency. I am delighted by the new Government's commitment to providing accurate information on food labelling, so that when something is labelled "Produced in Britain", that is actually true. It should not mean that the product was cut up, washed, prepared and repackaged in Britain. I also welcome the Government's promise that food procured by Government Departments, and eventually the whole public sector, will meet British standards of production wherever that can be achieved.

I hope that Whitehall will be able to source more of its food from British suppliers, as that would be a key way in which to help farmers in Britain and, hopefully, those in my constituency. At a time when less than 1% of bacon served to United Kingdom armed forces is British, I thoroughly recommend a good helping of locally produced Wiltshire ham as a reliable alternative. I also hope that the Government will get rid of the Agricultural Wages Board, which has become an unnecessary bureaucracy that achieves little for farmers or their workers. I hope that they will be able to act in the best interests of our farmers, who need less intervention, more trust and greater freedom at every point.

I believe that what is required more than anything else at this challenging economic time for rural Britain is a recognition that rural poverty needs to be addressed directly and urgently. We often forget that many of the lowest-paid members of our society are part of the rural economy and rely on a vibrant food-producing sector to survive.

Whatever else I am asked to tackle or may achieve in the House, I hope that, like Robert Key, I will serve my constituents faithfully, determinedly and selflessly, and fight for the interests of the vulnerable, the suffering and the insecure. I am utterly thrilled to be standing in the House today, and I give my support to a Queen's Speech which I believe offers many good things to my constituents in Salisbury and south Wiltshire.