20 Feb 2012 : Column 587

House of Commons

Monday 20 February 2012

The House met at half-past Two o’clock


[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions


The Secretary of State was asked—

Departmental Budget

1. Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con): What steps he is taking to balance his Department’s budget. [95277]

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Hammond): The Ministry of Defence is undertaking its annual budget-setting process, in which I am personally engaged. I am increasingly confident that we will achieve a sustainable and balanced defence budget for the first time in a decade or more, and I hope to be in a position to make an announcement to the House shortly.

Nadhim Zahawi: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer and for the good news that we will be balancing the budget. Will he say a little more about research and development co-operation with France on the unmanned fighter drone and on other matters? How will that affect our ability to balance the budget?

Mr Hammond: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. As he will know, I was with the Prime Minister in Paris last Friday, when we confirmed that we will take forward the assessment phase of the medium altitude long endurance unmanned aerial vehicle with the French. Clearly, we can co-operate on many areas with France, a country with a broadly similar industrial base and defence budget to our own. Such co-operation will be to the benefit of both countries, and I intend to explore all those opportunities.

Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab): The military action over Libya showed that among the European members of NATO there was a shortage of precision guided missiles, of air-to-air refuelling capacity and of airborne drones to identify targets. Clearly we need to acquire more capacity in those fields, so how sure is the Secretary of State that his budget will enable the UK to play its part in building a stronger European capacity?

Mr Hammond: The hon. Gentleman correctly identifies one of the lessons from the Libya campaign. Much of what came out of that campaign was positive, but

20 Feb 2012 : Column 588

clearly some shortfalls were identified. I must say that the finger must point primarily at those European members of NATO that fail to spend the target 2% of their GDP on defence. We will be looking to them to contribute the additional resources required to make good the shortfalls.

Mr James Arbuthnot (North East Hampshire) (Con): I am delighted to hear that my right hon. Friend is close to balancing the books. Does that mean that we can look forward to an early set of accounts that are not qualified by the auditors, so that we can have confidence in what the books say.

Mr Hammond: Speaking candidly, I can say to my right hon. Friend that it will be a number of years yet, as the Department has made clear, before it is able to get an unqualified set of accounts. As Labour Members will know, that is largely due to a legacy problem associated with MOD inventory and the large quantity of stock items held in a form that the National Audit Office is not able adequately to audit. A solution is being put in place—a new IT system will resolve this problem over the next couple of years—and it should then be possible to get unqualified accounts.

Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP): Scottish taxpayers contribute more than £3 billion a year to the MOD, but according to its own statistics, nearly one third of that is not spent in Scotland. Why is that?

Mr Hammond: The last time I checked, most of the people we were needing to defend the UK against were not in Scotland. I think that Scottish taxpayers, like taxpayers in the rest of the UK, would expect that we deploy our military forces and structure our military posture to deal with the threats that we are facing.

Contracts (Small Businesses)

2. Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con): What steps he is taking to help small businesses secure more contracts with his Department. [95279]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Peter Luff): Innovative and efficient smaller businesses make an important contribution to defence, beyond the obvious benefits to the wider economy. That is why the “National Security Through Technology” White Paper sets out a wide range of measures to make defence and security procurement as accessible as possible to even the smallest of enterprises. I attach particular importance to the establishment of a new small and medium-sized enterprises forum, which meets regularly under my chairmanship to discuss and inform subsequent action on issues of concern to small businesses.

Julian Smith: What steps are the Minister and his Department taking to engage with Britain’s 3,000 defence SMEs much earlier in the procurement process?

Peter Luff: First, I congratulate my hon. Friend on the part he plays in the Skipton and Ripon Enterprise Group. I know that he takes a close interest in SMEs in general and I am grateful for his interest in defence SMEs. We are taking a wide range of steps to achieve precisely what he asks for, and the SME forum is but one example of that. He is particularly interested in the

20 Feb 2012 : Column 589

use of pre-qualification questionnaires. Their use is being minimised for procurements of under £100,000, and we are working to simplify or even eliminate them. We are already adopting the new core questionnaire, which is standardised across government. Many steps have been taken to encourage SMEs to engage earlier and more effectively with the Department, but if he has any ideas I would welcome them.

Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab): A written statement on the White Paper that was recently published indicates that the Government will no longer prioritise UK suppliers when buying defence equipment. For the sake of small companies, and for BAE Systems workers at Brough, 850 of whom face redundancy, ought we not to have a debate on the Floor of the House about that change in Government policy?

Peter Luff: I have to say to the hon. Lady that such matters of debate are largely for the Backbench Business Committee to determine. No one would relish more than me an opportunity to explain the defence White Paper and the gross misrepresentation that she has just given. I would welcome such a debate, and I hope that it happens.

Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD): The Minister solicits ideas on this front. The Ministry of Defence necessarily requires strict security credentials from its business contractors, but that sponsorship can act as a barrier to competition. Will the Minister consider giving new businesses wishing to seek contracts with his Department the opportunity to apply in advance for security clearance for their personnel entirely at their own cost to level that playing field?

Peter Luff: Actually, I think there is a widely shared misunderstanding in the SME community of the issues that it faces. I refer my hon. Friend to the box on page 61 of the White Paper, which explains in detail the security requirements and how the obstacles that I accept some small and medium enterprises think they have experienced can, in practice, be dealt with.

Mr Speaker: Order. I do not think that the House has access to the box in question, but we are immensely grateful to the Minister.

Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab): In view of the important role that SMEs play in some of our bigger programmes, and their need to be confident in the process and to have security of outcome, will the Minister give the House some clarity on the intention for the F-35 programme? In particular, given rumoured reductions in orders from the USA, Australia and Canada, does he expect the price that the MOD pays for each F-35 to rise, and does he have a view on the exact point at which they become unaffordable for the UK?

Peter Luff: First, I apologise unreservedly to you for my earlier answer, Mr Speaker, but you have encouraged me to be pithy in the past, and it would have been quite a long answer to give the details in full.

Addressing the concern of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck), the honest answer is that we do not know. The Americans are not

20 Feb 2012 : Column 590

reducing the total numbers for the purchase of the joint strike fighter, but they have changed the profile of those purchases. Other partner nations have indicated that they will reduce their offtake. That is likely to have implications for JSF prices, particularly those acquired in the early stages of the process, which is when this country intends to acquires its JSFs. We are watching those implications carefully, and I am happy to talk to the hon. Lady separately about the implications for the UK.

Medical Emergency Response Team (Helmand)

3. Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab): How many times the medical emergency response team has been called out in Helmand province in the last year. [95280]

The Minister for the Armed Forces (Nick Harvey): The UK Forward Aeromed capability, commonly referred to as the medical emergency response team, has been called out around 480 times in Helmand province in the past year. As air evacuation assets like this are shared between coalition nations, not all call-outs will have been for UK personnel, as the team provides medical evacuation for UK and other international security assistance force troops, as well as Afghan security forces and civilians when appropriate.

Mrs Moon: I am sure that the House will want to put on record its appreciation for the dedication and professionalism of the members of the medical emergency response team, many of whom are civilians who risk their lives helping personnel who have been injured. One of the issues I am greatly concerned about is the capacity to rescue people who may have suffered spinal injuries from heavily armoured vehicles, and whether appropriate rescue and cutting equipment and release mechanisms for doors and roofs are available so that when people are removed further damage to their spine is limited. Will the Minister confirm that such equipment is available for MER teams?

Nick Harvey: It certainly has not been put to us that there is a problem in that respect, but in the light of the concerns expressed by the hon. Lady, I will take that issue away, look at it in detail and write to her.

Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con): Will the Minister explain what efforts have been made to improve the capacity and efficiency of medical emergency response teams over the past 12 months?

Nick Harvey: We are not aware that there are any specific capacity problems. In fact, calls on the service over the past 12 months have been rather reduced from the level experienced in the previous 12 months. That reduction reflects both reduced kinetic activity in the area of operations and improved efficiency in the way in which the task is shared across Regional Command Southwest. I believe that the position has improved significantly, and that there are no specific capacity difficulties at the moment.

Mr Jim Murphy (East Renfrewshire) (Lab): On Helmand, up until 2 February the UK Government had a clear position in Parliament, in NATO and with the country

20 Feb 2012 : Column 591

about a conditions-based withdrawal, and for the medical emergency teams and all our forces to return home and for the Afghan forces to take the lead on security by 2014. On that date the US Secretary of Defence announced a 2013 timetable for Afghan forces to take the lead and within hours the UK Government followed that timeline. What changed on the ground in Afghanistan in that week for the UK Government policy to change so dramatically?

Nick Harvey: There has been not been a dramatic shift of policy on the part of the US, ISAF or the UK Government. What the American Secretary made clear, as have the French, is that they will be accelerating the pace at which they hand to Afghanistan forces the lead responsibility, but there is no suggestion that the commitment of the ISAF countries is reducing or that the numbers are necessarily reducing. Simply, the speed at which the Afghan national security forces are developing is enabling them to take the lead more. The shift will therefore be more into a training, support and mentoring role, but that does not affect the overall strategy, and the Lisbon agreement among ISAF countries remains in place.

Defence Exports

4. Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con): What steps he is taking to promote defence exports. [95281]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Gerald Howarth): We have made exports a high priority and are supporting the UK Trade and Investment Defence and Security Organisation through an active and innovative defence diplomacy initiative. I have recently returned from a successful visit to India where I led a delegation of some 25 British defence companies to promote the best that Britain has to offer. The White Paper “National Security Through Technology” published this month by the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Peter Luff), reaffirms our support to defence and security exports.

Charlie Elphicke: Over the past few months we have heard much concern expressed about the Typhoon contract. Will the Minister tell the House a little more about the exports that he is working on so that buyers are not gulled into buying second-rate outdated equipment?

Mr Howarth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the question. It is important that we recognise that in the United Kingdom we are fortunate. We do not rely just on major defence companies such as Thales, BAE Systems and QinetiQ. We have a raft of medium-sized companies such as Cobham, Ultra, Chemring and Martin Baker, well known for its ejector seats, and those companies have a rich supply of high technology to offer other countries. I can assure my hon. Friend that we are working hard to promote those companies as well.

Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con): However successful civil servants may be in trying to get defence exports, will the Minister reassure the House that they will not get bonuses in excess of what a colonel might make in salary every year?

20 Feb 2012 : Column 592

Mr Howarth: I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for that extremely helpful and gallant question. If I may say so, looking at the shadow Secretary of State, that was a scheme set up by the current Opposition, who were then in government. It was a three-year scheme. They believed in performance-related pay and so do we.

Mr Bob Ainsworth (Coventry North East) (Lab): There is a belief in industry that we will lose at least 30,000 jobs in the defence sector over the coming period. Although people in that sector applaud the Government’s stated export support, they fear that it has no substance if it is not backed up by a strategy, no matter what title the Government choose to use for that. There is not a free market. If the Government do not develop some kind of defence strategy, other nations will gain at our expense, as they are potentially doing in India with a product inferior to that which we have to offer. Will the Government think about the need for some kind of defence strategy, which they clearly do not have, despite what they say?

Mr Howarth: It is pretty rich for a former Labour Secretary of State for Defence to criticise us when his Government did not have a defence review for 13 years. We have undertaken that defence review and indicated that we have a strong policy of support to industry. The Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Peter Luff), has set out his White Paper in which we support British industry. This Government, led by the Prime Minister, have done more than any previous Labour Government to support British defence exports. That is a strategy. The 16 visits that I have made overseas are beginning to bear results. Just to give one example, BAE has sold three offshore patrol vessels to Brazil.

Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab): The Minister’s good friend the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), has urged employers to give the nation’s unemployed priority for new positions. How exactly does that square with the Department’s White Paper, which states:

“The MOD does not consider wider employment, industrial, or economic factors in its value-for-money assessments.”?

Mr Howarth: Our job as Defence Ministers is to get the best equipment for our armed forces, but it is also true that we have a thriving defence industry, to which the right hon. Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth)referred. There are some 300,000 British Defence jobs and it is important to ensure that while we have to make savings as a result of the appalling budget deficit that we inherited from the previous Labour Government, we give support to British industry to export their goods overseas. I have heard from British industry that it has never had such strong support from Government as it is getting from this coalition Government.

Olympics (Security)

5. Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con): What contribution the armed forces will make to security at the London 2012 Olympics; and if he will make a statement. [95282]

20 Feb 2012 : Column 593

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Hammond): In support of the police and other civil and Olympic authorities, the armed forces will provide up to 13,500 regular and reserve personnel to ensure the Olympic and Paralympic games are safe and secure. Up to 7,500 will support the smooth running of Olympic sites, while the remainder will use their specialist capabilities and equipment to contribute to the delivery of Olympic security.

I announced to the House earlier today by written statement that an order has been made under section 56(1A) of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 to enable up to 2,000 reservists to be called out to support Olympic security.

The Army will apply its policy of intelligent selection for the Olympics. Only those reservists who volunteer and who have the support of their employers will be called out in connection with the Olympic games.

Stephen Hammond: I thank my right hon. Friend for the scale of support that he has announced. I recently visited the regional fire control centre that is opening in my constituency, which will provide emergency fire control at the Olympics. Will my right hon. Friend offer some insight to the House about who might be in overall command of an emergency or of security, and what procedures he is putting in place to ensure that both the civil and military authorities concerned with the Olympics security will work together?

Mr Speaker: I thank the Secretary of State, who had intended to group Question 5 with Question 11. He did not, so I do so on his behalf. I know he will be grateful.

Mr Philip Hammond: I had understood that Question 11 had been unstarred. Perhaps I misunderstood.

Mr Speaker: I think the Secretary of State did, and I did too. However, the hon. Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) says that he never withdrew it in the first place. A gremlin got into the system.

11. Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con): What contribution the armed forces will make to security at the London 2012 Olympics; and if he will make a statement. [95290]

Mr Philip Hammond: I am sure we look forward to my hon. Friend’s supplementary question.

In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), I can say that the safety and security of the games is the responsibility of the Home Office and will be police led. The national Olympic security co-ordinator is the principal co-ordinating police officer for the delivery of national safety and security operations. Military personnel will remain under military command and control arrangements. Defence is working closely with the police and other civil authorities to ensure that that co-ordination between them is effective and that the games are safe and secure.

Stuart Andrew: I fear that the House will be sorely disappointed.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that if reservists are deployed for Olympic security, the services will work with employers to minimise disruption as much as possible to those businesses?

20 Feb 2012 : Column 594

Mr Hammond: I am delighted to see my hon. Friend here. His exercise in expectation management was not required.

In my initial response I said that we thought long and hard about whether it was right to call out reserves for the Olympics and the decision was that we would call out reserves only where both the reservists themselves are willing volunteers and their employers have signified that they are willing and able to release them for that period. This call-out will be on an entirely voluntary basis for both the employer and the reservists.

Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab): How many troops does the Secretary of State expect to be in London for the Olympics, as opposed to regional areas, and could he clarify for me what military command and control is, as related to Home Office police responsibility?

Mr Hammond: We do not yet have numbers for the final distribution between the different locations, but clearly the major venues will be in London and I would expect the majority of armed forces personnel deployed to be at those venues. With regard to command and control, the police are in overall control. The specific arrangements for integrating the military into the command structure will vary from place to place and task to task. A series of exercises is now taking place, one purpose of which is to test the proposals for integrating military and police command and ensure that they are robust.

Redundancies (Armed Forces)

6. Mark Lancaster (Milton Keynes North) (Con): What criteria his Department uses when determining individual redundancies in the armed forces. [95283]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan): Personnel are selected for redundancy by selection boards that are convened by each service. The boards assess evidence contained in individuals’ appraisal reports against selection criteria, which include performance, potential experience, qualifications and the relevance of their skill sets to the future needs of the service. The services will select applicants where possible, but they may select non-applicants where that is necessary to ensure that the right balance of skills is maintained across the rank structures.

Mark Lancaster: I commend the Minister for the resettlement package that the Government are putting together, but I would like to highlight one anomaly. Some servicemen and women serving in Europe—for example, in Norway, Italy and France—and administered by the European support group have no access to funding for travelling back to the United Kingdom for their resettlement packages. I ask him to look into the matter and ensure that all our servicemen and women are treated equally.

Mr Robathan: I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important matter. I think that exceptions can be made. If he would like to write to me on the matter, I will write back with the details. I understand that a small number of people are affected, and we should certainly look after them properly.

20 Feb 2012 : Column 595

Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab): Will the Minister be kind enough to tell us how many military service personnel who have been made redundant were within a year of pensionable age?

Mr Robathan: I do not have the numbers at my fingertips—

Mr Jim Murphy (East Renfrewshire) (Lab): Why not?

Mr Robathan: In answer to the shadow Secretary of State, it is quite complicated. However, I can say that the immediate pension that people might have earned after 22 years is now available after 18 years, so anyone made redundant within four years of the immediate pension date will receive the immediate pension straight away.

Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD): As the Army is reduced to the size it was at the time of the Boer war, although there is to be no reduction in the number of Ministers, does the Minister accept that it would be untenable for any member of 16 Air Assault Brigade, who could have served in up to three deployments to Helmand province, to be made compulsorily redundant?

Mr Robathan: The decisions made on 16 Air Assault Brigade and elsewhere are quite rightly made by the individual services, not Ministers. Also, we believe that our fighting capabilities are somewhat greater than they were during the Boer war.

Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab): An internal MOD document states that the Department considers the UK force structure to be

“out of proportion with modern working practices”.

With the reduction in the number of armed forces personnel, why is the Minister doing nothing to correct the top-heavy force structure and the imbalance by making cuts across all ranks?

Mr Robathan: I know that the hon. Gentleman is an avid reader of Hansard. If he goes back to about 1994, he will see that I raised this matter then in the House of Commons—I have been here too long. He is right that there is a disproportionate number of senior officers. They are excellent people, but we are looking to reduce that disproportionate number so that there are fewer senior officers in relation to bayonets on the ground.

Defence Munitions Beith

7. Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab): What plans he has for the future of Defence Munitions Beith; and if he will make a statement. [95285]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Peter Luff): There are no current plans to change the status of Defence Munitions Beith. The weapons end-to-end initiative is working on the best through-life support solution for the MOD and industry, taking into account the strategic requirement, value for money and the linkage with associated industries. This is a wide and complex piece of work. There is a need to maintain

20 Feb 2012 : Column 596

Beith at least until the Spearfish torpedo has been converted to a single-fuel system, when the need for specialist facilities may lapse. The conversion programme is expected to be completed around 2018.

Katy Clark: I thank the Minister for that answer. Is he willing to meet me and trade union representatives of the work force at DM Beith to discuss what future contracts might be available to the depot?

Peter Luff: I am delighted to repeat the invitation that I made in a letter early last year, to which the hon. Lady has not so far replied, and to extend it once again on the Floor of the House. Of course I should be delighted to meet her to have the precise discussion that she seeks.

Gemma Doyle (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab/Co-op): Will the Minister provide some more details on how cutting the MOD policing budget in half will impact on the policing and guarding of defence munitions sites such as Beith, and the armaments depot at Coulport, in which my constituents are particularly interested? Specifically, will he respond to concerns that the policing of those sites will have to be downgraded and that those sites will no longer be protected by armed guards or, indeed, with dogs?

Peter Luff: I understand and respect the hon. Lady’s concern, but she is simply wrong. We will maintain effective and proportionate levels of security on all our sites, including Coulport and Beith.

Falkland Islands

8. Amber Rudd (Hastings and Rye) (Con): What plans he has for defence deployments to the Falkland Islands; and if he will make a statement. [95286]

12. Mr Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con): What plans he has for defence deployments to the Falkland Islands; and if he will make a statement. [95291]

15. Simon Kirby (Brighton, Kemptown) (Con): What plans he has for defence deployments to the Falkland Islands; and if he will make a statement. [95296]

16. George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con): What plans he has for defence deployments to the Falkland Islands; and if he will make a statement. [95297]

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Hammond): The Ministry of Defence routinely deploys a range of military assets in defence of the Falkland Islands and in fulfilment of our standing Atlantic Patrol, South task. Despite media speculation to the contrary, there has been no recent change to force levels. There is no evidence of any current credible military threat to the security of the Falkland Islands, and therefore no current plan for significant changes to force deployments. However, Her Majesty’s Government are committed to defending the right of the Falkland Islanders to self-determination, and plans exist for rapid reinforcement of the land, sea and air forces in and around the islands should any such threat appear.

20 Feb 2012 : Column 597

Amber Rudd: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. May I press him on the defence plans? Is he confident that the United Kingdom has sufficient naval assets in the area to prevent any naval attack?

Mr Hammond: Yes, we are quite confident that we have sufficient naval assets in the area, and we have the ability to reinforce those naval assets should there be any evidence of intent to carry out any form of attack.

Mr Swayne: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the withdrawal of HMS Endurance some 30 years ago prompted a subsequent invasion, and that although there is no intention whatever to militarise the south Atlantic, proper precautions are absolutely necessary?

Mr Hammond: My right hon. Friend is right on two counts. First, it is absolutely necessary to ensure that our intentions are not capable of being misinterpreted. We have the strongest possible intention of defending the Falkland Islanders’ right to self-determination and the strongest intention to defend the islands. Equally, we have no desire or intention to increase the heat around the debate. We are not seeking to take actions that are provocative or cause unnecessary alarm. We will defend the islands—nobody should be under any illusion about that—and we will deploy the forces necessary.

Simon Kirby: May I press my right hon. Friend on that very matter? Will he do whatever it takes to ensure that the only time that the Falkland Islands will not be British is when the Falkland Islanders themselves decide that they do not want to be?

Mr Hammond: That is the position of Her Majesty’s Government. We will not discuss the issue of sovereignty of the Falkland Islands unless at any time it becomes the islanders’ wish that we should do so.

George Freeman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the UK has important strategic interests in the south Atlantic, not least in energy security, the important work done by the British Antarctic Survey on climate change and the geopolitics of the Antarctic? Will he update the House on any discussions that he has had with our allies regarding the defence of the Falklands?

Mr Hammond: The defence of the Falklands is an integral part of our overall military tasks, and I regularly discuss the conduct of those tasks with our allies as appropriate.

Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab): Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the determination of the people of the Falkland Islands to remain British must be respected and protected, as it rightly was when a fascist dictatorship grabbed the Falklands 30 years ago? If there is any sign from this crew in Buenos Aires that they are going to try it on again, will he ensure that they are stopped?

Mr Hammond: I can answer the right hon. Gentleman unequivocally by saying yes. It is important that we also recognise that the crew in Buenos Aires, as he puts it, is quite a different crew from the fascist dictatorship that invaded the Falkland Islands using conscripts back in 1982. We are dealing with a democratic Argentina that has publicly eschewed the use of military force in pursuing its claim to the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands.

20 Feb 2012 : Column 598

Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab): I spent some time with HMS Montrose in September last year before it sailed to the south Atlantic. During the discussions over deployment, it became clear that the supply routes to the Falklands for fresh provisions were being severely impeded. Will the Secretary of State say something about the security of supply to the Falklands of fresh food and other services, and about the deployment of the Navy?

Mr Hammond: As the hon. Lady knows, an air bridge is operating via Ascension island and other routes into the Falklands are available. The Government are concerned about the actions and statements of some states in respect of access to their ports for Falkland Islands-flagged vessels. We will keep this issue under close scrutiny. We always have the option of increasing the frequency of the air bridge, should that become necessary.

Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab): Are not Admiral Sir Sandy Woodward, Admiral Lord West and General Sir Mike Jackson absolutely right when they say on the record that were the Falklands again to be occupied, Britain would not be able to retake them because this Government do not have any naval aircraft carriers on the high seas? We are in our weakest position in five centuries of naval history, and it is happening on the watch of a Conservative Government.

Mr Hammond: The right hon. Gentleman has succumbed slightly to hyperbole. The Government’s position is clear. Our approach is to make clear to Argentina our intent to defend the islands, to deploy the necessary military forces to provide a credible defence of the islands, and to ensure that we are not placed in the invidious position of having to mount a long-range invasion to retake the islands.

Falkland Islands (Argentine Forces)

10. Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con): What assessment he has made of the capacity of armed forces from Argentina to enter the Falkland Islands by force. [95289]

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Hammond): We pay close attention to developments in Argentina’s military capability. There is no current evidence of the intent or the capability to launch a credible military threat to the Falkland Islands. However, we are committed to the protection of the islanders’ right to self-determination and will remain vigilant in our posture.

Mr Raab: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. What impact will the ban on Falklands-flagged ships in Latin American ports have on Britain’s ability to defend the islands? Which Governments in the region can we count on as allies in the unlikely event—let us hope that it remains a very remote possibility—of hostile Argentine action?

Mr Hammond: As I have said, the statements that some Governments have been induced to make about access to their ports for Falkland Islands-flagged vessels are most unwelcome, but we judge that they will have no material impact on our ability to defend the islands or reinforce the islands, should that be necessary. I hope

20 Feb 2012 : Column 599

my hon. Friend and the House do not mind, but it would not be in the interests of the UK’s national security or of the Falkland Islands to explore in public which regional nations might be friendly to us if there were a need for military action at any time in the future.


13. Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con): What recent progress has been made by the independent review into granting a medal to the Arctic convoy veterans; and if he will make a statement. [95292]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan): The Government have agreed that there should be a fresh review of the rules governing the award of military medals. It will be conducted by an independent reviewer with full consultation with interested parties. The terms of reference and further details will be released shortly.

Caroline Dinenage: I am grateful to the Minister for that response, but I am not entirely happy with it. The veterans endured the most unimaginable hardships to protect this country during the second world war. Given that many of them are now in their late 80s and early 90s, does the Minister agree that it is imperative to be quick? We need to know when the review will be concluded.

Mr Robathan: We all owe a huge debt to those of our fathers’ and grandfathers’ generation who gave up their youth in the service of this country to keep it and the world free from fascism. In the context of my hon. Friend’s question, that particularly applies to those who endured astonishingly awful conditions in the Arctic, and I pay tribute to them for their courage and resilience.

Medals are not awarded by me, and it is quite right that there is to be an independent review that will not be led by the Ministry of Defence. I share my hon. Friend’s concern, but I can assure her that I am told that it will be a swift review and will take place shortly.

18. [95300] Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD): Does the Minister agree that the review should be open, should consult widely and should be conducted outside the oversight of the MOD?

Mr Robathan: As I have just said, the review is not being led by the MOD. I understand that it will be able to consult widely, and I look forward to seeing the terms of reference and details shortly. It is not being led by the MOD, so it is not up to us to determine exactly when it will happen.

Mr Frank Roy (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab): Who chose those who are on the independent review?

Mr Robathan: I do not know who is on the independent review, because it is not being led by the Ministry of Defence.

Defence Science and Technology

14. Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con): What plans he has for future investment in defence science and technology. [95293]

20 Feb 2012 : Column 600

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Peter Luff): At the beginning of this month, I was pleased to see published our White Paper “National Security Through Technology”, which emphasised the contribution that using, sustaining and developing technology makes to our national security. The Government are therefore prioritising investment in defence science and technology. The White Paper makes clear our intention to end a long period of declining budgets and maintain the Ministry of Defence’s investment in science and technology at a minimum of 1.2% of the defence budget as protection for our future.

Henry Smith: Before asking my supplementary question, I would like to pay tribute to my constituent Corporal Jay Baldwin, who was recently seriously injured while serving in Afghanistan and who is now being treated in the Queen Elizabeth hospital at Edgbaston. I am sure the whole House will join me in sending him and his family our best wishes.

How does the Minister believe that investment in science and technology supports not only our defence industry but our economy and companies such as Thales UK in my constituency?

Peter Luff: I obviously join my hon. Friend in his tribute to his constituent and hope that he makes a rapid and full recovery.

Of course, investment in science and technology is about not just industry but protecting and securing our troops, and I am glad to say that we are having phenomenal success in that regard in Afghanistan. I am glad to tell my hon. Friend that Thales is one of the many companies and trade organisations that welcomed the White Paper when it was published earlier this month. They recognise that investment in science and technology is crucial for their future as successful, enterprising and competitive companies operating here in the UK. Perhaps one of the most exciting recent examples of the importance of that investment was the four-year £40 million future combat air systems focused research contract, which we announced in December. It will generate capability for the future and provide important work for the high-tech advanced manufacturing businesses of the UK.

Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con): What emphasis is the Department placing on the development of unmanned air reconnaissance and attack vehicles? Surely that has to be the future for all three of our armed services.

Peter Luff: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that was a major feature in the UK/French summit that occurred last Friday, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier. The future of the unmanned combat air sector is very important, which was exactly why I highlighted in my earlier answer the contract with BAE Systems. That contract will take forward technology in a number of crucial areas and ensure that our skill base is sustained, maintained and can take advantage of the opportunities that the sector will provide in the future.

Pakistan and Afghanistan

17. Gregg McClymont (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (Lab): What discussions he has had with his NATO counterparts on Pakistan’s involvement in Afghanistan. [95298]

20 Feb 2012 : Column 601

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Hammond): Pakistan is an important player in the regional politics and will play an important role in Afghanistan’s future, so Pakistan’s involvement is routinely discussed during regular talks on regional issues with my NATO counterparts, most recently at the NATO Brussels summit that took place on 2 and 3 February. Lasting stability and security in Afghanistan is, I believe, in Pakistan’s interests. We continue to encourage Pakistan to support the Afghan-led reconciliation process fully, recognising that progress could help pay a peace dividend on both sides of the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.

Gregg McClymont: The Secretary of State will be aware of the history of the Pakistani intelligence services’ role in the emergence of the Taliban. Is he as concerned as I am about recent reports that the Pakistani intelligence services continue to operate inside Afghanistan? Does that have implications for Afghanistan after NATO leaves the country?

Mr Hammond: The hon. Gentleman underlines the fact that Afghanistan and Pakistan are inextricably linked, largely by the big overlap of the Pashtun population in the border areas. We should never forget, as well, that Pakistan has suffered more from terrorism than any other country, with more than 30,000 Pakistanis having lost their lives to acts of terrorism over the past decade. We continue to look carefully at how Pakistan’s security forces and others interact with their Afghan counterparts, and we continue to encourage Pakistan to play a positive and dynamic role in stabilising the area.

Patrick Mercer (Newark) (Con): The Secretary of State will be only too aware of the febrile relationship at the moment between the United States of America and Pakistan—apparent allies. What concerns does he have and what can be done about the safety of Pakistani nuclear sites, which are so close to the Afghan border?

Mr Hammond: Obviously, the safety of Pakistani nuclear missile and nuclear weapon sites is of the utmost importance, not only for regional stability but for counter-terrorist efforts across the world. The Pakistan military regard that as a very high priority, and all the information that I have seen suggests a very high level of security and security assurance around Pakistani nuclear sites.

Aircraft Carrier Programme

19. Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab): What recent assessment he has made of the cost of the UK carrier programme. [95301]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Peter Luff): The overall cost of the Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carrier programme is continually informed by the conversion development phase, which is developing a much greater understanding of the costs and risks involved. We will publish the findings as soon as we can and will keep the House informed in the usual manner.

Nick Smith: May I press the Minister to say what will be the total project cost after converting the carriers for the carrier variant aircraft? If he cannot tell us—and it does not look as though he can—does he recognise that that is a worrying, unfunded liability?

20 Feb 2012 : Column 602

Peter Luff: I am afraid that I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman’s question, because we simply do not know the answer. In answer to the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck), I talked about the possible price implications for the joint strike fighter as a result of the Americans’ decisions in rescheduling their profile. Similarly, we are still doing the work on the precise cost of the conversion. We will report to the House in the usual way. That will be part of the major projects report, so all the normal processes will be followed. I understand the importance of the hon. Gentleman’s question.

Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con): Whatever the cost of the carriers, is not a key argument in their favour that if—God forbid—the Falklands were, despite all our preparations, taken in a surprise attack, it would be essential to have a carrier to regain them? Does not that prompt the question of why we do not have one at the moment?

Peter Luff: I understand my hon. Friend’s concern, and I am aware of the arguments about, for example, the use of carriers off Libya. However, I think that the correct decisions were taken in the strategic defence and security review regarding the Tornado aircraft, which enabled us to fight that war very effectively. I repeat what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said: the Falklands are well protected; we live in a different world; and the suggestion that aircraft carriers play an important part in the Falkland Islands in the near future is unhelpful at this stage.

Topical Questions

T1. [95302] Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab): If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Hammond): My departmental responsibilities are to ensure that our country is properly defended, now and in future, through the delivery of the military tasks for which the MOD is mandated; that our service personnel have the right equipment and training to allow them to succeed in those military tasks; and that we honour our armed forces covenant. It is clear to me that in order to discharge those duties I have a responsibility to ensure that the Department has a properly balanced budget and a force generation strategy and defence equipment programme that are affordable and sustainable in the medium to long term.

Ann McKechin: Ministers have already made reference to last week’s meeting between the Prime Minister and President Sarkozy, where they agreed to move on to the procurement phase on the unmanned aerial vehicle project. How many new jobs does the Secretary of State estimate will be created in the UK as a result of this agreement, and how will he maximise the potential for job growth?

Mr Hammond: The announcement made at the summit last week was to advance the assessment phase of the unmanned aerial vehicle project, which involves £44 million of expenditure split between British Aerospace and Dassault. I cannot give the hon. Lady an exact estimate

20 Feb 2012 : Column 603

of the number of jobs that that will create in BAE, but I am happy to write to her to give her the best estimate I can.

T3. [95306] Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con): Can the Secretary of State update the House on progress made at the recent Anglo-French summit—if any?

Mr Hammond: The Anglo-French summit consisted of two separate parts. First, there was a defence meeting where we were able to have direct discussions with my counterpart in France and talk about all the joint procurement programmes and opportunities that we see for collaborating together in future—for example, in the combined joint expeditionary force—and for procuring together as both defence budgets come under financial pressure. The broader summit conducted between the President and the Prime Minister reasserted at the highest level the desire of the two countries to work together in areas such as nuclear collaboration and the unmanned aerial programme.

Mr Jim Murphy (East Renfrewshire) (Lab): Owing to the nature of this question, I will ask it gently. Forces children receive a service pupil premium, but it has recently come to light that a child who is orphaned due to the bravery of their parent in combat loses that payment. I welcome the fact that the Government say they will act upon that, but have they now implemented the change? How many children receive the premium? Can the Minister guarantee that no child will lose the premium as a result of a seriously injured parent being discharged from Her Majesty’s forces?

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan): This is an important issue and the Government were concerned about what we read. However, it must be understood that the premium is given to schools, not to children, to compensate for the way in which armed forces children move around. We have instigated scholarships for the children of casualties in Afghanistan so that they can go into higher education. The pupil premium is a Department for Education responsibility, but Defence Ministers are concerned and we wish to ensure that nobody is disadvantaged. The Department for Education is looking at the matter. We certainly do not wash our hands of it and we are concerned, but the right hon. Gentleman will understand that once a child is settled in a school, the need for a premium is somewhat changed.

T4. [95307] Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con): Having served with the present commander of British forces in the Falklands, I think the Argentines would be very foolish even to contemplate any sort of military intervention, but does the Secretary of State agree that a strong statement of support from the United States would be helpful?

Mr Philip Hammond: Clearly, strong statements of support from any of our allies are always helpful, but the realistic situation, which we have long recognised in this country, is that the defence of the Falkland Islands is a task for which the UK must be prepared and

20 Feb 2012 : Column 604

capable of undertaking alone if necessary. We hope that we will have support from others, but that cannot be our planning scenario.

T6. [95309] Mr Stephen Hepburn (Jarrow) (Lab): What is the current position concerning the aircraft carrier project? Has there been any change in strategy as far as the design and build are concerned?

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Peter Luff): I think I can give a very short answer to that question: no.

T5. [95308] Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con): I welcome my right hon. Friend’s decision to purchase the new C-17 aircraft for the Royal Air Force. Is that not evidence of the benefits of tackling the Ministry of Defence budget, which is vital to securing the future effectiveness of our armed forces?

Mr Philip Hammond: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. In fact, the acquisition of the eighth C-17 aircraft was an extremely high priority for the military. It reinforces the Afghanistan air bridge at a time when the ground lines of communication through Pakistan are closed.

The purchase was possible because the MOD is moving forward with the process of delivering a credible and sustainable budget with which Treasury officials are comfortable. Trust between the Treasury and the MOD has been the crucial missing ingredient in the past, and rebuilding it has allowed the Treasury to sign off the acquisition of the new aircraft from an in-year underspend. The Treasury would traditionally have been very reluctant to do so without seeing MOD hard numbers for the following year.

T7. [95310] Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab): I thank the Minister for his reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy) on the service premium. However, was the Secretary of State aware that extra support would be cut off if a serving parent died in the service of their country before it was disclosed in The Sun and other newspapers, which pressured the Government into a U-turn?

Mr Robathan: The hon. Gentleman also raises that important point. The truth is that that is a Department for Education responsibility. Let us remember that this Government introduced the pupil premium, and it is therefore new, but it would be fair to say that we in the Ministry of Defence had not appreciated that this might happen. The Department for Education is looking to ameliorate any problems, but let us remember that the pupil premium is about the transience of service children attending schools—[ Interruption. ] Well, that is why we introduced it. Circumstances change when a child is settled, but we do not wish them to be disadvantaged.

Mr Charles Kennedy (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (LD): Is the Ministry of Defence able to offer the longer term reassurance, of the type that it gave last July for the MOD bases in South Uist and St Kilda, for the Sound of Raasay, Rona and the Kyle of Lochalsh bases in my constituency, not least because in the last couple of weeks QinetiQ, the operator, has published half-year profits that were up—commendably—by 45%?

20 Feb 2012 : Column 605

Mr Philip Hammond: As my right hon. Friend will know, the whole issue of bases is currently under review. The Army is undertaking a large rebasing exercise in conjunction with the new Defence Infrastructure Organisation, and I hope to be in a position to make an announcement to the House in the not too distant future.

T8. [95311] Eric Joyce (Falkirk) (Lab): The Minister with responsibility for veterans will be aware of the call by the shadow Secretary of State for a £1 million legacy veterans fund, to be funded by cuts at the top end. The Minister is well known to be a commonsensical man: will he stand up and say that he agrees with my right hon. Friend?

Mr Robathan: I always accept compliments, from whatever surprising quarters they come. I was not aware of the £1 million veterans fund suggestion, but I will look into it when I have heard from the shadow Secretary of State.

Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con): The Secretary of State’s excellent decision to deploy an anti-air warfare Type 45 destroyer to the Falklands certainly ensures that the islands are protected against aerial attack. That still leaves the danger of surface attack. In the absence of aircraft carriers, can my right hon. Friend confirm that a nuclear-powered submarine is available to protect our warship and the sea lanes approaching the Falklands?

Mr Philip Hammond: First, I should make it clear that the deployment of HMS Dauntless to the south Atlantic is a routine deployment and she will rotate with other vessels of the fleet in due course. Secondly, as I suspect my hon. Friend knows, we never comment on the deployment of our submarines of any description. As he has raised the issue, I will take the opportunity to make one thing clear. There has been some speculation in the press and by Argentine Ministers about the deployment of nuclear weapons to the south Atlantic. The United Kingdom has a clear and publicly stated policy that we will neither use nor threaten to use our nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state that is a compliant member of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, so the Argentine republic need have nothing to fear on that count.

Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab): The Government have willed an end-date for combat operations in Afghanistan, but not yet an endgame for how we disengage militarily. Can the Secretary of State give an assurance that the sacrifice and outstanding efforts of those who have served and continue to serve in Afghanistan will be underpinned by a departure that is properly planned, co-ordinated and commensurate with conditions on the ground?

The Minister for the Armed Forces (Nick Harvey): The ISAF strategy for transition in Afghanistan has been worked up in detail and continues work that the previous Government had started before we took office. The strategy is clear—it is a progressive transition to an Afghan security lead, which is taking place area by area throughout Afghanistan. It is proceeding well and on a time line that gives every indication that we can make the withdrawal from the combat role at the date that we

20 Feb 2012 : Column 606

have suggested. Obviously, the precise speed and order of events depend on circumstances on the ground, but the direction of travel is clear. All international elements are signed up to it and it is progressing well.

Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con): I welcome the review of the awarding of medals, but will it also look at the service of police officers who have served with distinction on the police training mission in both Iraq and Afghanistan?

Mr Robathan: The review is of military medals. I believe that those police officers who serve are entitled to campaign medals. I am sure that they can make representations, but as they already receive those medals, I do not think that it will affect them. I am not responsible for the terms of reference.

John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab): Further to Question 6, what structures exist to allow concerns about the biggest Army cuts of all time to be raised further up the chain? I am thinking of the sorts of concerns raised earlier by hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Mr Philip Hammond: I and my colleagues are asking ourselves, “What’s he talking about?” I’m not quite sure what the hon. Gentleman is referring to. Is he talking about whether the Army is top-heavy? [Interruption.] I am at a loss to know exactly what he is talking about, but we intend to reduce numbers in the senior ranks of the Army in order to address the disproportion there.

Mr Speaker: I think that arrangements can be made for a conversation outside the Chamber, possibly over a cup of tea—who knows?—if the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer) is lucky.

Jessica Lee (Erewash) (Con): I welcome the forthcoming review of the awarding of military medals and I thank my right hon. Friend for his recent correspondence regarding the survivors of the 1940 Lancastria disaster and their campaign for a medal, but may I press him for further details on the timing and remit of this important and timely review?

Mr Robathan: It should happen speedily. The problem is that this is a responsibility across Government and led, I believe, by the Cabinet Office. We want it announced swiftly and we want it to take place swiftly so that we can understand the rules. I am sorry that I can only give this answer, but I think that everyone will be glad to know that I am not responsible for it.

Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab): When members of the armed forces are facing a two-year pay freeze and 20,000 are losing their jobs, how can the Secretary of State justify bonuses, some of five figures, to senior officers in the MOD civil service?

Mr Philip Hammond: I think we have covered this one already. The arrangements for performance-related pay were put in place by the previous Government and were a decision taken by them with which I concurred entirely. It is the right way to incentivise senior civil

20 Feb 2012 : Column 607

servants. By paying non-consolidated performance-related pay, we reduce the total cost to the Department. The scheme was introduced in lieu of pay increases.

Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con): What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the impact of reported collusion between the Taliban and Pakistan on our troops serving in the region?

Mr Hammond: The situation on the Afghan-Pakistan border is extremely complex, as my hon. Friend will know. As I said, the Government’s position remains that we repeat continually to the Pakistanis that it is in their interest to engage with the peace process and the reconciliation talks, and to ensure long-term stability in the region.

Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab): What precise act of brilliance justifies the payment of an £85,000 bonus to one of the Secretary of State’s civil servants? Will the Secretary of State make a bid for his own bonus for today becoming the first Minister to stop blaming the previous Government for all his problems, and tell the House on what precise date the coalition Government will take responsibility for their own conduct?

20 Feb 2012 : Column 608

Mr Hammond: The hon. Gentleman might not have heard my previous answer when I stated the fact that this contractual, performance-related pay system was put in place by the previous Government. I happen to approve of it; I consider it the right way forward. If he wants to ask about the details of its design and why it was done the way it was, perhaps he should ask the right hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy) or one of his many right hon. Friends who served in the previous Government as Secretary of State for Defence.

Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con): RAF Fylingdales and RAF Staxton perform key duties as listening and radar stations. There is concern locally about the impact of wind farms on them. May we have a rejection of any wind farm applications on the grounds that they will interfere with the RAF’s work?

Peter Luff: I am not sure whether this will be good news or bad news for my hon. Friend, but we are making increasing strides towards finding radar systems that do not interfere with RAF operations, so this particular obstacle to wind farm applications is diminishing. That is probably not the news that she wanted, but it happens to be the truth.

20 Feb 2012 : Column 609

Office for Fair Access

3.34 pm

Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con) (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills if he will make a statement on the appointment of director of the Office for Fair Access.

The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Vince Cable): I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and for giving me the opportunity to tell the House why the Government think that Professor Ebdon is the right candidate for the post of director of fair access. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Universities and Science would happily have been here to respond, but he is currently in Antarctica.

First, I would like to pay tribute to the work of the current director, Sir Martin Harris. Sir Martin has been the director of fair access since the post was created in 2004. Under his leadership, universities have committed themselves to a 50% increase in spend on access by 2015-16. In recruiting Sir Martin’s replacement, we were looking for someone who could build on that achievement. There is much that remains to be done. Progress over the last few years in securing fair access to the most selective universities remains limited. Only around 50 pupils out of the 80,000 on free school meals currently make it to Oxbridge. All parts of the education sector need to work together to ensure that all with the potential to succeed are identified and nurtured.

We conducted the search for a replacement for Martin Harris in a fair, competitive and transparent way. Professor Ebdon has considerable experience. He is a prize-winning analytical chemist with a PhD from Imperial, and he transformed the finances and the quality of his own university for the better. We undertook two long, thorough searches to ensure that we found the right candidate for the post. I have no doubt that Professor Ebdon has the qualities and determination to help students from low-income and under-represented groups to secure the places in higher education that their attainments and potential show they deserve.

Following receipt of the Select Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills report, which raised questions about Professor Ebdon’s presentation skills, Ministers considered carefully whether the report presented any new, relevant facts about the candidate’s suitability for the post. As the Chair of the Select Committee—I think he is here now—has said today:

“It is clear that both Vince Cable and David Willetts feel Professor Ebdon is the right man for the job.”

He has also said today:

“The committee’s report was advisory only; the secretary of state was under no obligation to follow our recommendations.

I am pleased to note that both Mr Cable and Professor Ebdon have taken the committee’s concerns seriously and strongly agree that Professor Ebdon should appear before the committee at regular intervals,”

as he will. After due consideration, I have decided to proceed with the appointment.

20 Feb 2012 : Column 610

Mr Clappison: Let me make it clear that, in the questions that I want to ask, I in no way want to express any disrespect for Professor Ebdon, who is an academic of great distinction. However, there are questions to be answered.

I think the Secretary of State has rather tiptoed around the question of the Select Committee’s approach, because my understanding is that the Committee did not express confidence in Professor Ebdon and suggested that the advertising process—indeed, the whole process—be reopened with a view to appointing a different candidate as the director of OFFA. Is the Secretary of State aware that this is only the second time that a Select Committee has been overruled in this way? The first such occasion did not set a particularly happy precedent. What effect does he think his decision will have on the authority and standing of Select Committees of this House, and on the confirmation processes that they carry out? Although he may technically have the power to overrule the Select Committee, is it not deeply unsatisfactory for him to have done so with this appointment?

What confidence can students, universities and parents have in this appointee if the Select Committee does not have confidence in him? What confidence can the public have in the appointment, when the Select Committee says in its conclusion that

“we were not convinced by Professor Ebdon’s descriptions of the root causes of the obstacles to accessing universities”—

something that is rather more fundamental than the presentational skills to which the Secretary of State referred?

Would not the implementation of the views expressed by Professor Ebdon, to the Select Committee and elsewhere, have serious consequences for the achievement of high standards in our universities? How can the Secretary of State say that he believes in the principles of university autonomy and admissions on merit when his appointee says that he is prepared to threaten universities with what he chose to describe as the “nuclear option” of fines and deprivation if they do not meet his centrally decreed targets?

Finally, may I gently remind the Secretary of State, and his Liberal Democrat colleagues who are here today, of what he and they promised in their 2010 manifesto, when they said that they would

“Strengthen the House of Commons to increase accountability,”


“increase Parliamentary scrutiny…of government appointments”?

How does he square what he has done in this case with that promise? Or is it the case that his hands were tied by the coalition and he has been forced to carry out this process?

Vince Cable: I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s positive and generous introductory comments about Professor Ebdon, which were absolutely right. I also congratulate him on a report that he and three of his colleagues produced this morning, entitled “Achieving Fair Access: Removing Barriers, Realising Potential”. I agree with much of it. We are all concerned with the same objectives; the issue is one of how this should be done and the balance between the responsibilities of universities and those of schools, but we have much in common in terms of what we are trying to achieve.

20 Feb 2012 : Column 611

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the authority of the Select Committee, whose Chairman I have quoted. The hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison) is right to say that we must treat Select Committees with respect, and we do so. The obligation on me, as Secretary of State, was to establish whether any new evidence had emerged from the hearings, and I found that none had. Had the report been unanimous and based on cross-party consensus, we might have responded differently to it, but it was not.

The hon. Gentleman has been very eloquent on this subject, and I know that he is anxious that we should not introduce prescriptive quotas for admission to universities. That is his primary concern. Let me be clear that that is not Government policy and it is not the policy of OFFA. The independence of universities in regard to admissions is enshrined in law, and Professor Ebdon has gone firmly on record as saying that he will respect the diversity of the sector and its institutional autonomy.

Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab): Let me start by congratulating the Business Secretary on securing his preferred appointment to this post. We have no objection to it. We have other concerns, however. Notwithstanding the support of the Minister in Antarctica, the distinct impression has been given that this appointment has been secured as part of some trade-off in the ongoing turf war in Government over higher education policy. Is that the case? It has been well briefed that the Education Secretary is thoroughly opposed to this appointment and, indeed, to the Business Secretary’s continued responsibility for our universities. The sector needs certainty in order to plan, and this turf war is deeply unhelpful. We are firmly of the view that higher education policy should remain the responsibility of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. What assurances can he give us that that will remain the case?

Mr Ebdon has served the universities sector very well for more than 40 years. He knows a thing or two about the higher education sector; some might say that he knows considerably more than many of his critics on the Conservative Benches. Does the Business Secretary agree that the opprobrium heaped on Mr Ebdon by Conservative Members will do nothing to encourage others to come forward and take up high-profile public positions of this sort?

Finally, does the Business Secretary agree that we should not lose sight of the purpose of this appointment? The Office for Fair Access was set up to promote and safeguard fair access to higher education for lower income and other under-represented groups. What are the right hon. Gentleman’s achievements to date in increasing access? He has trebled tuition fees, overseen a cut in student places of 15,000 and presided over a 7.4% drop in university applications this year compared with last year. The appointment of Mr Ebdon today does not alter those salient facts.

Vince Cable: On the hon. Gentleman’s first, rather desperate, point about turf wars, let me make it absolutely clear that this is a Government appointment that is supported by all my colleagues, and that responsibilities for higher education will remain exactly as they are. On his more general point about access, I am sure that he will have been following the recent evidence on UCAS

20 Feb 2012 : Column 612

admissions. Contrary to the Opposition’s predictions of doom and gloom, applications from low-income students have been almost wholly unaffected by the changes in the financing arrangements. This owes a great deal not just to the outreach work—particularly that led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes)—but to the very generous provisions that have been put in place for scholarships and other support for low-income families. Access to universities has been considerably enhanced as a result of these changes and not in any way diminished.

Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con): I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has dropped the plan to charge students interest on early repayment of their loans. Does he accept, however, the overwhelming evidence set out in the report today showing that skewed access to our top universities is the result not of a failure of admissions policy but of a lack of adequate preparation in our secondary schools?

Vince Cable: I should congratulate the hon. Gentleman as a co-author of this very good report on fair access—on removing barriers and realising potential. I repeat that I agree with much of what it says. The problem that the authors of the report have produced is, I think, the creation of an artificial binary distinction by claiming that access to universities is entirely an issue of schools’ policies as opposed to the admissions policies of universities. Clearly, there is an element of both, and a great deal needs to be done to raise performance levels in schools, as the hon. Gentleman and his co-authors have argued, but equally there is an obligation on universities, as this excellent report says, to help raise aspirations by improving the quality of choices of A-level subjects and making other such advances.

Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op): The Secretary of State is correct to say that issues arising from Professor Ebdon’s interview were raised in the Select Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills, and those issues will have been raised with him. However, the clear political dividing line in the subsequent voting demonstrates that a political perspective was involved in the final decision. I think that is regrettable; it is the first time my Committee has ever produced a report that was not founded on a unanimous, consensual basis. Will the Secretary of State assure me that, contrary to the press speculation, there was not some sort of back-room deal to offset an allowance for early repayment of tuition fees in return for ratifying this appointment?

Vince Cable: I thank the Chairman of the Select Committee for his role: he has made his own views clear while protecting the integrity of his Committee, which is his duty in Parliament. As far as this so-called deal is concerned, there is no such deal. We have made it clear for some time that we intended to listen to the results of the consultation on prepayment. This consultation was absolutely clear that this was not an attractive way forward, so we have pursued other ways of assuming a fair and progressive system of graduate contributions.

Mr Charles Kennedy (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (LD): I welcome my right hon. Friend’s decision, the reasoning behind it and the appointment. On the last point that he dealt with—the so-called back-room deal—there will

20 Feb 2012 : Column 613

be considerable reassurance politically, but also among the academic and would-be student community, from the statement he has made. Will he emphasise again that the spin and speculation we have seen in the media over the past few days to that effect are no more than just spin and speculation, and that there is no substance to them at all?

Vince Cable: Yes, I can give my right hon. Friend absolute assurance on that score. I would like to pay tribute to him for the work he has done on universities, particularly on promoting fair access, for many years.

Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab): Before he went off to the south pole, did the Universities Minister say, “I’m just going out. I may be some time”? Will the Secretary of State give us an absolute assurance that no Minister communicated with any Conservative member of the Select Committee in an attempt to influence the ratification of this appointment?

Vince Cable: It would have been quite improper to have done so. To the best of my knowledge, that has certainly not happened. The decision is a Government decision, and we all stand behind it.

Mr Brian Binley (Northampton South) (Con): I am sure that you would want me to reassure you, Mr Speaker, that no plot whatsoever—preordained or otherwise—was organised within the Select Committee, causing it to reach the decision that it reached, by Conservative Members. However, given that the Committee was unable to endorse Professor Ebdon’s appointment and instead called for a new recruitment exercise, is it not deeply regrettable that Ministers have been so unwilling to engage with its concerns? Does this exercise not prompt serious questions about Ministers’ approach to higher education, especially as training appears to have been given more priority than the views of Parliament?

Vince Cable: I would never accuse the hon. Gentleman of plotting. I know that he is a totally straightforward and much respected colleague. I will say, however, that what we have engaged with is a very thorough process. We went through two rounds of applications in order to attract a high-quality applicant for this important post, and Professor Ebdon and the other two gentlemen who made the final shortlist were regarded as eminently appointable by independents on a completely non-political basis.

Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab): As the Secretary of State will know, I concurred with his decision about the appointment. Does he share my concern about the apparently organised campaign of vilification against Professor Ebdon in the Tory media, many of whose members are friends of the Secretary of State for Education? Will he also tell me how the Secretary of State for Education will help the professor in his new role?

Vince Cable: The one aspect of the so-called campaign of vilification that does concern me is that slights have been cast on the reputation of Professor Ebdon’s university, which is in fact excellent. Here are some of the key facts: 90% of the university’s graduates are engaged in

20 Feb 2012 : Column 614

work or further study within six months; last year it was given one of the Queen’s Awards for Enterprise; it was given top quality assurance in the most recent audit; and, in the most recent research assessment exercise, it was complimented on its world-class research. Those are the things that we should remember about Professor Ebdon’s achievements in his existing university.

Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con): Six months ago, it was my pleasure to present Professor Ebdon with a lifetime achievement award. I think that some of my hon. Friends may have wished that that had been the end of his career.

Is it not true that Professor Ebdon has brought analytical rigour to all the tasks that he has undertaken, that he has over 40 years of experience in the sector, and that if we continue to heap public opprobrium on people who step forward to serve their country—as was the case with Stephen Hester, and as has been the case with Professor Ebdon in the press—fewer people will step forward to give our country that help?

Vince Cable: I consider that to be a very fair and generous assessment of Professor Ebdon by, I believe, the local Member of Parliament.

Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab): I congratulate the Secretary of State on his statement, on behalf of, I believe, the majority of members of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee. Will he, however, answer the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan)? Can he give a categorical assurance that no pressure was brought to bear on Conservative members of the Committee in the ambush of Professor Ebdon at the pre-confirmation hearing?

Vince Cable: I have already answered that question. I have explained very clearly that the decision was made jointly by me and my coalition colleague, the Universities Minister. No pressure was brought to bear on us; we made a decision on the merits of the case.

Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con): It comes as no surprise that the Secretary of State wants to appoint someone who is moving the agenda of social engineering forward and the agenda of merit backward, but just so that we can sort out the wheat from the chaff on the Back Benches, will he be specific about which Ministers in his Department were in favour of the appointment and which were against it, and about how many Ministers in the Government contacted him privately to express their concerns about it?

Vince Cable: I have just answered that question. The Universities Minister and I were involved in the decision, and it was made by us and by no one else. As for the general political drift of the hon. Gentleman’s question, I think it fair to point out—as some of the national newspapers did not—that among the institutions that Professor Ebdon has advised on higher education policy is the Conservative party.

Mr Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab) rose—[Interruption.]

20 Feb 2012 : Column 615

Mr Speaker: Order. I want to hear from the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron) and I hope that that House will be courteous enough to allow me to do so.

Mr Barron: When a Select Committee reaches a conclusion on an overtly party political basis, it is easy for the Executive to ignore it, and the Committee should not be used in this way. Is the Secretary of State concerned that people seeking such appointments in the future will not want to put themselves through the machine that has been set against Les Ebdon in the past few months, in the media and elsewhere, and that we will end up with a second XI batting for Britain, not a first XI?

Vince Cable: This is a first-class appointment, which was arrived at in a proper, open and fair manner. As I said, I welcome the role that the Select Committee plays; I used to serve on the Treasury Committee, and the critical reviews it gave the members of the Monetary Policy Committee were very valuable. Critical comments have been made in this case, they have been addressed by Professor Ebdon and by me, and he will therefore come before the Select Committee on a regular basis to report. I think that the Select Committee scrutiny process has been very valuable.

Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD): I have the privilege of representing three excellent universities. Clearly, the head of OFFA has a lot of work to do to balance improved access and high standards. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that Professor Ebdon will get full governmental support in his role, particularly from the Department for Education, because far too many pupils, particularly those from black and ethnic minority backgrounds and those who receive free school meals, are still not given the chance to reach their full potential while they are at school?

Vince Cable: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to stress that the origins of the access problem and the lack of fair access are frequently found in the schools—I think that that was the point of the original question—not just in university admissions. It is important to pay tribute to the reforms that my colleague the Secretary of State for Education is making, in terms of improving standards and the introduction of the pupil premium, for which my hon. Friend and I have campaigned. It will undoubtedly raise standards in schools.

Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab): I congratulate the Secretary of State on sticking to his guns, but what message does he think this political football chaos and this confusion about this appointment sends to prospective students and their families?

Vince Cable: I think it sends a very positive message that public appointments are open to scrutiny and that the best person gets the job.

Mr Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (Con): On 19 October 2009, the then Conservative Opposition obtained an urgent question following the decision by a Labour Minister to appoint the Children’s Commissioner in defiance of the relevant Select Committee. In April 2010, the Liberal Democrats published a manifesto

20 Feb 2012 : Column 616

which stated, on page 88, that they would give Parliament power to approve Government appointments. Why has the Minister failed to respect the views of the legislature on this occasion when he had promised to do so?

Vince Cable: Both the Chairman of the Select Committee and I have already answered the hon. Gentleman’s question. We treat the Select Committee’s report and the legislature with respect. Criticisms have been made and they will be addressed through the Select Committee. This is a good process and we will continue to uphold it.

Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab): Between 2006 and 2010, five students only from Wrexham were admitted to Oxford university—regrettably, there was no right of appeal to the Select Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills. Does the Secretary of State agree that admission by interview prevents transparent consideration of admissions criteria and of the effect of those criteria?

Vince Cable: I do not want to get into criticising universities. I have already made it very clear that they are independent bodies responsible for their own admissions policies. The access agreements that they sign will improve access—that is why those agreements are in place and that is what Professor Ebdon is there to do. I do not, as a Minister, want to lecture universities on how they admit particular students.

Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con): After 50 years of comprehensive education, why do we have this tragedy that only 50 pupils receiving free school meals are getting into the top universities? How are we going to solve this? The Secretary of State says that he is not going to dumb down standards. Is it not a fact that the era of the greatest social mobility—the most opportunities for poor people—was when there was a grammar school in every town?

Mr Speaker: In answering, the Secretary of State will want to focus on the appointment of the director of the Office for Fair Access.

Vince Cable: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that I have no intention of dumbing down standards. The access agreements that are being reached through OFFA and which will be implemented by Professor Ebdon will not dumb down standards either.

Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab): As a member of the Select Committee who attended the hearings and was aware that all the Conservative members attended for the full meeting and made the strongest possible representations opposing the appointment, may I ask the Secretary of State whether he was aware before the Committee met that it was likely that Conservative MPs were going to try to block the appointment?

Vince Cable: No, I was not, and it is not appropriate for me to investigate how the Select Committee came to its conclusions. I have already responded to it, and its Chairman, in a very proper way, has set out how it operates.

Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con): It is notable that, in defiance of the Select Committee, there have been no comments about why a minority report was not produced

20 Feb 2012 : Column 617

in the event that some people did not concur with the findings of the Select Committee. I therefore suggest that, by ignoring the Select Committee, we are doing a disservice to those Members who spent time considering the representations to the Committee. May I urge the Secretary of State to give the House an assurance that we will not allow the nuclear option to discriminate against pupils from high-achieving schools such as mine in St Albans?

Vince Cable: I have already made it clear that there is no question of discriminating against people with ability. My constituency has two of the most successful independent schools in the country. I fully support their activities, and frequently visit them and work with them, so there is no question whatever of discrimination. Access is a much broader concept: it is helping people to realise their potential, and what can possibly be wrong with that?

Gregg McClymont (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (Lab): As someone who spent several years as an admissions tutor in one of our leading universities, may I tell the Secretary of State that it is difficult to make judgments on the merits of individual applicants? Contextual data are absolutely critical in trying to achieve a fair admissions process, so will he endorse their use?

Vince Cable: Contextual data are already used by universities, including both Oxbridge universities, as a useful aid to establishing someone’s potential, but it is not the Government’s job to prescribe particular systems of admission, and we have no intention of going down that road.

Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con): May I join my right hon. Friend in paying tribute to our colleagues who, in the fair access report, have drawn attention to the need for aspiration, attainment and eligibility while preserving autonomy and excellence? Will he work with the Department for Education so that what Michael Rutter discovered in the 15,000 hours study—and with the 70,000 hours that people spent outside school in preparation for university or college—will make it less necessary to have any kind of OFFA in future? In time, the Secretary of State should seek the abolition of the office, so that people can, on merit, grow up and, on merit, be considered by universities and colleges.

Vince Cable: I am among the people who paid tribute to that report, and I acknowledge that there is a lot of good material in it. One of the things that it emphasised was the importance of helping with aspirations in schools, changing the expectation that many people have that they have no prospect of going to university, and working at the level of individual schools. I think we will continue to see OFFA concentrating on that, and not on penalties of various kinds, about which some hon. Members appear to be concerned.

Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD): Given that both coalition parties are committed to improving social mobility and that the Office for Fair Access is increasingly important as an agent for doing that, is it not right that the director should be qualified,

20 Feb 2012 : Column 618

determined and tough? Professor Ebdon, like Sir Martin Harris, amply fulfils that requirement, and will be an excellent leader to change what universities so far have sometimes failed sufficiently to do.

Vince Cable: Yes, that is a very good summary of the conclusions that the Minister for Universities and Science and I reached after interviewing Professor Ebdon and the other candidates.

Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab): What message does the open political split in the Government send to universities, given their responsibility to provide the reality of fair access to all our youngsters?

Vince Cable: I think that universities will be greatly reassured that they have an excellent man to lead OFFA in future, as Sir Martin Harris has done in the past. It has been a good process, we have a good outcome, and universities have absolutely nothing to be afraid of.

Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con): As someone who once conducted interviews of undergraduates at Oxford, my experience is that Oxford was a university that admits on merit, rather than considering the background of candidates, and was always looking for ways to widen access. Oxford spends double the sector average on financial support for lowest income students, but given concerns expressed today about Professor Ebdon’s appointment, does the Secretary of State agree that decisions about admissions to universities must remain the ultimate decision of those universities, as they are best placed to make that judgment?

Vince Cable: Yes, of course I agree, and I repeat what I have said several times in the past. Indeed, the ultimate assurance that the hon. Lady has are the terms of the legislation under which OFFA operates, the Higher Education Act 2004, which said that the director of OFFA

“has a duty to protect academic freedom”,

including determining

“the criteria for the admission of students”.

That is absolute.

Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con): May I press the Secretary of State on whether he agrees that the quota policy espoused by Professor Ebdon puts the cart before the horse, and whether we should be pushing schools to produce better students, rather than tempering our universities’ freedom to choose students on merit? Otherwise both students and universities will ultimately suffer.

Vince Cable: As far as I am aware, Professor Ebdon has never advocated the use of quotas. He is certainly not on record to that effect.

Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con): This is a case of Parliament v. the Executive. On only two occasions have Select Committees not endorsed a senior appointment, one of which was under Labour. When we were in opposition, we created merry hell about it and said that the Executive were ignoring Parliament. What is different this time?

Vince Cable: What is different is that the Executive are not ignoring Parliament. We are aware of the criticisms that were made of Professor Ebdon’s interview and we

20 Feb 2012 : Column 619

have asked him to appear on a regular basis before the Select Committee to demonstrate that he has its full confidence. That is what is different.

Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD): Over the past few days there has been an enormous amount of media hype of the issue and some hyperbolic language, “social engineering” being one of the terms used. To get down to some facts, more than 20 Oxbridge colleges made no offers to black students for undergraduate courses in 2009, with one college not having admitted a single black student for five years. Meanwhile, four elite independent schools have sent more pupils to Oxbridge than 2,000 state schools. Would the Secretary of State—

Mr Speaker: Order. May I very gently say to the hon. Gentleman that there is a lot to get through, so I feel sure he will reach a question mark before very long?

Stephen Lloyd: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the new director of fair access will have sufficient resources to make a real difference to this deplorable record?

Vince Cable: Yes, he will. He has been given additional resources in order to do his job properly. The issue on which my hon. Friend focuses, under-representation of at least some ethnic groups, is a particular focus of the letter that I, together with the Universities Minister, sent to the previous director as something that he should work on.

Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con): Given that the Secretary of State feels that it is his role to intervene in these matters, will he tell us how many pupils who qualify for free school meals should be going to Oxbridge by the end of Professor Ebdon’s tenure? If that number is not reached, will he intervene yet again on Professor Ebdon?

Vince Cable: I have not intervened beyond making the appointment, and Professor Ebdon has clear terms of reference. But since the hon. Gentleman has set out a standard, let me remind him and other colleagues of the current position. Pupils from independent schools are 55 times more likely to go to Oxbridge than children with free school meals. That is the imbalance that we are trying to address.

Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con): Does the Secretary of State agree that the brightest pupils from the poorest backgrounds would be far better off if, regardless of who its director is, the Office for Fair Access, which as far as I can see is no more than an expensive and unnecessary quango that is engaged in social engineering, was scrapped and the money used to support directly the outreach programmes of our top universities?

Vince Cable: Actually, one of the main purposes of OFFA will be to promote those outreach programmes and to draw from the lessons and experience of different outreach programmes, which as far as I am aware have not been systematically evaluated. That will be one of Professor Ebdon’s tasks.

20 Feb 2012 : Column 620

Stephen Williams (Bristol West) (LD): Fair access, particularly to research-intensive universities, is of paramount importance, because it is from that body that the media, the professions, and membership of this House are drawn. In the four and a half years that I shadowed higher education for the Liberal Democrats in the last Parliament, I met more than 100 vice-chancellors, and Les Ebdon sticks in my mind as someone who is passionately committed to the agenda of widening participation and fair access in particular. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the appointment, and I hope that he will give Professor Ebdon all the support that he will need for the very important job that lies ahead.

Vince Cable: Yes, indeed. Despite the considerable cuts that the Government have had to make as part of fiscal consolidation, we have made commitments to increase the resources available to OFFA and substantially to increase the scholarship programme, of which my hon. Friend is aware and, I think, was one of the architects.

Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con): Only 50% of comprehensive school sixth forms offer further maths, which is a requirement to study maths and physics at most of the top universities. I am very concerned that we are getting a mismatch between what students are able to do and what universities are able to offer. What specific steps will the Secretary of State and OFFA take to ensure that there is more availability of this important subject in schools so that our students can go on to study maths and science?

Vince Cable: The hon. Lady is quite right that that is one of the major problems. As I recall, under the last Government, a report was commissioned by the Department for Education and Skills from Professor Smith, which looked specifically at mathematics teaching in schools, as a result of which I think that there has been a significant increase in the recruitment of maths teachers and the level at which maths is now taught.

Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con): Will the Secretary of State consider establishing an advisory body for OFFA so that a range of opinions can be considered?

Vince Cable: Yes, we will do that. As I understand it, this does not require legislation, and we are looking at the feasibility of doing that and how to get the best advantage from it.

Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con): Given that explaining the Government’s new access arrangements and the new tuition fee regime is a complicated task at best, why is the Secretary of State prepared to appoint somebody who has doubtful presentation skills?

Vince Cable: He may well have had doubtful presentation skills on this particular occasion, but he is the spokesman for a substantial group of universities, million+, and I do not think that that undermines his ability to present his case.

Several hon. Members rose

Mr Speaker: Order. I am grateful to the Secretary of State and to colleagues.

20 Feb 2012 : Column 621

UK Border Agency

4.12 pm

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May): With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on border security. In November last year, it became apparent that certain border security checks had been suspended without ministerial approval. As a result, the head of the UK Border Force was suspended with immediate effect, full controls were reinstated, and I commissioned John Vine, the independent chief inspector of the UK Border Agency, to report on what had happened. Today, I have laid the report before the House and copies will be available from the Vote Office.

The Vine report reveals that security checks carried out at the border have been suspended regularly and applied inconsistently since at least 2007. In June of that year, Ministers accepted a policy that allowed the limited suspension of warnings index checks on certain health and safety grounds, but the Vine report found that those checks were suspended on many occasions for other reasons.

In July 2008, Ministers approved the relaxation of warnings index checks for school coach parties at specified French ports, but the Vine report found that the Border Force had waived checks for other passenger groups over and above what had been approved by Ministers. The report also uncovered evidence that, between 2007 and 2011, warnings index checks were not carried out on European economic area nationals travelling to the UK on Eurostar services from a number of French resorts. This is likely to have resulted in 500,000 EEA nationals not being checked against the warnings index. To put those numbers into context, around 100 million passengers enter the UK each year. These Eurostar passengers are judged to be low risk and they still had their passports checked, but the fact remains that these suspensions were completely unauthorised and that is simply not acceptable.

The Vine report is clear that the risk to the border needs to be kept in perspective. No one was waved through, everyone had their passports checked, and warnings index checks were almost always carried out so that those who had previously come to the attention of the authorities would still be identified and refused entry. Quite reasonably, Ministers in the previous Government gave permission for warnings index checks to be suspended in limited circumstances, but the report shows that the Border Force went much further, suspending those checks in unauthorised circumstances and abandoning them entirely for some passengers. The report is clear that that happened without the authorisation of Ministers in either this or the previous Government.

The report also makes it clear that the suspension of checks of which I informed the House in November occurred without ministerial approval. I have just described the suspensions of warnings index checks, which date back several years, but the report also finds that secure ID, the system for checking the fingerprints of foreign nationals who require a visa to come to Britain, was suspended on a number of occasions without ministerial approval. Although the report makes it clear that there should have been a policy setting out the use of secure

20 Feb 2012 : Column 622

ID when it was introduced from 2009, it finds that Ministers and senior Border Force officials believed that secure ID should be a mandatory check.

In May 2011, when officials asked for permission sometimes to suspend secure ID checks, I explicitly refused. The report finds that, despite that clear instruction, secure ID checks continued to be suspended at Heathrow. It also confirms that checks on the biometric chip, which contains a second photograph and no further information, were sometimes suspended without ministerial approval.

The report makes it clear that the suspensions of checks were, as I told the House last year, entirely separate from the pilot I authorised. I remind the House that that pilot meant that in limited circumstances EEA national children travelling with their parents or as part of a school group would be checked against the warnings index only when assessed by a Border Force official to be a credible risk. It also allowed Border Force officials the discretion, in limited circumstances, to judge when to open the biometric chip, which contains a second photograph, in the passports of EEA nationals.

The pilot was designed to focus resources on the highest risk passengers and journeys and allow Border Force officers to conduct more targeted, intelligence-led checks. As the Home Affairs Select Committee concluded, it could have been a promising framework for a new approach to border security. However, as a result of the unauthorised suspension of checks, it is impossible to know fully what effect the pilot had. Although we can remain open-minded about the principle of risk-based checks, they must be implemented only in a controlled and authorised way.

The Vine report also uncovered a local initiative at Heathrow that allowed students from supposedly low-risk countries to enter the UK even when they did not have the necessary entry clearance. There was no ministerial authorisation for this activity. The report finds that Operation Savant, as it was called, was potentially discriminatory and unlawful. The Home Office permanent secretary is undertaking a review of this activity and will decide whether any disciplinary action should follow. That review will report by the end of March.

The Vine report reveals a Border Force that suspended important checks without permission; spent millions on new technologies but chose not to use them; was led by managers who did not communicate with their staff; and sent reports to Ministers that were inaccurate, unbalanced and excluded key information. The report makes a series of recommendations on how to improve the operation at the border, and I accept them all. Many of them we are already implementing, and the rest we will implement in full. Most importantly, I want to make it clear to the House that all the suspensions detailed in the report have now been stopped. We will shortly issue an operating policy on the use of secure ID fingerprint checks, and we will follow it up by implementing a new operating mandate for border control. This will detail the minimum level of mandatory checks for all passengers; set out which additional checks apply to which groups of passengers; and cover the opening of chips on passports, interviews for visa holders and the use of secure ID. It will detail explicitly the additional checks that border officers can apply at their discretion. It will specify the record-keeping standards to be maintained and make it clear that no unauthorised suspension of checks is acceptable under any circumstances.

20 Feb 2012 : Column 623

As part of our wider work to improve the border, we have already made a number of other important improvements. We have separated immigration policy work from operations. We have created a Strategy and Intelligence Directorate to analyse intelligence; measure performance; develop rules, procedures and guidance; and monitor compliance with those rules. We have established a new UKBA training academy to raise professional standards and are reviewing service standards for queuing times and staffing levels. But I do not believe that the answer to the very significant problems exposed in the Vine report is just a series of management changes. The Border Force needs a whole new management culture, and I can tell the House today that I have appointed Brian Moore, currently the chief constable of Wiltshire police, as the interim head of the Border Force. In addition, from next year the new National Crime Agency will be charged with improving our intelligence capability at the border, investigating serious and organised border crime and tasking law enforcement assets across all the relevant agencies.

There are many hard-working and dedicated members of staff in the Border Force. They want to get on with their work securing our border, and I want to make it clear that this report is in no way a criticism of them, but, as the Home Affairs Committee and its Chairman have argued consistently, there is no getting away from the fact that UKBA, of which the Border Force is part, has been a troubled organisation since it was founded in 2008. From foreign national prisoners to the asylum-seeker backlog and the removal of illegal immigrants, it has reacted to a series of problems instead of positively managing its responsibilities.

I believe that, with a new chief executive and a plan for comprehensive change, UKBA is in better hands for the future, but I believe also that the extent of the transformational change required—in the agency’s casework functions and in the Border Force—is too great for one organisation. I can therefore tell the House that from 1 March the UK Border Force will split from UKBA and become a separate operational command, with its own ethos of law enforcement, led by its own director general and accountable directly to Ministers.

Many of the changes that I have outlined today cannot happen overnight; they will take time, but we will make them as quickly as possible. They will ensure not only that we have a stronger border in future, but that the Border Force becomes the disciplined law enforcement organisation that it was established to be. I commend this statement to the House.

4.21 pm

Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab): I thank the Home Secretary for early sight of her statement, in which she makes important points about the fiascos at our border last summer, but it does not cover everything in the report from John Vine. In less than the hour that we have had to look at the report, we have found that it says something very different from the points that the Home Secretary has made.

For example, on the watch index checks from Calais, the Home Secretary’s statement today gives the House reason to believe that the problems had been going on since 2007. In fact, the watch index checks were suspended

20 Feb 2012 : Column 624

zero times in 2007, zero times in 2008, six times in 2009, 33 times in 2010 and 50 times in the first nine months of 2011. The report states:

“Although the figure for 2011 only covered nine months to the end of September, this represented a 51% increase over the previous year. The Agency should assess whether this increase can be attributed to changes in port infrastructure, increases in passenger numbers, a reduction in staff or a combination of all three.”

So the clear suggestion in the report is that a lack of staff may have increased the problems at the UK Border Agency in the past year, but the Home Secretary in her statement to Parliament has hidden that information.

On secure ID, the report states that it was suspended 482 times under this Government. The Immigration Minister approved the reduction in secure ID checks as part of the risk-based approach in January 2011, and again the Home Secretary has not explained how far Ministers’ authorisation, even if provisional, contributed to the downgrading of secure ID checks.

On the Immigration Minister’s further agreement to proposals, the report quotes the former head of the Border Force, who said:

“The Immigration Minister was clear that this did not require Home Secretary sign-off and he had followed up with a note stating that we should progress with the implementation.”

Time and again the Home Secretary has not set out the full information in the report.

On the level 2 pilots, the report is clear that they were downgraded over 2,000 times. That is not occasional, or under the “limited circumstances” that the Home Secretary told us about last year.

We have asked the Home Secretary before about the operational instruction that states:

“We will cease routinely opening the chip within EEA passports.”

She told the House on 9 November 2011 that that operational instruction did reflect Government policy, and that is the very guidance that led to checks being downgraded 2,000 times, for hours at a time, covering huge numbers of people.

On page 12, the report states:

“We found that the language used in both the ‘Summer pressures’ submission to Ministers and the response provided, was not clear and as a result was open to misinterpretation… For example, the written response from the Home Secretary’s office said that ‘the change in checks should not be a routine measure but only used when the queues get beyond a reasonable length.’ As the key terms were not clearly defined, we found this had been interpreted and operated in different ways at different ports.”

The report is clear:

“Given the importance of decisions to suspend border security checks, it is imperative that the language used is absolutely clear and unambiguous.”

Clearly, the language from the Home Secretary’s private office was not clear and unambiguous, and that led to huge confusion in the Border Force across the country.

There is no evidence in the report of proper monitoring by Ministers. It is scathing about the way in which checks were downgraded and talks about unauthorised activity. Why on earth were Ministers not asking for information and not properly monitoring the pilot that they had authorised and introduced? One of the updates, which it appears did not go to Ministers, makes it clear that secure ID was suspended as part of the checks over the summer. Why did that update not go to Ministers

20 Feb 2012 : Column 625

and why did they not ask for that information? Why did they accept only three updates over the course of the summer, when seven were provided? Why were Ministers not visiting the ports to ensure that the pilot that they had introduced was being properly implemented? Ministers decided to roll back the principle that had been in operation for many years—that we should gradually strengthen and tighten our border checks, using new technology and biometrics—and to introduce a huge experiment with border security. They made no proper checks to see what was happening during the fiasco last summer.

Finally, when confronted last November with the problems that had arisen, the Home Secretary told us that

“initial UKBA statistics show an almost 10% increase in the detection of illegal immigrants and a 48% increase in the identification of forged documents compared with the year before.”—[Official Report, 9 November 2011; Vol. 535, c. 318.]

She said that that had happened as a result of her pilots. However, the facts in the report show something very different. The Heathrow data alone show that the number of people refused entry was more than 100 lower each month—not higher—compared with 2010. The official statistics show a 10% drop in the number of non-asylum seekers who were stopped at ports compared with the previous year. Will the Home Secretary take this opportunity to apologise to the House for giving it premature and inaccurate information about the supposed success of her pilots, when clearly they were a huge failure in controlling the border?

The Home Secretary told us that her pilots did not weaken border security. The report states that

“it is not possible to quantify the extent of the risk that these measures presented to the border.”

The implications of that for our border are very serious, yet the Home Secretary continues to hide. She has hidden behind a report and not set out its full consequences, just as she has blamed officials, hidden from the media and hidden behind spurious statistics. In opposition, she said of a former Immigration Minister:

“I’m sick and tired of…government ministers…who simply blame other people when things go wrong.”

That is what she is doing now. It is time for her to stop hiding and to take responsibility for things that have happened on her watch: the unclear instructions from her office, the policy decisions to downgrade our border controls, the failure to monitor and check what was going on, and her failure to take responsibility. This mess escalated on her watch with every month that went by. Unless she accepts responsibility for this fiasco, she will fail to sort it out and she will fail to reassure the House that she can cope with future fiascos and that she is the Home Secretary to keep our borders secure.

Mrs May: The shadow Home Secretary’s mock outrage would have rather greater credibility if she had shown any real interest in immigration or border control at any stage over the year for which she has been doing her job. I remind her that the Vine report states that security checks have been suspended without ministerial authorisation since at least 2007. The suspension of checks of which I told the House in November happened

20 Feb 2012 : Column 626

without ministerial authorisation, and that unauthorised suspension had nothing to do with the pilot that I authorised last summer.

The right hon. Lady makes a number of claims in relation to the report. I suggest that she consider her track record on such claims. The Vine report exposes everything that she claimed last November as plain wrong. She said that the pilot was reckless, but the Vine report shows that Labour Ministers approved similar measures. She said that the pilot gave the Border Force the green light to suspend other checks, but the report shows that the suspensions were unauthorised.

The right hon. Lady said that by sometimes suspending warnings index checks on certain children, we risked an increase in trafficking. Not only is that wrong, but the Vine report makes it clear that Labour Ministers approved the suspension of checks on children. She said that we should have known about the unauthorised suspension of checks, but the Vine report makes it clear that information was withheld from Ministers and that unauthorised suspensions have been going on since at least 2007. She repeated that Labour increased checks on passengers and improved security, but the Vine report shows that it did not.

The right hon. Lady mentioned information about what happened during the pilot. I did indeed report figures to the House in November. They were the ones that were available at the time, and I faithfully reported them to the House. Since then, the chief inspector has discovered that unauthorised suspensions were made, so it is not possible to give a full picture of what effect the pilot had. We remain open-minded about risk-based checks, but they must be implemented in a controlled and authorised way.

The right hon. Lady blamed what has happened on cuts. I know that is her Pavlovian response to everything, but I would have thought she had noted that on the second page of the Vine report the chief inspector states that the suspensions were

“affected by a number of factors including…the numbers of staff deployed”—

the numbers deployed, not the numbers employed. As with the police, the right hon. Lady seems to find it very difficult to get her head around that. Just in case she has forgotten, I remind her that the previous Government planned to cut UKBA budgets.

The right hon. Lady talked about information that was available to Ministers about the pilot. I remind her that the Vine report makes it clear that updates to Ministers on the pilot

“were not balanced…presented an inaccurate picture of performance”


“could not be relied upon to determine the success or otherwise of Level 2.”

There is nothing more important than the security of our border, so it is a shame that the right hon. Lady has taken the approach that she has and has not addressed the measures that we are undertaking to secure our border and ensure that the Border Force is the law enforcement agency it should be. We did not hear any of her views on the recommendations in the Vine report, the proposal to take the Border Force out of the UKBA or the proposal to change the approach that the Border Force takes, because she has nothing positive to say about immigration or border security.