14 Dec 2010 : Column 795

House of Commons

Tuesday 14 December 2010

The House met at half-past Two o'clock


[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Foreign and Commonwealth Office

The Secretary of State was asked-

Promoting Democracy (Internet)

2. Joseph Johnson (Orpington) (Con): If he will assess the compatibility of the provisions of the Vienna convention on consular relations with the effectiveness of the internet as a means of promoting democracy worldwide. [30259]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Jeremy Browne): There is no incompatibility between the Vienna convention on consular relations, which is an international treaty ratified by 172 countries, and which defines a framework for consular relations between independent countries, and the development of the internet, which is indeed a vital tool in the development of democracy. However, we condemn the release of classified information through the internet. That can damage national security and may put lives at risk.

Joseph Johnson: Will the Minister give an assessment of the impact of the WikiLeaks affair on the conduct of diplomacy, and will he say what steps he plans to take, on the one hand, to tighten access to diplomatic cables that need protecting and, on the other hand, to free up access to the other information that can and should be in the public domain? The latter would also enhance the Government's transparency agenda.

Mr Browne: We believe in freedom of information and open and transparent government, but there is a private realm and a legitimate area for confidentiality in diplomatic relations between nations. We need to get that balance right to ensure that we are secure when trying to safeguard confidential information. That is what we are working to do.

Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab): We have learned that the US Secretary of Defence, Mr Gates, believed that

Who could possibly disagree? Instead of the wet willies whimpering over WikiLeaks from the Front Bench and wanting to lock up Mr Assange, would it not be better
14 Dec 2010 : Column 796
to congratulate American diplomats on being such excellent reporters and ask why our media are so lazy at foreign reporting? The only time we get foreign news on the front pages is when WikiLeaks gives the media a story.

Mr Browne: I do not wish to comment on the individual case that the right hon. Gentleman has brought to the House's attention. We all understand that there are areas of the private realm-health and tax records, for instance-where it is perfectly possible to release information, but where we would not wish to see it released. We regard that as appropriate for diplomatic relations as well.

Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green): What contacts have the Minister or his officials had with their Swedish counterparts or authorities about the extradition of WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, from the UK to Sweden, and what assurance has the Minister sought or received from Sweden about the widespread public concern that there might be a political dimension to these proceedings?

Mr Speaker: Order. The Minister will accept that his answer must relate specifically to the effectiveness of the internet as a means of promoting democracy worldwide.

Mr Browne: It is hard to answer the question within those confines. The matter to which the hon. Lady refers is for the courts rather than me as a Minister. However, it touches on a wider point. I agree with the observation that you inferred from the question, Mr Speaker, that the internet is a valuable tool for empowering people around the world, for opening up the world politics and for giving people greater freedom of information. However, that should not be confused with safeguarding the legitimate private realm.

Gulf Countries

3. Paul Uppal (Wolverhampton South West) (Con): What recent assessment he has made of the state of relations between the UK and the countries of the Gulf; and if he will make a statement. [30260]

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague): The Government are strongly committed to elevating our relations with all our partners across the Gulf. We are expanding co-operation with Gulf states across the board-in culture, education, defence and security, trade, investment, and foreign policy co-operation. Gulf states' reactions to the increased engagement have been very positive, and we will maintain the commitment in the coming years.

Paul Uppal: Over the summer, I met the British ambassador to the United Arab Emirates, Dominic Jermey, who told me how impressed he was with the Prime Minister visiting the Emiratis in June. In view of those warm words, will the Foreign Secretary tell me what work his Department is undertaking to ensure that British businesses are supported in exporting to Gulf nations?

Mr Hague: I am very glad to know that the ambassador was pleased with the Prime Minister's visit-it made a huge impact on the United Arab Emirates. My hon.
14 Dec 2010 : Column 797
Friend is right that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made his visit in his first few weeks in office, and since then Her Majesty the Queen has made a state visit to the UAE and many of us on the Government Front Bench have also visited, so there has been a serious elevation of relationships. It is also true that there are many commercial opportunities, to which my hon. Friend referred. We export about £15 billion-worth of goods and services to the Gulf, but we can do much more. British embassies in the region and UK Trade & Investment are now poised to put their efforts behind that.

David Cairns (Inverclyde) (Lab): It was the worst kept secret in foreign policy that the nation feared most by the Arab states of the Gulf is not Israel but Iran; we did not need WikiLeaks to tell us that. Given that that is now out in the open, is there an opportunity to forge a new consensus-one that would embrace the countries not just of the EU but of the Gulf region-to convince everyone of the absolute necessity of taking action against Iran before it develops a nuclear capacity, which would be a threat to us all?

Mr Hague: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. I am not going to comment on the WikiLeaks allegations, but of course there is enormous concern about the dangers of nuclear proliferation in the middle east being sparked by Iran's policies on its nuclear programme. The Gulf states vary in their relationships with Iran; we have to be clear about that. The United Arab Emirates have recently joined in applying financial sanctions against Iran, whereas Oman has a different and long historical relationship with Iran and a strong relationship with this country, and wants to use its good offices to improve relationships between the west and Iran. Each of the Gulf states is able to help in its own way, and the elevation of our relationships with them encourages them to do that. We must join them in that, consulting them and being open to their advice about how to deal with Iran and other regional issues.

NATO Summit (Lisbon)

4. Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con): What assessment he has made of the outcomes of the NATO summit in Lisbon; and if he will make a statement. [30261]

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague): As the Prime Minister made clear to the House on 22 November, the NATO summit was a significant success. By agreeing a new strategic concept, the alliance has shown its determination to face the security challenges of the 21st century together. The summit also took important steps to strengthen euro-Atlantic security, in Afghanistan and in relations with Russia. Our commitment to NATO is as strong as ever.

Sheryll Murray: What discussions, if any, did the Secretary of State have at the NATO summit to encourage the use of the excellent training facilities at HMS Raleigh and Flag Officer Sea Training in Devonport, which contribute significantly to the local economy in the south-west?

14 Dec 2010 : Column 798

Mr Hague: Although we did not discuss that specifically at the NATO summit, it is clearly important that NATO nations work together on training. It is also part of our new defence treaty with France that the UK and France will work together to a much greater extent on sharing training facilities, so I will ensure that, between the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence, we look at further opportunities in the area that my hon. Friend has raised.

Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab): The Lisbon conference showed the same irrational optimism about Afghanistan. Can the Minister explain why, if things are going so well, after spending $52 billion in aid Afghans are still dying in the streets of Kabul of starvation?

Mr Hague: I do not think that the NATO summit showed irrational optimism; I think that it showed realism about the situation in Afghanistan. Bringing together all 48 troop-contributing nations of the international security assistance force in one of the sessions at the NATO summit in Lisbon underlined the fact that there are now more countries engaged in what we are doing in Afghanistan than at any stage before. We in no way minimise the fact that there are enormous challenges ahead of us on Afghanistan. Today I have laid before the House a written ministerial statement that updates hon. Members on where we think we are in Afghanistan. Many of those challenges, including in development, remain.

Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con): The Lisbon statement said nothing on the future of tactical nuclear weapons in Europe. As the Foreign Secretary will be aware, the United Kingdom gave up its tactical nuclear weapons in the 1990s, as militarily useless and politically irrelevant. Will the British Government now support multilateral negotiations between NATO and Russia, so that tactical nuclear weapons can be removed from Europe as a whole?

Mr Hague: As my right hon. and learned Friend will be aware, we said at Lisbon that NATO would remain a nuclear alliance to meet current and future threats, which does not directly address his point. The statement at Lisbon recognised the role that the alliance can play in supporting wider disarmament and non-proliferation efforts. We agreed at the summit to reviewing how NATO implements those principles. It will discuss all the strategic threats facing the alliance, and the capabilities that we need to meet them, including nuclear deterrence and missile defence. The argument that my right hon. and learned Friend presents will be part of that review.

North Atlantic Treaty

5. Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con): What recent discussions he has with his US counterpart on co-operation under the north Atlantic treaty; and if he will make a statement. [30262]

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague): Secretary Clinton and I worked together closely prior to and during the NATO summit in Lisbon in November. During the summit, we worked together to agree with other allies the new strategic concept as well as the way forward on Afghanistan.
14 Dec 2010 : Column 799
The United States remains a firm ally of the United Kingdom and we will continue to work closely with it in NATO.

Penny Mordaunt: Could the Secretary of State elaborate on what discussions he has had with the US on the gap in our defence capability, and the implications of that for international relations? I am thinking in particular of the gap in our carrier strike force.

Mr Hague: The United States has been very supportive of the conclusions of our strategic defence and security review-[Hon. Members: "What?"] It has been extremely supportive, and Secretary Clinton reflected that in her remarks. The US is pleased that we will continue to spend more than 2% of our national income on defence, and that we will continue to have the fourth largest military budget in the world. The fact that we are such a strong member of NATO, and that we have the strong alliance of which I have been speaking and work so closely with the United States and France, will help us to work through some of the difficulties in the coming years while we get to an orderly state in our defences, which we certainly did not inherit and we have now to bring about.

Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab): Sea lanes of communication are a critical component of the global economy, especially those in the north Atlantic that facilitate trade between the US and the UK. What discussions has the Foreign Secretary had with his counterparts on maritime security co-operation within NATO, especially since the axing of the Nimrod MRA4?

Mr Hague: Maritime security is an important component in NATO. It is primarily the work of my colleagues in the Ministry of Defence to hold those discussions, but the hon. Lady can be assured that Defence Ministers have done so. In particular, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has been working with international colleagues on maritime security around the high north and the north Atlantic. That work is going on, primarily in the Ministry of Defence, but it is of course supported in the Foreign Office.

Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con): The Prime Minister said last week that we might start drawing down troops from Afghanistan next year. Has the Foreign Secretary had any discussions with the United States about what conditions would have to be met before such a draw-down could be put into effect?

Mr Hague: My hon. Friend will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister first talked about that during his visit to Washington in July, as well as reiterating the point during his trip to Afghanistan last week. He said in Washington, around his discussions with the President, that such a draw-down

That is the position of the United States as well as of the United Kingdom, and the Prime Minister and the President have certainly discussed it together.

14 Dec 2010 : Column 800

West Bank

6. Michael Dugher (Barnsley East) (Lab): What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for International Development on economic development in the west bank; and if he will make a statement. [30264]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt): The Foreign Office and the Department for International Development work very closely on this issue. I last had a conversation with the Minister of State, Department for International Development, my right hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr Duncan) just before his visit to the west bank in late October. We are encouraged by World Bank reports that the economy of the west bank grew by 7.2% in 2009, and we hope that it is benefiting from the stability under Prime Minister Fayyad and the easing of restrictions on movement and access by the Israeli Government.

Michael Dugher: I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he agree that Israel's decision to allow exports from Gaza is welcome and positive? Should not that serve to encourage all sides to look for further progress, and the people of Gaza to reject Hamas?

Alistair Burt: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's comments. The development of the economy of the west bank in recent years has been in sharp contrast to the development of the economy of Gaza-for a whole series of reasons. We would welcome the further expansion of the economy in Gaza, which has to come from an easing of the economic blockade. On that, we welcome the decision announced by Israel last week further to ease the opportunity for exports from Gaza. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right in saying that it is economic prosperity in both the west bank and Gaza that will make decisions on the future of the whole area that much easier.

Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con): Would the growing economic prosperity in the west bank not spread to Gaza and be even more impressive if there were full acceptance of the Quartet principles by Hamas and all parties in the middle east?

Alistair Burt: It is certainly true that the rejection by Hamas of the Quartet principles and its failure to denounce violence and to accept the state of Israel is holding back any possible negotiations. Also, the illegal holding of Gilad Shalit for a further length of time is contrary to all our interests, and he should be released as soon as possible. It all goes to show that further negotiation and talk is the best way to produce an overall settlement in the middle east, which is what we are all looking for.

Mr Speaker: I know we are focusing on economic development in this question.

Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab): Given what the Minister has said about economic development in the west bank, does he share my concern that it is
14 Dec 2010 : Column 801
not in the interests of the economic development of that region to see the tightening rather than easing of movement restrictions in the Jordan valley and Palestinians and Bedouins being dispossessed in the Jordan valley?

Alistair Burt: The hon. Gentleman's long interest in the economic development of the west bank and all other areas is well noted; we spoke in the Westminster Hall debate the other day. The easing of all restrictions is in the interests of all. That is why we welcome it when we find it and are concerned if there is any greater restriction on access. The economic development of the whole of west bank area and of Gaza is a crucial part of the development of the Palestinian state. The establishment of that valid state, side by side with a secure and recognised Israel, is of interest to us all.

Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con): The threat to the economic developments on the west bank and in the rest of the region is, of course, dependent on the military position. Is the Minister aware of the rockets, bombs and anti-aircraft capability that Hamas has built up and does that not further threaten the security of the region?

Alistair Burt: The Government have already expressed concern about the build-up of arms in the area by Hezbollah and Hamas, none of which is conducive to what we all want: a negotiated peaceful settlement of the middle east process that is a secure and sovereign Israel side by side a viable Palestine.

Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op): When the Minister visits the middle east in the new year, will he press Israel further to reduce its restrictions on freedom of movement both for Palestinian people and for Palestinian goods? Free movement is crucial; so, too, is providing global opportunities for the Palestinians to trade with the rest of the world. In the Foreign Office business plan, UK Trade & Investment is developing its strategy; will the Minister ensure that UK trade with the west bank is absolutely part of that UKTI strategy?

Alistair Burt: Yes, indeed; I welcome the hon. Gentleman's comments. There was a successful investment conference in the west bank just a few months ago, and it is in the interests of all that economic prosperity is encouraged on all sides. It is in the interests of Israel to make sure that there is as much access as possible-providing, of course, that its essential security interests are safeguarded. Wherever they have been threatened, as in Gaza, it remains necessary for the Israelis to control any materials that might detract from that. When it comes to economic development and movement, however, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct.

Sri Lanka (Red Cross Operations)

7. Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab): What recent reports he has received on the decision by the Sri Lankan authorities to end the operations of the International Committee of the Red Cross in the north of that country. [30265]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt): The Government are aware that the Sri Lankan Government have asked the International Committee of the Red Cross to close
14 Dec 2010 : Column 802
two centres in the north of the country. We are also aware that the ICRC has, after a review, already closed down its own operations in Mannar.

Siobhain McDonagh: The removal of the Red Cross from the predominantly Tamil area shows contempt for a renowned international non-governmental organisation and will seriously inhibit much needed aid and assistance. In light of the comments made by the new cardinal of Colombo-that there is a dangerous trend of ethnic Sinhalese moving into Tamil areas-does the Minister agree with me that the real reason for removing the Red Cross was to allow for Government-supported demographic change to go unchecked by independent monitors?

Alistair Burt: I am not sure whether I can speak for the Government of Sri Lanka in explaining how they made their decision, but it is certainly true that the international community listens extremely carefully to the voice of the ICRC as an independent monitoring body, and its unavailability will therefore have to be compensated for elsewhere. The Government have consistently pressed Sri Lanka to live up to its offer of post-conflict reconciliation, but moves such as restricting access to detainees and any restriction of the work of significant non-governmental organisations will make that process rather harder.

Mr Lee Scott (Ilford North) (Con): One of the valuable tasks performed by the ICRC has been investigating the disappearance of young children throughout the Tamil community and trying to repatriate them with any relatives who are still alive. Will my hon. Friend look into the possibility of pressing for that valuable work to be allowed to continue?

Alistair Burt: I will ask our posts in Sri Lanka to consider it carefully. The fact that more people need to return to the areas from which they were removed is another measure of the steps that are necessary in the post-conflict resolution, and although we have seen a great deal of progress over the years, more needs to be done.

Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab): As the Minister will know, recent additional footage from Channel 4 has shown Sri Lankan forces executing civilians at the end of the conflict. He described the ICRC as an independent international monitor, but, as he will also know, there is serious concern about the continued lack of independent and transparent investigation of alleged war crimes in the country. Have Ministers urged the Sri Lankan Government to support a properly independent inquiry with international involvement, and did the Secretary of State for Defence also raise those points in his meeting with the Sri Lankan President earlier this month?

Alistair Burt: Our Government have made very clear to the Government of Sri Lanka that any process involving the examination of war crimes or other issues must be credible and must have an independent element. We suggested recently that those appointed to a United Nations panel should be the interlocutors with whom it would be wise for the Sri Lankans to be involved in an effort to influence the international community. They have the first responsibility in dealing with the inquiry,
14 Dec 2010 : Column 803
but if there is to be credibility in the international community it is essential for there to be an international element, and for the issues that have been raised recently to be looked into extremely carefully.

Yvette Cooper: I welcome and agree with what the Minister has said, but I urge him to go further in pressing the Sri Lankan Government to accept international involvement in order to increase the credibility of the report.

The Minister did not answer my question about whether the Defence Secretary had also raised the issue, and I must press him for clarity. The Sri Lankan Ministry of External Affairs has said that the President and the Defence Secretary had

and that

Will the Minister tell the House what status that agreement has, and whether all Ministers are taking every opportunity to press for a credible investigation of war crimes?

Alistair Burt: The interest taken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in Sri Lanka dates back to his time as a junior Foreign Office Minister in 1996, when he helped to broker a ceasefire in the conflict that was taking place then. He has retained that interest, and it is very helpful to the Government as a whole to have an interlocutor with such long-standing relationships.

The United Kingdom Government are united in respect of the issues that we raise with Sri Lanka. That process involves helping the Sri Lankan Government to understand what the international community requires, in monitoring what is currently happening, in access of NGOs to detainees, in further reconciliation following the conflict, and in providing opportunity for independent experts to be involved in the inquiry. The Defence Secretary fully understands and appreciates that united position.

Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD): Given the strong all-party interest in the House in human rights in Sri Lanka, will the Minister reassure us that conversations are continuing with the Commonwealth and its secretary-general to ensure that they do not step back from their active interest in human rights issues generally and Sri Lanka in particular?

Alistair Burt: I am sure that is the case, and may I say in passing that we welcome the recent visit of a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association group to Sri Lanka? I have already met representatives who were on that trip. The visit shows the Commonwealth's strong interest in Sri Lanka's continuing development post-conflict. I was greatly appreciative of the efforts made by Members of this House in going on that trip and reporting back, and I am sure that they will report back to the House more fully at a later stage.

Korean Peninsula

8. Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab): What recent assessment he has made of the prospects for a resolution of the dispute in the Korean peninsula. [30266]

14 Dec 2010 : Column 804

9. Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab): What recent assessment he has made of the security situation in the Korean peninsula. [30267]

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague): Tensions are likely to remain high until North Korea abandons its provocative behaviour and violation of UN resolutions, and creates the conditions for the resumption of talks by making verifiable progress towards denuclearisation. Talks between relevant parties offer the best prospect for achieving a resolution of the dispute, but cannot succeed without trust.

Mr Bain: I thank the Foreign Secretary for that reply. Does he agree with the statement issued from last week's trilateral summit of Japanese and South Korean Foreign Ministers with Secretary of State Clinton that North Korea's actions have jeopardised peace in northern Asia and that North Korea's provocative and belligerent behaviour will be met by solidarity from all three countries? What representations will the UK continue to make to demonstrate the dissatisfaction of the British people with North Korea's continual flouting of UN resolutions?

Mr Hague: The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the statement from the United Kingdom, the United States and the European Union, and also the associated statements from Japan. The Prime Minister spoke to the UN Secretary-General and President Lee of South Korea on 24 November, and expressed our strong support for South Korea. In addition, we have held meetings in the past week: senior FCO officials have met North Korean counterparts to relay our messages and our clear view on recent events that North Korea should resume co-operation with the International Atomic Energy Agency and ensure that all nuclear activity adheres to the requirements of that agency, and that it faces increasing isolation unless these matters are dealt with.

Stephen Pound: The people of Ealing North keep a very close eye on rising tension in the Yellow sea, partly because the embassy of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is in Ealing-oddly enough, in the house that was formerly occupied by my hero, Sid James. Has the Foreign Secretary had any recent conversations with his colleague the Secretary of State for Defence about any British maritime presence in the area?

Mr Hague: We are interested to know of the history of buildings in Ealing in this respect. I imagine the building in question saw much more amusing times when occupied by Sid James than when occupied by the North Koreans. Nevertheless, our relations with that country are important, because we have to be able to pass clearly to them the messages I have just described. Yes, of course I discuss this issue, and not only with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, but across Government through the framework of our National Security Council. The maritime presence in the area is more a concern of South Korea, Japan and the United States than of the United Kingdom, but we always keep that under review.

Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD): In view of the fact that China shares a border with North Korea, it might reasonably be thought that the Government
14 Dec 2010 : Column 805
of the People's Republic of China would have an interest in stability on the Korean peninsula. What efforts has the Foreign Secretary made to engage with his counterpart in the PRC Government to encourage that country to take an active role in reducing tension in the area?

Mr Hague: I have had many such discussions. Indeed, some of my earliest discussions on becoming Foreign Secretary some months ago were with my Chinese counterpart on the subject of Korea and encouraging stability there. It was part of the strategic dialogue I conducted with the Chinese leaders in July in Beijing. My right hon. and learned Friend is right that China has that interest in stability there, although that also means that China is often very cautious about supporting the kind of language and the kind of condemnation that we think is appropriate for North Korea's recent actions. That makes it much more difficult to pass strong Security Council resolutions about North Korean violations of the type that we have recently seen. China interprets the need for stability quite differently from the way we interpret it, but there is a strong and continuing dialogue about it between us and China.

Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con): Given that North Korea has so far evaded two UN Security Council resolutions and is, despite international condemnation, continuing attempts to enrich uranium, is there any hope at all that it will not become a nuclear power?

Mr Hague: North Korea makes many claims about its nuclear capabilities including, recently, about enrichment facilities. We are deeply concerned by reports that it is building a new nuclear facility in violation, as my hon. Friend says, of two Security Council resolutions. We urge it to resume co-operation with the International Atomic Energy Agency to ensure that all its nuclear activity adheres to IAEA safeguards agreements. Until North Korea makes verifiable progress on that, we urge the international community robustly to implement the existing United Nations sanctions.

Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab): The Opposition welcome the Foreign Secretary's condemnation of North Korea's recent unprovoked attacks on South Korea and I should like to associate myself with the comments he made a moment ago. I want to press him further on his response to China's offer to host the emergency six-party talks. Does he regard that as the best way forward?

Mr Hague: I am grateful for the Opposition's support. It always makes a difference in these diplomatic matters if the House of Commons stands united. It will be noticed in the world that the House of Commons is absolutely united in condemning the recent actions of North Korea. I do not think that an immediate return to the six-party talks is the way forward as that would be, in a sense, a reward for North Korea's behaviour. Other discussions and other ways forward will have to be found.

Central Asia

10. John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab): What recent assessment he has made of the state of UK relations with the countries of central Asia. [30270]

14 Dec 2010 : Column 806

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Henry Bellingham): Central Asia is an important region for UK strategic interests. We value our constructive relationships with countries in this fast-developing region and want to strengthen these further. We have much to gain from closer engagement on a range of issues, including those relating to Afghanistan and democratic and other reform. We are also seeking to deepen our commercial links.

John Mann: Instead of the Government's supine silence on Liu Xiaobo and their continued kowtowing to the Communist party of China, is it not time they gave a much higher priority to building the newly emerged democracies across central Asia with practical support and assistance?

Mr Bellingham: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is secretary of the all-party group on central Asia. We are working carefully and closely on supporting the EU-central Asia strategy. Furthermore, the other day, the Deputy Prime Minister attended a very important meeting of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, at which he met its president. I think that progress is being made all round.

Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con): Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to the excellent work of Richard Holbrooke, the US envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, who did an excellent job in the Balkans with the Dayton accords?

Mr Bellingham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those comments and I join him in paying tribute to Mr Holbrooke, who was a remarkable statesman. He made extraordinary progress that can be built on in the future.


11. Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op): What his most recent assessment is of the political and security situation in Afghanistan; and if he will make a statement. [30271]

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague): Earlier today I laid a written report on recent progress in Afghanistan before the House as part of the Government's commitment to keep the House regularly updated on the situation there. The report covers the security and political situation including the results of the recent elections, outcomes of the NATO conference in Lisbon, governance and regional engagement.

Tom Greatrex: I thank the Foreign Secretary for that answer, but does he share my concern about the very high rate of attrition in the Afghan police force? Some reports put the figure at 7,000 out of 35,000 over a very recent period. What action can be taken to ensure that there is a stable and established police force in Afghanistan so that people there can have confidence in their civil policing arrangements?

Mr Hague: This is a vital matter and the hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to it. The written report I set before the House today shows that by mid-November
14 Dec 2010 : Column 807
Afghan national police strength had reached 116,000 and is on track to meet the target of 134,000 by next November. One of the crucial matters is an increase in the rate of training the Afghan national police, as well as reducing attrition. For most categories of police officer, attrition rates have fallen in recent times, and the NTM-A-the NATO training mission for Afghanistan-reports an increase of around a third in the number of trained officers and a twofold increase in the number of trained non-commissioned officers. Clearly, the Afghan national police are being built up, despite the difficulties to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con): Our strategy in Afghanistan oscillates between infantry-intensive counter-insurgency campaigning, at high cost, and advance notice that we are going to withdraw, which puts pressure on one side to compromise, but not on the other. Will my right hon. Friend at least keep his mind open to the possibility of alternative strategies, such as the strategic base and bridgehead area solution, which would allow us to secure our strategic interests at lower cost, and thus square the circle?

Mr Hague: There will always be a strategic debate about Afghanistan. There is no oscillation about those infantry-intensive campaigns. Our troops continue to do an extraordinary job, and as the Prime Minister has said in the House and elsewhere, they are able to do it more effectively now that we have the right concentration-the right density-of forces in Helmand, where our troops are mainly deployed. The whole of NATO has the strategy of building up the Afghan national security forces to the point where they can lead and sustain their own operations throughout Afghanistan by 2014. It is consistent with that for us to say that we will not be engaged in combat operations by 2015. We are joined with 47 nations in pursuing our strategy, therefore we should not try to change it on a daily or weekly basis.

Mr Bob Ainsworth (Coventry North East) (Lab): May I bring the right hon. Gentleman back to the answer he gave to the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee? We can all recall the Prime Minister saying in the summer that the combat mission would come to an end in 2015, but no one can recall the Prime Minister saying at that stage that British troops would start leaving Afghanistan next year. When was that first said and why?

Mr Hague: The people who did not hear it were not listening to the BBC on 21 July, when

That is still on the BBC website. What my right hon. Friend said last week-also in answer to a question-was simply repeating what he had said in Washington last July.

Patrick Mercer (Newark) (Con): Further to the question put by the right hon. Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth), the Foreign Secretary will be aware of
14 Dec 2010 : Column 808
a Pentagon report that says that the time line given by President Obama for the withdrawal of American forces has given aid, succour and assistance to the Taliban. Have we been wise to follow that example?

Mr Hague: There are many conflicting reports, as my hon. Friend will be more aware than most. It is argued by some that the references by the President to a draw-down beginning in July 2011 gave some in Afghanistan the impression that there would be a complete withdrawal of forces in 2011. Anybody who is expecting that is in for a shock, because the combination of the surge of NATO forces we have seen recently and the now fairly rapid build-up of the Afghan national security forces means that more forces are deployed against the Taliban than ever before. Clearly, that build-up will continue, with the huge increases projected for the Afghan forces up to 2014. What we say about 2015 is in no way in conflict with that.

Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab): May I associate the Opposition with the tributes to Richard Holbrooke, a tireless worker for peaceful solutions to conflicts around the world, most recently in Afghanistan? There, in a couple of weeks, our troops will be celebrating Christmas far from their families, and we send them our thanks and best wishes, and look forward to welcoming them home.

Can the Foreign Secretary fully reassure the House, in the light of previous questions, that any draw-down will be determined by conditions on the ground and not by the calendar? What conditions will be needed for combat troops to be pulled back from Afghanistan, especially when we approach 2014-15?

Mr Hague: I want to pay tribute to Ambassador Holbrooke in a moment, at the beginning of topical questions. I join the right hon. Gentleman in his comments about our forces in Afghanistan. Throughout the Christmas period they will, I hope, be in the minds of all of us in the House. The conditions on the ground that are necessary for any draw-down or any change in the deployment of forces to begin over the next few years are successful transition of districts and provinces. We made it clear at the NATO summit that we want that to begin early in 2011, but that does not always mean that forces that then become available are withdrawn. Many of them can be redirected into training. In recent months we have moved 300 additional forces into training. Although Canada is withdrawing its combat forces, it announced at the NATO summit that almost 1,000 trainers would be made available for Afghanistan. It is in this form that transition takes place and, as a result, there will be adjustments from time to time in the deployment of the forces of the 48 nations involved.

Topical Questions

T1. [30283] Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab): If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague): The whole House will join me, and several Members have already done so, in paying tribute to Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, President Obama's special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, who died last night. He was not only a
14 Dec 2010 : Column 809
remarkable diplomat and public servant who served his country with great distinction, but someone who, through his efforts, brought an end to Europe's worst bloodshed since the end of the second world war in Bosnia-Herzegovina in the 1990s. Today, as it happens, is the 15th anniversary of the signing of the Dayton peace accords, which Ambassador Holbrooke forged and which brought that appalling conflict to an end. In serving his country, he also saved countless lives and helped pull an entire country back from the brink. His death is a sore loss to international diplomacy.

The December European Council takes place later this week. The Prime Minister will attend. The agenda includes economic policy, including limited treaty change, the EU budget and the EU relationship with strategic partners. A stable eurozone is in our economic interest, but any treaty change must not transfer competence or power from the United Kingdom to the EU.

Fiona Mactaggart: This morning in Strasbourg the European Parliament debated and passed, with support from British MEPs in every political party represented in this House, a resolution on the EU trafficking directive. Has the Foreign Secretary discussed international action and collaboration against human trafficking with any of his European counterparts in the past six months, and does he expect to have such discussions in future?

Mr Hague: Yes, of course, the Government expect to have many such discussions. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is in the lead on these matters. Discussions take place between Governments all the time. I have argued for many years that Governments can do more together to deal with the issue. Our predecessors did so 200 years ago, and we should be able to do so today. That does not mean that we opt in to every EU directive on the matter if we are already taking necessary actions anyway and can retain the freedom to take actions as we wish to determine them in the House, but the responsibility of all nations to take action against trafficking is very clear.

T2. [30284] Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con): Last week the Nobel peace prize was awarded to Liu Xiaobo as he languishes in a Chinese jail. This comes as some EU states want to lift the arms embargo on China. Does my right hon. Friend join me in deploring China's record of state torture and crushing peaceful dissent? Will he stiffen spines in Brussels so that the EU sends a clear message to China that it cannot behave like a thug and expect normal commercial relations?

Mr Hague: We have no plans to lift the arms embargo on China. I have made that clear in EU discussions, which I think is what my hon. Friend was asking for. We have also made it clear where we stand on Liu Xiaobo. A few minutes ago the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) accused the Government of supine weakness, but he was guilty of rather spectacular ignorance because it was one of the main issues that we flagged up on international human rights day, and which I placed on the Foreign Office website and spoke about in my message on international human rights day, so we have been clear where we stand on the awarding of the Nobel prize, and of course our ambassador attended that ceremony.

14 Dec 2010 : Column 810

Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab): May I join the Foreign Secretary in his tribute to Richard Holbrooke? The right hon. Gentleman will agree that this is a moment when we should not just pay tribute to Ambassador Holbrooke's previous work, but recognise that his death is a great loss to the peace process in Afghanistan and to the work that is ongoing.

The Foreign Secretary referred to the EU Council, which will meet on Thursday to discuss a treaty change that has not been debated in this House, where for the third time since the election we have not had a pre-Council debate. Why are the Government agreeing to treaty changes without debating them first in the House, and will they propose any further treaty changes of their own?

Mr Hague: The right hon. Lady is quite right about Ambassador Holbrooke. I spoke about his previous outstanding record, and it is quite true as well that we will feel his loss in current events and in the work that is ongoing in Afghanistan and Pakistan. We clearly stand united in the House in reflecting on that.

On the European Council and the subject of debates, there is some force in the points that hon. Members make about such matters being debated in the House. The days that were previously set aside for European Council debates are among those that have gone into the pot, as it were, to be allocated by the Backbench Business Committee. The right hon. Lady might say that the Government should allocate more time, but the Government gave away that time, and let us be fair, the Opposition also have time on the Floor of the House, with their Opposition days. That is the current position, however, and the Backbench Business Committee should very much take those points into account.

In accordance with the European Union (Amendment) Act 2008, no Government can agree to a treaty change without bringing it to the House for a vote and, indeed, to the other House, so, the Government's formal agreement to a treaty change will in any case require a debate and vote in this House. We will treat any new treaty change in line with the requirements of the European Union Bill, which is now before the House, meaning that a change will also require an Act of Parliament. So, any such change that might be agreed this week will require exhaustive examination in this House.

Several hon. Members rose -

Mr Speaker: Order. I just gently remind the House that topical questions are supposed to be characterised by short and snappy, as well of course as informative, answers.

T4. [30287] Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con): Will the Minister outline what actions his Department is taking to strengthen the democratic process in the run-up to and during next year's elections in African countries, other than in the Sudanese referendum?

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Henry Bellingham): The ongoing problems in Côte d'Ivoire illustrate the importance of elections running smoothly. That is why in Nigeria we are supporting the electoral commission in the run-up to next year's presidential elections. In
14 Dec 2010 : Column 811
Uganda, we are providing a range of assistance and advancement actions, including the Department for International Development's "deepening democracy" programme. Finally, on Zimbabwe, there must be credible action that commands the support of the world community.

T3. [30286] Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab): Will the Foreign Secretary update the House on what recent discussions he has had with his US counterparts on the planned closure of Guantanamo Bay and the return of the remaining detainees to their home countries, including Shaker Aamer, who has been held for nine years without trial?

Mr Hague: I raised this with Secretary Clinton on my last visit to Washington a few weeks ago, I think on 17 November-I mentioned specifically the case of Shaker Aamer. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister also raised that case with Secretary Clinton, when he met her in Astana in Kazakhstan a couple of weeks ago, so the US Administration are very clear about where we stand and, indeed, our overall position on the closure of Guantanamo Bay. That is going through a process of examination in the State Department and in other US Government Departments, but they are in no doubt of our request.

T5. [30288] Rory Stewart (Penrith and The Border) (Con): What defined Ambassador Holbrooke was not simply his energy and his knowledge of language and culture, but his ability when he was a young diplomat in Vietnam to speak truth-uncomfortable truth-to power. What is the Foreign Secretary doing to ensure that young diplomats who follow in Ambassador Holbrooke's footsteps-who understand language and culture and speak truths to power-are promoted within the Foreign Office system?

Mr Hague: Working with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office board, I have recently launched a diplomatic excellence initiative. The initiative is designed to bring about exactly the kind of thing to which my hon. Friend is referring and to ensure that we achieve the highest standards of policy making and diplomatic action in the Foreign Office for the long-term future. It is vital for this country that the FCO is a strong institution for the long term, with great geographical expertise and real diplomatic excellence and policy skills. We are taking other action to bring in external expertise in the area of human rights-I have formed an external group of experts-and I am open to other suggestions and advice from around the House.

T8. [30291] John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab): Further to the question of my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), which the right hon. Gentleman did not answer, what kind of amendments are the Government proposing to bring to the meeting on Thursday?

Mr Hague: The situation will, of course, be discussed by the 27 Heads of Government at the European Council. We are very clear that if there is a treaty change concerning the eurozone, there must be no obligation on the United Kingdom. If eurozone countries wish to form a mechanism, it cannot be one that places an obligation on the United Kingdom. As the hon. Gentleman will recall from the
14 Dec 2010 : Column 812
October Council, we are also working on the next financial perspective because, unlike the previous Government who gave away billions of pounds of British taxpayers' money in negotiating a financial perspective, we want the next European financial perspective to reflect the budgetary disciplines of the member states involved.

T6. [30289] Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con): We learned last week that the United States considers the growth of China's influence in Africa to be a very worrying development. Will my right hon. Friend indicate whether the Government are also concerned about the Chinese Government's rush to secure the friendship of undemocratic yet often resource-rich African countries.

Mr Bellingham: When I was in Angola last week, I had a chance to see the scale of Chinese investment. It is clear to us that China offers great opportunities for many African countries. Transparency and governance are key if we are to get the best out of such investments. That is why my right hon. Friend raised these issues in the recent UK-China dialogue on Africa and the subsequent UK-China summit.

Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP): The UK Government say that they want to improve bilateral and defence relations with Norway. The Secretary of State will understand that the Norwegians are particularly concerned about maritime reconnaissance and fast jet co-operation. How can UK claims have any credibility, given that the UK has just scrapped its maritime reconnaissance fleet and is still considering the closure of the fast jet base closest to Norway?

Mr Hague: I discussed some of those matters with the Norwegian Foreign Minister when he was here a few weeks ago. My colleague, the Secretary of State for Defence, has also had discussions with Norwegian Defence Ministers. As I mentioned earlier, my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary is intensifying co-operation with other states towards the north of NATO on what we can do together. Those countries, including Norway, continue to regard the United Kingdom as an indispensible partner in the years ahead. We are a great deal more indispensible than we would be if the country were broken up and Scotland became an independent nation.

T7. [30290] Mr David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con): Can my hon. Friend the Minister give an assessment of the position of Christians in Iraq and of the respect for the human rights of minorities in that country

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alistair Burt): I was in Iraq a couple of weeks ago and had meetings both with Government Ministers and Archbishop Matoka, the archbishop in the diocese where the church was so outrageously attacked a few weeks ago. Ministers are well aware of the need to protect minorities in Iraq. The way in which any state looks after minority communities, particularly the uniquely vulnerable Christian community in Iraq, is taken as an indication of how that country functions. Ministers are well apprised of world-wide concern and have a desire to look after that community.

14 Dec 2010 : Column 813

Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op): In an earlier answer, the Foreign Secretary referred to the intention to hand provinces and districts in Afghanistan over to Afghan security forces. Will he confirm that the original plans put forward by General McChrystal have been scrapped and that the position being put forward by the international coalition is based on a hope, a wing, a prayer, and an assumption that the Afghans will come forward in an effective way, but we have no basis on which we can know that?

Mr Hague: It is not just based on a hope, a wing and a prayer; to say that would be unfair to everyone involved. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will look at the report that I have laid before the House today, which looks at the Afghan national army's 28 brigade and corps units and says that seven are now capable of undertaking operations with minimal advice, and then goes through to grade the rest of them. It is also important to bear in mind that, as the report points out, 70% of the violence in Afghanistan is in four of its 34 provinces. That illustrates how dramatically different conditions are in different parts of Afghanistan, which means that transition will be able to take place in some areas years before it can take place in others.

Charlotte Leslie (Bristol North West) (Con): Is the Minister aware of the situation facing my constituent, Mr Shrien Dewani, and can he inform the House of what measures his Department is taking to ensure that he receives appropriate British support?

Mr Bellingham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. When I was in South Africa 10 days ago, I raised this case with the consul general and his team. He made it clear not only that had everything possible been done to support Mr Dewani but that if he returns to South Africa, he will receive full consular support. My hon. Friend has done all that she possibly can to help the family and has been absolutely exemplary in what she has done to assist them.

Mr Frank Roy (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab): What improvements have happened to the lives of ordinary families in Helmand province to justify a change of policy in moving forward to 2011 the 2014 date for the beginning of withdrawal of troops?

Mr Hague: As I have said before, I stress that there is no change in policy. The Prime Minister has also reiterated what he has said before. However, that very much depends on the conditions prevailing on the ground. There are improvements in Helmand; there is no doubt about that. There are security improvements. There are places in Helmand where vastly more people are going to school, where more roads are working, and where health centres are open, which was not the case one year or two years ago. What we do in Helmand, and any withdrawal of troops from Helmand, will continue to be dependent on those improvements in conditions.

T9. [30292] Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con): My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has spoken out against the dreadful plight of Sakineh Ashtiani, who was convicted in Iran of having so-called illicit relationships and now faces the prospect of death by stoning. Will he update the House on what recent steps the Government have taken to press the Iranian authorities to stay this barbaric execution?

14 Dec 2010 : Column 814

Mr Hague: The Government do press the Iranian authorities. Indeed, our ambassador in Tehran has recently been sharply criticised by the Iranian Government for raising human rights issues so clearly in his own comments. What is even more striking is that far beyond Government, the people of this country-the civil society of this country, and those of so many other countries around the world-are appalled that the barbaric and mediaeval punishment of stoning can still be contemplated, and are additionally sickened by the idea that a pretence can be made of releasing this lady only to make a film that is then meant to assist the Iranian state in saying what it wants to about her case. We believe that the punishment should be set aside and that Iran would do itself a great deal of good in the world if it did so, and we call upon Iran again today to do so.

Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op): Does the Secretary of State agree that the success of joint projects between Israel and the Palestinians, such as the tourism initiative between Jenin and Galilee, exposes the absurdity of calls for boycotts of Israel?

Alistair Burt: Yes, the hon. Lady makes a fair point. It is not through boycotts that influence is exercised but through continuing co-operation. That is the best way forward to the negotiated settlement that we all want to see in the interests of all those in the middle east.

Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD): The UK rightly supports an international ban on cluster munitions, which is why it was very concerning to read the published claims on WikiLeaks that the last Labour Government had allowed the US to stockpile cluster munitions on UK territory. What reassurances can the Secretary of State give that no such violation has occurred, or will occur, under this Government?

Mr Hague: Those things on WikiLeaks would be concerning if they turned out to be true, but I see no evidence that Parliament was misled. Of course, we do not have access to the papers of the previous Administration, but I have not seen anything that suggests that Parliament was misled. My hon. Friend will be glad to know that the withdrawal of cluster munitions from all United Kingdom territory has been completed ahead of schedule.

Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab): Will the Foreign Secretary raise with the Moroccan Government the situation facing Western Sahara and the future of UN negotiations that aim to bring about a referendum on self-determination and bring an end to that more than 30-year conflict?

Alistair Burt: I was in Algeria and Morocco recently and raised the issue of Western Sahara. We have pressed all parties to continue negotiations and to look to the UN to assist. Ambassador Ross is working to that end. We have pressed in particular the importance of an independent monitoring process in Western Sahara, to assist transparency when looking at events such as the recent tragedy in Laayoune. This issue has gone on for too long, and it will not solve itself.

Several hon. Members rose -

14 Dec 2010 : Column 815

Mr Speaker: Last, but not least, Mr Stewart Jackson.

Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con): On human rights abuses in Iran, does my hon. Friend share my concern over the fate of the Christian pastor, Youcef Nadarkhani, who has reportedly been sentenced to death by the Iranian authorities for apostasy. Will the Foreign Secretary set out what the Government intend to do to relieve pressure on Christians and other minority groups in Iran?

Alistair Burt: In 2009, there were some 388 executions in Iran, including those of juveniles and women. We join with other nations around the world to condemn the way in which it is used as a form of punishment. I understand that Pastor Nadarkhani's sentence and case are under review by the Iranian authorities. It is essential that the world continues its pressure in relation to Iran. A state is judged by how it looks after its minorities. In Iran, that includes the vulnerable Christian community and other communities of faith, such as the Baha'i.

14 Dec 2010 : Column 816

Courts Service Estate

3.36 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Jonathan Djanogly): With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to announce the Government's response to their consultation on Her Majesty's Courts Service estate. Thank you for allowing me to release details of the courts covered in the statement to Members in advance.

This statement will be of interest to many hon. Members and to many hard-working members of HMCS staff. It will also be of interest to the judiciary, both to professional judges and the very many magistrates who give freely of their time to serve their communities. My announcements pave the way for a better, more efficient and more modern justice system that has more efficient courts, better facilities, and the faster conclusion of cases for the benefit of victims, witnesses, defendants, judges and the public at large.

The announcements complement the Department's wider plans to help and encourage people to resolve their issues out of court, using simpler, more informal remedies such as mediation where appropriate; to overhaul case management procedures and get rid of wasteful layers of bureaucracy; to move forward with technological innovations such as video links, which have the potential to revolutionise the way in which justice is delivered in our country; and to involve communities much more closely in the justice system, particularly through problem solving and restorative justice approaches.

On 23 June, my right hon. and learned Friend, the Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor, made a written statement announcing consultations on proposals to close 103 magistrates courts and 54 county courts in England and Wales, and to merge some local justice areas. The consultation was clear that failures in the last decade to manage the Courts Service estate properly have led to a service that would be unsustainable at any time, let alone in the current financial circumstances.

It is unsustainable that in 2009-10, our 330 magistrates courts sat for less than two-thirds of their available time and that courtrooms in our 219 county courts sat on average for only 180 days a year. It is unacceptable that dozens of buildings never intended, and not fit, for the requirements of a modern court system are still being used. It is undesirable in the current financial position that the taxpayer continues to fund buildings that offer outdated and inadequate facilities to victims and witnesses.

I am grateful for the many contributions to the consultation. I understand the strength of feeling that is has generated, and I have listened to the many points made by respondents. Much has been said by Members about travel times to court. I can reassure the House that our plans will only very slightly reduce the percentage of the population able to access their nearest court by public transport in under an hour, from just under 90% to 85%. I also remind the House that very few of us actually attend court more than once or twice in our lives, and even fewer use public transport to get there. It is simply not good use of taxpayers' money to operate courts simply to shave minutes off a journey that many will never need to make.

Arguments were also made during the consultation about the potential erosion of local justice. I take that accusation extremely seriously, but the closures will not
14 Dec 2010 : Column 817
mean people losing access to local justice. In fact, I would suggest that they will mean quite the opposite-better local justice. They will mean the provision of a better, more efficient and more modern justice system with good facilities, efficient courts and the faster conclusion of cases for the benefit of victims, witnesses, defendants, judges and the public.

Having taken all those points into consideration, the Government have decided to close 93 magistrates courts and 49 county courts. Of those county courts, however, 10 will remain open for hearings under the control of other local county courts. We will also retain 10 magistrates courts and five county courts on which we consulted, and I will list them. Magistrates courts will be retained at Abergavenny, Harlow, Kettering, Newbury, Newton Abbot, Skipton, Spalding, Stroud, Waltham Forest and Worksop. County courts will be retained at Barnsley, Bury, Llangefni, the Mayor's and City of London, and Skipton.

It is estimated that those measures will save £41.5 million during the spending review period, excluding closure costs, and bring in £38.5 million in receipts from the sale of assets. In addition, I expect substantial cost avoidance through avoided maintenance costs for closed courts and better targeting of resources for the Courts Service, as well as savings for the National Offender Management Service and the Crown Prosecution Service. Copies of all the relevant documents, and of the decisions on local justice area mergers and counter services, have been placed in the House Library.

This is the start of an important programme of reform for the Courts Service. I am determined to develop a proper, modern Courts Service and estate that does our communities proud. We are taking the difficult action on court closures that the last Government failed to take, so that we can raise the quality of the courts estate significantly across the board.

With that in mind, I can announce today that £22 million of capital will be reinvested to improve and modernise the courts to which work will be transferred. Within that are three particularly large projects: in London at Camberwell Green magistrates court, in Staffordshire at Newcastle-under-Lyme magistrates court and in Wales at Prestatyn magistrates court. There are also smaller schemes to make some receiving courts better. They include additional interview rooms and a secure dock at Huddersfield magistrates court and the conversion of rooms at Watford magistrates court to provide additional staff accommodation and security. In the next spending period, new courts will open in Chelmsford, Colchester and Westminster, and Woolwich Crown court will be extended. We will make further announcements on new court building schemes early in the new year.

We have, however, cancelled existing plans for a new magistrates court in Liverpool, because the scheme that was proposed is unaffordable, but I will investigate more affordable options to provide suitable accommodation for magistrates court work in Liverpool.

Our courts are failing fully to embrace technological advances that have the potential to revolutionise the way in which justice is delivered in our country. There is much that can be done. Court-to-prison video links provide a much more efficient way of doing things, but they are used in too few cases. In future, we want
14 Dec 2010 : Column 818
victims and witnesses, when appropriate, to be able to give evidence in trials by live video link from a more convenient location.

We will begin by testing the principle of police officers giving evidence in summary trials by live video link from the police station. We expect that that will save the police time and money and enable more officers to spend more time out on patrol. We intend to test the idea in London in January, and in at least one other area soon afterwards, with the first cases likely to be heard in that way before the end of March. If successful, that could pave the way for civilian and expert witnesses to give evidence from a police station or other, more convenient locations, rather than having to travel to court.

We also want to give communities a greater say in how justice is administered in their areas. Proposals for problem solving and restorative justice were included in my Department's sentencing and rehabilitation Green Paper, published last week. We will consult on the use of neighbourhood justice panels to deal with low-level cases, empowering people to develop their own solutions to local problems and increasing community confidence.

In summary, this announcement forms an important part of my Department's clear vision for a step change in our justice system-one that protects communities from crime and works for, rather than against, the most important people in the system: the victims and witnesses. I commend the statement to the House.

Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab): I am pleased to see the Minister at the Dispatch Box for this important statement on the delivery of justice in local communities. I thank him for a copy of his statement in advance.

We missed the Minister in the debate on legal aid in Westminster Hall this morning. Members from all parties spoke passionately in defence of their law centres and citizens advice bureaux, which, like local courts, are facing wholesale closure. He will be pleased to hear that his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General did as well as the Minister would have done in carefully avoiding responding to the many points that were raised.

Launching the consultation on court closures in June this year, the Minister said:

I agree with that statement, but his statement today does not achieve that ambition. Perhaps a clue as to where the Government started to go wrong can be found in the next paragraph of the statement launching the consultation, which said that

Perhaps we do, but that misses two points. First, courts are not like Facebook or Tesco. They are an important part of many communities in the same way as people regard police stations and town halls.

Claimants and defendants, witnesses and victims will all be inconvenienced and, in many cases, disconcerted by the loss of the local criminal or civil court, or both, only to find them replaced with anonymous court centres many miles away. Secondly, not everyone has the mobility or resources to travel long distances to find justice, especially in rural or remote areas. My first question to the Minister is to ask him to produce the calculations
14 Dec 2010 : Column 819
that have been done to determine the time it will take and the distance that will be covered in travelling to the replacement courts. He says that only a minority of court users will be disadvantaged, but that is not the view of the Lord Chief Justice or of his own colleagues. Responding on behalf of the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Justice Goldring noted that poor public transport meant it would be difficult for many people to

Will the Minister look again at travel arrangements and the times of journeys to the remaining courts after the Department for Transport and council cuts have taken effect?

The Minister consulted on closing 103 magistrates courts and 54 county courts, 30% of the total in England and Wales. He said today that 90% of that number will close-some 142. That would give an annual saving, based on his previous figures, of about £13 million, which is not significant in the context of the wholesale cuts going on in other parts of his Department but is a sizeable proportion of the running costs of lower courts. Will all this simply be handed to the Chancellor in the compliant if not willing way the Lord Chancellor has taken to adopting in asset stripping his Department? Or will some be reinvested in the remaining courts estate to improve the service to the public that the Minister says he wishes to see and to cope with the increased traffic from the closed courts?

The Minister said that some capital will be reinvested in specific projects, but there is no allowance for the extra pressures on remaining courts. Is that not proof that this is no more than a crude cost-cutting exercise with none of the benefits that he half-heartedly claims? He also said in July that

We would not disagree with that. Needs change and buildings wear out or prove unsuitable. It is right to seek economies while maintaining access and making the administration of justice more efficient. Although every closure decision is difficult, and many older courts have a historic and nostalgic importance, in government we were prepared to close less well-used or poorly functioning courts. We were endlessly criticised by the Minister for doing so, but the difference between our programme of review and his wholesale massacre of the local justice system is clear both from the quantity of closures proposed and the haste with which they will now proceed.

What is the Minister's timetable for shutting the doors of those historic courts? Why has he not published the results of the consultation before today? What impact assessments have been done? Is he prepared to defend the debilitating effect that longer journey times and unfamiliar surroundings will have on the frailest in our society, who often attend courts as victims and witnesses? Many domestic violence courts and family courts will have to move or close. What arrangements has he made to ensure that they go to suitable locations?

Under the previous Tory Government between 1979 and 1997, courts closed at the rate of 25 a year and, under the previous Labour Government, that fell to 13 a year, but now the Minister is proposing to close almost 150 in this Government's first year. To be fair, his colleagues have been as critical of the closure programme
14 Dec 2010 : Column 820
as Opposition Members, none more so than the Solicitor-General, the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr Garnier), who told his local paper:

The International Development Secretary was even more incensed about the proposed closure of Sutton Coldfield court. He told his local paper that the

The Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr Davey), criticised the Treasury. He said:

No critic was stronger than the former shadow Justice Minister, who is now Attorney-General. He said:

Conservative and Lib Dem Members have all sounded off in their local press and in the House, but as reported in the Evening Standard, this is an

policy. Opposition to the Minister's policy is growing all over the Government Benches, including from those on the Front Bench. Opening the gates of the prisons and handing ballot papers to the few left inside looks positively-

Mr Speaker: Order. I trust that the shadow Minister is in his final sentence. He has taken almost as long responding to the statement as the statement itself took. Members must realise that this is not a debate. A response to a statement is a brief response and a series of questions. I hope that that is now clear for the future, because sight has been lost of it, and must be regained at once.

Mr Slaughter: I am most grateful, Mr Speaker-you predicted absolutely correctly that I am coming immediately to the end of my response to the Minister's statement.

This wholesale closure sums up the Government's approach to cutting local services in this and every other area-"Let's get on with the cuts and worry about the effects later." This programme of closures amounts to a wholesale destruction of this foundation stone of much of British justice, and the Minister should be ashamed to bring it before the House.

Mr Djanogly: In his rather concise statement-or perhaps it was not-the shadow Minister said that the savings are not particularly significant, and then immediately went on to accuse the Government of asset stripping. I do not see the consistency in that. However, the economic circumstances that Britain faces and the imperative of reducing the national debt pile amassed by the previous Government's bout of carefree spending impacts on our proposals, which form part of the commitment of the Ministry of Justice to reducing spending by £2 billion.

Savings apart, I am convinced that the current court system is not efficient enough, that it should provide better value for money, that it should make better use of technology, and that it should provide a better service
14 Dec 2010 : Column 821
for court users. The hon. Gentleman accuses me of the wholesale closure of legal aid and CABs, and of the wholesale massacre of the Courts Service, but he must tell us where he would rationalise and save.

The Labour party manifesto said:

If the hon. Gentleman is to be credible, therefore, he must give us his view of how justice is to be delivered. If he would put more money into legal aid, would he take even more money out of the courts, or vice versa? Until he tells us how he would be prepared to spend the money, I am afraid that he will not get people's trust on this matter. He seems to suggest that closing courts is bad in every case.

The hon. Gentleman asked for the financial workings, and I am pleased to say that the impact assessments have been published and are there for him to look at. The utilisation figures take into account the additional work and remaining courts that will come into existence. The timetable is that the first courts will start to close on 1 April next year, and I can confirm that travel arrangements will be organised on a local basis. It is important to make the point that during these reorganisation proposals, we have been considering not just closures but how we can best reorganise the remaining Courts Service. That includes looking at how people can best get to their local courts.

Delivering justice is about more than protecting bricks and mortar. The hon. Gentleman talks about it being like Facebook. In reality, courts are not like post offices either-they are not places that people go to every day of the week. Of equal importance is the quality of justice. It is important that people have use of a fit-for-purpose building that has good listing facilities and gets cases heard promptly. Proximity is important, but it is only one of a number of issues to be considered, and we have considered those issues carefully.

Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD): There is clearly a case for making savings where courts are close together or little used. However, why have Ministers taken relatively little account of the representations of the Lord Chief Justice, particularly on the Courts Service in what he described as vast rural areas, such as Alnwick and Tynedale in Northumberland and places elsewhere in the country? Will benches not find it necessary-at least sometimes-to go out to parts of their areas, possibly even to hear cases in places where they are still courthouses, given that they cannot be sold and are still public property?

Mr Djanogly: My right hon. Friend is passionate about the Courts Service, as I know not least from my appearance before him and the Justice Committee. However, it is important to point out that the Lord Chief Justice's response came from the foreword to a report of the senior presiding judge, and that the report did not represent a response on behalf of the entire judiciary. The senior presiding judge was collecting the remarks by various judges around the country. It needs to be seen in that context. Indeed, the report was given careful consideration, as were all the responses.

Several hon. Members rose -

14 Dec 2010 : Column 822

Mr Speaker: Order. As usual, there is much interest and little time, so brevity from Back-Bench and Front-Bench Members is vital if I am to accommodate the level of interest.

Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab): The Minister is well aware, not least from correspondence from me, that the data on which he based the Knowsley magistrates court decision were deeply flawed. He has not yet addressed that deeply flawed data. Why has he gone ahead with a proposal that he knows will not work? To make matters worse, why has he also decided that there will be no additional capacity in Liverpool by scrapping the capital investment programme? The Deputy Prime Minister refers to this as a progressive Government, but the past two days have proven that it is a wrecking-ball Government.

Mr Djanogly: It is not the case that we have not reinvested. As I said in the statement, we are reinvesting in the remaining courts. The right hon. Gentleman asked about errors in the consultation data. There were 16 area consultation documents. A small number of errors were found, but none were considered to be material to the consultation. In one area-north Wales-even though we were advised that the errors did not affect the consultation, I personally decided that the consultation documents should be sent out again, and that was done. However, we do not maintain that the figures were put out in error-quite the opposite. On the whole, they were accurate.

Mr Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con): On 16 November, one Under-Secretary at the Ministry of Justice told me in a parliamentary answer that it would be highly desirable if more work that was currently done by Crown courts were carried out by magistrates courts. He agreed that there was waste in the Crown courts. On the same day, the other Under-Secretary at the Ministry of Justice told me that following the closure of magistrates courts, the same amount and the same type of work would be done by the other magistrates courts. Which is right?

Mr Djanogly: It is true that in terms of capacity, Crown courts are almost bursting at the seams, which is why my hon. Friend will see that not a single Crown court is proposed for closure in the list. One of the great challenges that we face is to ensure that work that should more appropriately be carried out in magistrates courts does not go to the Crown court. Both the legal aid Green Paper and the sentencing and restorative justice Green Paper have provisions to encourage that.

Hazel Blears (Salford and Eccles) (Lab): I frankly do not understand the Minister's decision on Salford magistrates court. Not only do we have the support of the Lord Chief Justice-who said that Salford city council's alternative proposal should be supported and the court should remain open-but the city council would have met the maintenance backlog and the ongoing revenue costs for the court. There would have been no cost to the Department. I believe that this decision flies in the face of all logic. We have had a court in our city for 1,000 years, doing fantastic community justice work of the kind that the Minister has talked about. We have had a court for 1,000 years: it has taken this Government just six months to put an end to that.

14 Dec 2010 : Column 823

Mr Djanogly: The right hon. Lady came to see me with members of her local authorities, and she spoke strongly in support of her court-I recognise that-as did members of her visiting delegation. However, that court has a low utilisation rate, and a building and facilities that are not adequate. The court is going to be closed because of those factors, as well as its close proximity-about half a mile-to Manchester City magistrates court, which can import the work. I am afraid that it is that close-1,000 paces to one of the finest magistrates courts in England and Wales.

Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con): I wrote to the Minister at the time regarding the potential closure in Burton. People in South Derbyshire go there, and it takes much more than an hour to get to Derby. There is no way on God's earth that we can get to Newcastle-under-Lyme, so would he be kind enough to arrange a meeting to look at our plan B in South Derbyshire, for a new civic centre that can take over such work?

Mr Djanogly: My hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths) secured an Adjournment debate in July, and I think he accepted the need to make savings, but urged Ministers to consider the wider impacts. There is a high density of county courts in Staffordshire and west Mercia. Burton sat for 199 days in 2009-10, and there are no members of the judiciary based permanently at the court. Although facilities are adequate, closure would mean that Her Majesty's Courts Service would not be liable for an additional investment of around £450,000. None the less, I would of course be delighted to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the matter further.

Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC): The maintenance figures used by the Minister to justify closures in Wales were wildly inaccurate. On the second attempt he got them wrong again, and on the third attempt they were wrong yet again. He is using fairytale figures to support his arguments. The closure of Pwllheli magistrates court-which was vehemently opposed by the Lord Chief Justice, the presiding judge and everybody who knows anything about that area of Wales-leaves my constituency with one court to serve a patch that measures 100 miles north-to-south and 100 miles across. Is that local justice?

Mr Djanogly: Having considered the matter, we believe that local justice will be maintained in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. The fact of the matter is that Pwllheli magistrates court has a very low utilisation rate-29% in 2009-100-offers limited facilities for victims and witnesses, and is only partially disability-compliant. The work undertaken at that court can be easily accommodated in the recently purpose-built Caernarfon criminal justice centre, which offers far superior facilities for all court users.

Stephen Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con): There will be great dismay at the closure of Ely and Wisbech magistrates courts in North East Cambridgeshire, particularly as the magistrates court in the constituency next door-the Minister's own-is to be retained, as are county court hearings. There were factual errors in the consultation on Wisbech court, such as taking one-off
14 Dec 2010 : Column 824
costs as running costs. There were also omissions, such as ignoring the potential of transferring work from Ely to Wisbech to increase its utilisation rate, and underestimates of revenue, involving such elements as charging the police nothing for the use of the court building. In the light of that, will the Minister place in the Library the figures that were used after those errors were pointed out, so that we can see exactly what this decision was based on?

Mr Djanogly: Yes, I am pleased to say that the impact assessments have been published today, and my hon. Friend will be able to have full sight of those figures.

Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab): To say that this announcement is disappointing is an understatement. Justice will no longer be done in Rochdale, nor will it be seen to be done. If the Minister believes that victims, witnesses and the accused will travel mile upon mile for justice, he is sadly mistaken. Rochdale court has one of the highest utilisation rates in Greater Manchester, and some of the best possible facilities, including video links and secure rooms for witnesses. It has a fantastic bench and great staff, and it is completely fit for purpose. This decision will not affect people like the Minister, but it will affect people who live in Rochdale. Will he reconsider his decision?

Mr Djanogly: No, I am afraid to say to the hon. Gentleman that the decision has been taken. Rochdale magistrates court is a busy court with a good utilisation rate, but it will close because of low utilisation across the Greater Manchester area. It is important to point out to the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members who are making related points that during the consultation we did not look at the individual courts in isolation. Yes, we looked at each court on its own, but we also looked at them in the context of other courts in that local justice area. That has sometimes meant that courts with high utilisation figures have still had to close because, in an area context, they are not efficient.

Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD): I would like to tell the Minister about my concerns for the people who live in rural Somerset. That includes my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath). The Government intend to close Bridgwater court and Frome court, which, as the Lord Chief Justice has recognised, will leave any number of people unable to reach a court inside one day's travel by public transport. Will the Minister consider introducing a proper system for booking appointments, so that people can attend court at 3 or 4 o'clock in the afternoon? In that way, there might be some hope of their reaching the court in which they are intended to appear. Secondly, can he make certain-

Mr Speaker: Order. I think we will make do with one question. Just before the Minister replies, may I remind the House that I am trying to help Members, but that Members must be prepared to help each other? That means short questions and short answers.

Mr Djanogly: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The court was used for only 23% of the available time in 2009-10, and the standard of accommodation falls far short of what is now expected by court users.
14 Dec 2010 : Column 825
However, consideration is to be given to those who live in the north of the area, in terms of having their cases heard at a more convenient court in the Avon and Somerset area.

Mr Eric Illsley (Barnsley Central) (Lab): The Minister has already announced that Barnsley county court will be retained, but can he confirm that he has accepted the view of most of the statutory agencies that the county court should be joined with the magistrates court? Is that merger going to take place?

Mr Djanogly: I do not have an answer to that question. I will look into the matter and come back to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con): The Minister is to be commended for coming to the House to make an oral statement on what was inevitably going to be a difficult announcement. Will he confirm that Harwich magistrates court was already earmarked for closure by the Labour Government? Can he also give me an assurance that Harwich will stay open until the new court facilities in Colchester have been constructed and are up and running?

Mr Djanogly: The answer is yes, in both cases.

Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab): The shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter), asked whether the Minister would share with the rest of us his calculations on travel times. I assume that he will also put his answer in the Library, and I would like him to confirm that. There will be considerable anger in the Cynon Valley about the decision to close the Aberdare courthouse, and I do not know where the Minister's calculations on travel times have come from. I invite him to join me on a bus through the Cynon valley, to find out that from many of those areas it is impossible to reach Merthyr Tydfil within an hour.

Mr Djanogly: Travel times were worked out by the Courts Service. The difficulty is that times will vary from one part of an hon. Member's constituency to another, so it is the average times that have to be taken into account.

Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con): I thank the Minister for listening to my constituents in Skipton and the Yorkshire dales. Will he pay tribute to the campaign run by the local newspaper, the Craven Herald, which explained the devastating impact that the closure of the court in Skipton would have had in this most rural part of England?

Mr Djanogly: My hon. Friend spoke forcefully in an Adjournment debate and then met my officials and me. He made a persuasive case, and his local area made a persuasive case, and when we thought it about carefully we decided he was right that the court should stay open.

John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab): I am relieved that the robust campaign for Worksop magistrates court has eventually been listened to. To avoid ambiguity in the future, will the Minister confirm that the previous functions of Worksop county court will be run from Worksop magistrates court in the future?

14 Dec 2010 : Column 826

Mr Djanogly: That is my understanding, yes.

Dr John Pugh (Southport) (LD): Why is the Minister still looking for magistrates court space in Liverpool while closing down the purpose-built Southport magistrates court? Where is the sense or the saving in that?

Mr Djanogly: Replacement of the inadequate facilities at the Liverpool magistrates courts at Dale street and Victoria street is, and remains, a top-priority scheme for Her Majesty's Courts Service.

Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con): I welcome the Minister's statement. Will he confirm that millions of pounds are wasted each year by commuting prisoners to and from court, and that better use of technology could deal with PCMHs-plea and case management hearings-first appearances and mentions at the Crown court and the magistrates court?

Mr Djanogly: I am absolutely convinced by what my hon. Friend has to say. Millions of pounds are currently wasted by witnesses, lawyers and defendants all moving around the country. Many problems could be solved through the use of technology.

Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab): I acknowledge and welcome the retention of the county court at Llangefni-and I congratulate the Minister on pronouncing it correctly. The Minister said that part of the exercise was to save money. Will he acknowledge the important economic impact of courts and legal services on towns across the United Kingdom, and was that taken into account during the review?

Mr Djanogly: The purpose of the review was not to look at the impact of the closure of courts on the wider economies within towns, but the work will go to the remaining courts, which will have implications for putting money back into the system in those other courts.

Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con): I declare an interest as a court duty solicitor. I welcome the reprieve of Waltham Forest magistrates court, which has particularly effective family and youth court provision. I urge my hon. Friend to develop opportunities with local authorities to accommodate appropriate youth court hearings, so that we can deliver effective localised justice.

Mr Djanogly: Effective localised justice is an important part of the Green Paper that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State published last week, so I can say yes to that. As regards Waltham Forest, again, a delegation of Conservative and Labour Members came to see me and made a very persuasive case for that court.

Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC): Ammanford court in my constituency was recently refurbished at a cost of £59,000 to make it one of the most modern courts in west Wales. Is it not a colossal waste of public money to close that court now?

Mr Djanogly: We have had to take some tough decisions; of that there is no doubt. As I said before, we are dealing with this on an area basis as much as on a court-by-court basis. That is an important point, because
14 Dec 2010 : Column 827
people have been able not only to assess how courts impact on an area overall, but to see how their own areas have been treated in comparison with other parts of the country. That, to me, has made this a very fair consultation.

Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con): My constituents will strongly welcome the decision to keep Harlow magistrates court. Ours is a growth town that provides value for money. Will the county court's functions be transferred to the magistrates court or to Chelmsford? If they are transferred to Chelmsford, will consideration be given to people who have difficulty in travelling? Will a satellite county court be provided?

Mr Djanogly: Yes, and it is hoped that the retention of the magistrates court will enable business to be conducted across both.

Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con): Goole magistrates court is provided by the local police authority at a peppercorn rent, and is connected with recently refurbished cells at the police station. Its closure will leave residents in the western part of the east riding a considerable distance from local justice. Will the work at Goole be transferred to Hull, or will my constituents be expected to get on a bus, travel past the magistrates court in Hull, change buses and continue on a different bus to Beverley, as was suggested in the consultation?

Mr Djanogly: The court at Goole is closing not least because of low utilisation, but when we looked at the responses to the consultation, we realised that the travel arrangements of people using public transport were different from those of people using private transport, and we think that it will be possible to use not only Beverley but Hull. That was one good outcome of the consultation.

Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con): My hon. Friend has confirmed that the work of Totnes magistrates court is to be relocated. I know he is aware that the building provides an useful facility for the coroner and those who assist him in his work, such as Victim Support, and also that the citizens advice bureau has worked extensively on a plan to share the court building. Can he assure us that this important local asset will be put to its best local use by those valuable organisations?

Mr Djanogly: My hon. Friend has raised an important point. I hope that the answer is yes, and if I can be of assistance she should get in touch with me to that end. Courts will be empty, and there may be local authorities or other local agencies that could make use of them. Now that we have a final list of the courts that will close, that process can begin.

Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con): The Minister has announced the closure of Barry magistrates court. I believe that that decision was simply wrong. More than £1 million was spent on the court last year, it has extremely high utilisation rates and it is the only court in the county of Vale of Glamorgan. Will the Minister share with me the data on which he based the decision, and will he confirm his agreement to meet the chairman of the bench and me to discuss the matter?

14 Dec 2010 : Column 828

Mr Djanogly: I certainly will, but, again, the court has low utilisation, and Cardiff is just 9 miles away, with a good public transport infrastructure.

Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con): The Minister says that his proposals will provide a better and more efficient justice system. Will he accompany me to the east end of Sheppey, and explain to residents there how justice will be improved now that they will be forced to travel to Canterbury or Medway-a journey that can take up to three hours on public transport, if public transport is available, which it is not after 6 pm?

Mr Djanogly: Of course I will meet my hon. Friend if that is what he wants, but I have already met him and we have discussed the issues. Again, the court was considered in the context of the area, and we believe that we made the right decision.

Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD): May I ask the Minister to reflect not just on north Wales, as he has been asked to do, but on the huge tract of west Wales which will now be left without convenient access to a magistrates court, and, critically, without the public transport that would allow him to realise his dreams? There simply is not adequate public transport to take people from Ceredigion up to Aberystwyth. Will the Minister think again about the transport issues on which he and his officials have reflected?

Mr Djanogly: We have considered transport very carefully, and we concluded that one hour on public transport was the right amount of time. Originally, a lot of those courts were instigated on the basis of half a day's horse ride, but we thought one hour on public transport should be adequate.

Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con): There will be widespread concern about the closure of Harrow magistrates court, not least because it is fully utilised and we demonstrated in the consultation that it will cost money to close it rather than keeping it open. The alternative means transferring the work to areas that are impossible to reach by public transport, even in London. There will also be concern that the Minister refused to receive an all-party delegation from Harrow council and the bench, and I ask him to hear those people so they can put their arguments in person.

Mr Djanogly: I am afraid that the time for consultation has now passed and the decision has been taken. The problem with Harrow is that there is considerable capacity at neighbouring courts, and they offer much more modern facilities.

Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con): The Minister will be aware that documents on his website cite the travel time from Liskeard to Bodmin because it is proposed to close Liskeard magistrates court, but he does not seem to have taken into account the travel time from the rural parts of my constituency such as St Cleer and Kelly Bray. Can he confirm that he has taken into account that travelling time, and the availability of public transport?

Mr Djanogly: Yes, we did take those into account.

14 Dec 2010 : Column 829

Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con): What consideration was given to the fact that just two years ago the thick end of £1 million was spent on making Selby magistrates court Disability Discrimination Act-compliant? I fully understand that the Government inherited a financial mess, but if Selby magistrates court is now to be closed and sold off, the taxpayer will be facing a huge loss. My constituents will be keen to see the impact assessment on which that decision was based.

Mr Djanogly: Investment has been made in various parts of the estate at various times, but the courtroom capacity at York magistrates court, coupled with the flexible listing practices, will enable Selby's work to be absorbed effectively into York.

Mr Robert Walter (North Dorset) (Con): I am doubly disappointed, because the Minister did not give me prior notification of a court closure in my constituency. The closure of the court at Blandford means that residents of Dorset will have access to justice only on the coast. Residents in the expanding towns of Shaftesbury and Gillingham will not be able to get to Weymouth before 12 noon, and will have to leave by 2 o'clock in order to get back the same day. Will the Minister meet me and the lay magistracy to talk about this matter?

Mr Djanogly: As I have said to other hon. Members, the consultation period has now finished, but I must point out that my hon. Friend's local court was used for only 29% of the available time. I am sorry to hear that he had not received notice, and I will look into why that was the case.

Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con): The Minister will appreciate that I am extremely disappointed by the decision to close Woking magistrates court. As he saw in my submission and that of the bench, it has very high utilisation rates, a purpose-built court, fantastic disabled access and excellent youth witness provision. How does this decision fit with the criteria for the consultation, because many outside independent people, including judges, looked at it and did not think that Woking fitted those criteria?

Mr Djanogly: My hon. Friend made a very cogent case for the retention of his court, and put the local case very strongly. I have to say that the judgment was finely balanced, but ultimately this decision was taken because the utilisation rates in the Surrey courts has been below 80%, and transferring work to Staines and Guildford magistrates courts will result in the rate increasing to 89%.

Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con): I disclose my former profession as a barrister. Tynedale in Northumberland has almost 1,000 square miles without a court. The consultation used poor-quality figures and they were badly applied. If they are wrong, does the Minister accept that the claim is capable of judicial review?

Mr Djanogly: We do not believe that the figures we consulted on were wrong.

Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con): I am delighted that Stroud magistrates court will remain open. I regard it as an example of an efficient modern court, and I think it is consistent with the whole approach of the Ministry of Justice. Does the Minister agree?

14 Dec 2010 : Column 830

Mr Djanogly: On review, yes.

David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con): I, too, am deliriously happy today, and I thank the Minister for listening to the arguments that I and the people of Monmouthshire put forward to save Abergavenny court from closure. Will he assure us that consultations by this Government will continue to be proper exercises, and not just the shams that we have seen in the past 13 years?

Mr Djanogly: I thank my hon. Friend for those comments. Clearly, things were not all bad in Wales. We wanted to do a full consultation, as the previous Government had been closing courts in dribs and drabs-a court here and a court there. One of them was operating as a pizza shop, and another had had the roof burned off for three years before we came in and closed it. This Government are consulting fully and putting forward a strategic plan across local areas where people can take a strategic view on a national basis.

Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con): Residents in the borough of Kettering will be pleased that the Minister has listened to the vigorous local campaign and decided to save Kettering magistrates court. What were the main factors behind his very welcome decision?

Mr Djanogly: The court will remain open because of concerns raised about the capacity of the receiving court at Northampton in light of the decision to close Daventry and Towcester magistrates courts.

Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con): I, too, remind the House of my former profession as a solicitor. I warmly welcome the Minister's statement, particularly the welcome news that Bury county court will remain open. Will he confirm that that is not a temporary reprieve but a permanent decision? Also, I am slightly concerned that the decision to close Rochdale magistrates court will require a great deal of extra capacity at Bury magistrates court, especially as Rochdale already takes in the Heywood and Middleton benches. Has he taken that into account?

Mr Djanogly: Yes, we have: we will be doing about £170,000-worth of work to accommodate the work from Rochdale magistrates court.

Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con): The state of the public finances notwithstanding, many people in Tamworth will be bitterly disappointed by the loss of both our county court and our magistrates court, which is the most utilised court in Staffordshire. What assurances can my hon. Friend give my constituents that the video-link technology between courts and police stations will be rolled out quickly so that our police will not spend all their time on the A38 to Burton, and that vulnerable people who will have to spend a day-long round trip going to Stafford county court will not have justice put beyond their means?

Mr Djanogly: The court is closing because it has a sitting day allocation of only 76 days, and the work will transfer to Burton magistrates court. I can tell my hon. Friend that we will be pushing ahead with the additional
14 Dec 2010 : Column 831
use of technology, which we see as the future. As things stand, the Courts Service does not make adequate use of modern technology.

Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con): The Minister has already heard the genuine concerns about the closure of Burton county court. He said today that nobody should have to travel for more than an hour to get justice, but under these proposals my constituents will have to go to either Derby or Stafford. On public transport that takes two hours and 23 minutes; on the train it takes an hour and 40 minutes. Will he meet me to ensure that my constituents will get access to the court in Derby rather than the one in Stafford?

Mr Djanogly: We would be happy to discuss that with my hon. Friend. We propose that work will transfer to either Derby or Stafford depending on which is closer for the parties involved, so I think we are heading in the right direction.

Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con): I declare my interest as a barrister-in fact, I have appeared in a couple of these courts. The Minister mentioned how busy Northampton magistrates court is, and said that that had been factored into some of his decisions. Some of the hearings in magistrates courts are very short, and some magistrates courts are underutilised, so can my hon. Friend confirm that because of the shortness and frequency of such hearings, they are particularly susceptible to the use of video link and other modern technology, and that savings could thus be made across the board?

Mr Djanogly: They are indeed. I have visited the pilot projects in south London, which work extremely well. We have to review their cost implications and we want to extend the pilots to help witnesses.

Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP): On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: Order. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the advance notice, but points of order come after the next business.

14 Dec 2010 : Column 832

RAF Bases

Application for emergency debate (Standing Order No. 24 )

4.30 pm

Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab): I seek leave to discuss a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration-the closure of RAF bases.

Members on both sides of the House will be concerned about recent briefings from the Royal Air Force and the Ministry of Defence on the proposed closure of bases that have been reported in today's press. As the House will now know, the RAF has made a series of recommendations to the MOD about the proposed closure of bases. My concerns, and the reasons why I am proposing a debate under Standing Order No. 24, are twofold: first, the Government have not provided coherent criteria on which the decisions are to be made and, secondly, they have still failed to give a timetable for making and announcing the decisions.

The Government have left the affected communities, service personnel and their families and Members of the House unclear and confused as to the basis on which they will make those important decisions. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury said that the decision would be motivated by socio-economic considerations, while the Secretary of State for Defence said yesterday that it would be a strategic defence decision alone and the Prime Minister and his Chancellor have said that the decision would be based on budgetary considerations.

With Christmas only a few days away, this is obviously causing a great deal of uncertainty for our service personnel, some of whom are currently serving overseas, and for their families. I do not believe that is fair or just. Furthermore, the next scheduled Defence questions are not until the end of January, which will mean a seven-week wait for clarity and for scrutiny of Ministers. Our serving personnel and their communities deserve to know on what basis-from the three put forward by individual members of the Government-the decisions will be made, and when.

As you know, Mr Speaker, I have huge respect for the House and the role it can play in bringing clarity to issues that affect communities across the United Kingdom. If my application is successful, the debate will give right hon. and hon. Members the opportunity to present their cases. That will ensure that the debate is open and constructive, thereby affording the Government and the House a more rounded picture of community interests and feelings about an important issue before the House rises for Christmas.

Our gallant armed forces, who are serving their country, deserve better than the shoddy treatment they have received today.

Mr Speaker: I have listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said, and I have to give my decision without stating any reasons. I am afraid that I do not consider that the matter he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 24 and I cannot, therefore, submit the application to the House.

14 Dec 2010 : Column 833

Points of Order

4.33 pm

Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Moray is the most defence-dependent community in the UK, and the Government have already announced the closure of RAF Kinloss in the region, while the future of neighbouring RAF Lossiemouth has been under review. It has now been widely reported that the Royal Air Force has made a recommendation for the retention of RAF Lossiemouth, which would reflect the strong defence and financial arguments in its favour. Unfortunately, it appears that RAF Leuchars in Fife is now being considered for closure. Has the Ministry of Defence given any indication that it will make a statement on those recommendations, as we need an end to uncertainty both in Moray and in Fife?

Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD): Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. You have gone out of your way to emphasise that when important Government decisions are announced, they should be announced in the House and not in any other way. The issue of Royal Air Force bases in Scotland and elsewhere appears to have been the subject of a number of leaks. I have no notion where these leaks come from, but there is no doubt that they add to speculation and to the kind of uncertainty that the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) mentioned in his application for a debate under Standing Order No. 24. I hope you might take the opportunity today, Mr Speaker, to reinforce your belief that when important announcements are to be made, they should be made to this House and not elsewhere.

Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab): Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: We will have a last go from Mr Fitzpatrick on a point of order, then I will respond to them all.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I am grateful, Mr Speaker. Much of air-sea rescue is delivered by the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force, but some is delivered by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. It is suggested that the coastguard service's stations and the bases run by the MCA will be cut. That is a major statement which the Government ought to make to the House, rather than have it leaked by the MOD, the Financial Times, a civil servant or whoever. I strongly support my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) and right hon. and hon. Members who ask that the Government explain to the House the future of the air-sea rescue service.

Mr Speaker: The hon. Members for Moray (Angus Robertson) and for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) and the right hon. and learned Member for North East
14 Dec 2010 : Column 834
Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) have all raised extremely important points of order on the back of the speech in support of the application for a Standing Order No. 24 Adjournment debate.

First, I am conscious of press commentary, not least because of what right hon. and hon. Members have said, but I think it fair to point out that there is sometimes a difference between press commentary and speculation on the one hand, and a firm Government decision on the other. Secondly, I note the presence of two responsible Ministers in the Chamber, which I think is appreciated by the House. I noted that when the point was made about statements needing to be made to the House, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr Robathan) was nodding vigorously his assent to that proposition.

The last point that I would make, specifically responding to the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife, is that he is right. If a decision has been made, it should be reported timeously to the House so that the responsible Minister is subject to scrutiny. I hope the House will understand if I say today that I am not in a position to issue a verdict, but the point has been made forcefully. I hope it will have been heard on the Treasury Bench and that all proper procedures will be followed in this matter. I hope they will be, and I am quite sure, in light of the experience and perspicacity of the Members who raised their concerns, that if there were anything amiss or awry, those Members and others would bring it to my attention and that of the House before very long.

Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder if you can assist me. The court closure announcement that we heard just now was, in the case of Welsh courts, predicated on back maintenance figures which proved to be 100% inflated. Even on the second attempt to correct them, they were completely inaccurate. Were the announcement made outside the Chamber, I would say that it was justiciable. What can I do about this? I feel badly let down by the process.

Mr Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is seeking to continue the debate. I understand his frustration. My advice to him is that he should look for an opportunity to air his concerns in the Chamber. As he is aware, there is an innovative version of the Christmas Adjournment debate taking place under the auspices of the Backbench Business Committee next week. He might want to view that as an opportunity. There are opportunities in Westminster Hall. There will be further opportunities at Question Time. In the meantime, the hon. Gentleman has reminded his constituents of the importance that he attaches to the matter.

Next Section Index Home Page