Living Standards

[Opposition Day Debate - Unalloted Day]

Nick de Bois: Given the constraints on time and the number of people who wish to speak, which shows how seriously Members on both sides of the House take this issue, I will try to limit my remarks.

The obvious route to improving living standards is to help as many people back into work as possible. Instead of focusing on the points that have been made about some of the very good schemes that have been introduced, I should like to start with structural issues to do with employment. There is no question but that the Government are introducing measures that will help to increase employment. For example, they are looking at rebalancing out-of-work incentives. We are trying to make work pay through the very welcome introduction of higher personal allowances, which will help people at the lower end of the scale. We are also, as the Secretary of State outlined, looking at the bigger picture of welfare reform.

However, we have to consider matters beyond that. As a former employer who started a business with one or two people and ended up with 100 people, I saw, and shared, the intense pleasure of recruiting someone into a new job or their first job. I also understood, and felt, the enormous pain, and sometimes shame, of people who underwent redundancy through no fault of their own. In the last two years of my working time before I came into Parliament, I was very worried by the level of the CVs that were being produced and the failure of candidates to articulate themselves with even basic English or a basic education. That was a clear sign that some people were being failed by their education. I am sure we all agree on the common goal to improve education and raise standards, but there is no question but that the structural changes that we are introducing will improve people's chances and lead to a fundamental generational change for the future. If those changes fail, we may be back here in 10 years, still talking about the problem.

Peter Jackson (Peterborough, Conservative): Has my hon. Friend, like me, noted the lack of contrition from the Labour party in its failure to apologise for driving many people into welfare dependency through its policy of unrestricted immigration over the last 13 years?

Nick de Bois: I welcome my hon. Friend's comments on the complex issues that he raised. We have to consider the consequences of both those issues, but I shall continue to examine the structural changes I was discussing.

The welcome sign for the future is that we have rightly shifted the emphasis from a purely academic route and are now pushing vocational routes, whether through apprenticeships or through further skills and training, giving people a choice from the age of 14 or 16 that will meet the skill needs of employers. Otherwise, we could be back here in 10 years discussing many of the same issues.

With the changes that are being introduced, we need to look at the tactical areas where we can help people get into work that will meet the immediate challenges of improving both their life chances and their living standards. I have met work programme providers and witnessed how they are determined to provide long-term jobs for those who are unemployed and going through the new system. These programmes are to be welcomed because they seek to provide a long-term, rather than a short-term, solution.

I am particularly impressed by the early results of the work experience programmes, working with the jobcentres, where people who had little chance of breaking the dependency culture and moving to independence are put into a work environment and employers are encouraged to take them on. As a result, over half of those who have been in such employment for three months are getting full-time work. I do not subscribe to the theory that so many people just wish to sit on benefits. The road to work is through breaking the cycle of dependency and putting people into an environment where they relish the challenge and want to work. That is the very life chance that they will be able to see, given the chance to improve their opportunities, shaped around the proposals of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Much has been said about the debt interest. It is shocking that this country pays about £46 billion a year to service debt in return for nothing. The worst thing is that that money is going to our competitors. The people who are lending us money are the people who will make it harder to help people in this country improve their life chances.

Extradition - Back Bench Business

[Westminster Halls]

Nick de Bois: I am conscious that I will be the last person to contribute before the winding-up speeches. A lot has already been said, and I will not repeat points for the sake of repetition, as I believe may have happened previously. Having read the Scott Baker report, my goal is to seek assurances from the Minister that he will engage with the report so that we avoid a passive and compliant acceptance of it. I am sure that he recognises the strength of feeling among hon. Members.

The reason for my concern is summed up in point 1.11 on page 11 of the weighty document that is the Scott Baker report. It simply says:

"Apart from the problem of proportionality, we believe that the European arrest warrant... has worked... well."

Given the lack of evidence submitted in relation to the Scott Baker report from those who have been on the receiving end of miscarriages of justice—that is how I regard the way they were treated—we would do well to urge the Ministerto take into account anecdotal evidence and to lend more weight to it than it seems to have been given in the report.

One reason why I was keen to speak is that I wanted to give voice to my constituent Andrew Symeou and his family, whose nightmare came to an end only earlier this year following a three-year process in which Andrew was finally extradited in 2009 after an arrest warrant had been issued in 2008. He subsequently spent one year in jail in Greece, where he was refused bail simply because he was a foreigner. On top of that, by the time he was rightly found innocent of all charges, there had been a massive cost to his family, whom I have been privileged to get to know very well. They put their lives on hold when they went to Greece to support their son while he was in jail for a year. That gross misuse of the European arrest warrant meant that Frank Symeou's business inevitably suffered; indeed, he no longer has that business. There was a direct cause-and-effect relationship between the two things. I place on the record my immense admiration for the way they stood by their son, fought bureaucracy, fought their corner and ultimately won the justice that Andrew deserved. Andrew is determined, rightly, to see that we get changes to a system that he believes should not be allowed to administer justice of the sort that he went through.

Sir Menzies Campbell, who is not in his place, said that he felt that hon. Members were not ready for a forensic, detailed analysis of the 480 pages in Scott Baker's report. That means that I have wasted a lot of my bedtime reading, but I would like to draw attention to two or three things that point to why the report is wrong to assume that, apart from the problem of proportionality,

"the European arrest warrant scheme has worked reasonably well."

I shall draw again on real-life anecdotal evidence. I feel that, throughout the review, Scott Baker managed to overlook that anecdotal evidence and has all but rejected many of our concerns.

Let us first examine the concerns regarding the mistreatment of a fugitive's fundamental human rights. For example, quite important in a trial or a prosecution process, as I am sure hon. Members agree, is the right to

have proceedings carried out in one's own language or with a full translation. I hope that hon. Members share my shock that, although Andrew Symeou was given a translator on the opening day of the trial, it was clear when opening statements were being made that the translator could not even tell the difference between the words "juror" and "witness". Worse, the translator summarised one set of remarks by saying, "Well, it was something like that. I hope that that will do for you." That is not the best method of giving confidence to a defendant and it does not meet the requirement to provide a full translation of proceedings. It should be noted that the translator in question was being paid barely £14 a day. I am forced to conclude that that does not necessarily buy the best translation services.

In point 5.53 on page 138 of this weighty volume, Scott Baker says:

"We are also of the view that as a starting point it is not inappropriate to begin with an assumption that surrender to another Member State of the European Union will not involve a violation of human rights."

He therefore assumes that everything will be okay because the countries that sign up to the European arrest warrant have signed up to the charter of human rights. I submit that that is repeatedly highlighted as a failing.

Let us examine one other area of the review. It does not necessarily relate directly to my constituent, but it points to one of the weaknesses in the report. I am referring to the question of dual criminality. I will not bore hon. Members by going into that in detail—I will assume a degree of understanding—but essentially, under the European arrest warrant scheme, people can be extradited for acts and behaviours that, no matter how abhorrent we may consider them—xenophobia is the most well known example—are not criminal offences in the UK. That flaw has already been highlighted in the work done by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, but Scott Baker's conclusion is, "Well, yes, we note that"—I paraphrase of course—"but given that it has not been an issue in the last few years, we're not worried about it." It worries me that people recognise that something is not quite right, but because nothing has really gone wrong in the past, it is okay. That is like a mechanic noticing a flaw in an aircraft's landing gear but not taking corrective action, because as far as he is concerned, up till then the plane has always landed safely with the wheels coming down. It does not build confidence.

I am surprised, as I am in relation to other matters—I will not go into them, given the time—that we have not used the review to think about other possible problems that have been highlighted, but, because we may not have come across them, have been dismissed. That is not a satisfactory way to proceed.

I endorse what was said about the nonsensical situation of a court not needing to examine prima facie evidence before a fugitive is extradited. That is considered by the review, but no alternative is reasonably suggested. Again, my concern stems from the case of my constituent, Andrew Symeou. My hon. Friend Mr Raab highlighted the fact that there were clear discrepancies in the evidence. Clear evidence was presented to the court that showed a change in the statements of witnesses—witnesses who were first in Greece and put under a lot of pressure, but

then returned to the UK and immediately withdrew their statements. There was some evidence of abuse as well.

The court noted that, but made it clear that, with the European arrest warrant, this is simply a tick-box exercise—so long as the boxes are ticked, it is not within its remit to pass judgment on the quality of that evidence. Therein lies the problem; that is where we should try to raise the bar. Much has been said about the opportunity to do that. I endorse the support given for a forum bar. That must be examined to introduce a level of security for our citizens in what is a critical affair for them.

My overriding sense and concern is that the European arrest warrant scheme has—not by malicious design; I understand why it was set up—made a particular substitution in the interest of expediency. Of course, we all know the flaws that existed long before it came along. I am thinking of the Costa del Sol—Costa del Crime—and so on. However, in the interest of expediency, the scheme is prepared to accept it as reasonable that there will be disproportionate effects and potential miscarriages of justice. I submit that we should not tolerate that. Not one British citizen should have to go through what my constituent and the others whom we have heard about went through in the interest of expediency and process, however well motivated and well intentioned it was.

I had hoped and expected that the Scott Baker review would be a wholesale rethinking of the UK's extradition arrangements. Going by today's debate, it does not appear to have lived up to anyone's expectations, which I am disappointed by. I remind Members of a comment made before the election that indicated what members of our Front-Bench team thought—that the UK's extradition arrangements were "a mess". It is reasonable to conclude that our hopes for Scott Baker now are that while we can learn, listen and take on board what he has said, we must not lose sight of our duty to ensure that our citizens have the right process of justice. That must not be sacrificed on the altar of expediency and process, no matter how successful those might have been with some serious crime. We must find a way through the problem so that we do not end up with fundamental abuses of individuals' rights, such as those of my constituent, Andrew Symeou.

I hope that we reform the UK's extradition arrangements so that they are fair and balanced. I am not saying that there is no need to have in place a system that speeds up an extradition process, but fundamentally, I urge Ministers to protect British citizens, rather than sacrifice them on the altar of expediency.

Health and Social Care (Re-committed) Bill

[2nd Allocated Day]

Nick de Bois: I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members' Financial Interests. I wish to speak to amendments 1172 and 1173, in my name, which require the Secretary of State to collect haematopoietic stem cells. The issue is, of course, that of the collection of umbilical cord blood and cord bank policy, which was first raised in the last Parliament.

I pay particular tribute to the work of the all-party parliamentary group on stem cell transplantation for its work under the leadership of the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami), and to the enormous contribution and determination of my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes). My previous lack of knowledge of the subject was probably no different from that of many other people, but after giving my hon. Friend and neighbour a lift home on several occasions I became a speedy convert. Quite simply, the collection of cord blood can be life-saving. I pay tribute to the work of the Anthony Nolan trust in that regard.

In 1974 the Secretary of State was not obliged to facilitate stem cell transplantation from unrelated donors. Because the Governments of the day took that position, advances made took longer to achieve, which undoubtedly cost lives. The situation is different now: both the Government and the Opposition support expansion of the practice, and in particular of the more modern use of umbilical cord blood for such purposes. However, it would be fitting for the Minister now to make it clear in the Bill that this issue is important, to lock in the bipartisan support while it is strong, and to send a message to future Governments and civil servants that for as long as the Bill remains on the statute book, the issue is not to be lightly disregarded or de-prioritised at a future date.

The amendments involve no financial or political cost, but they are not merely symbolic. They could be described as an insurance policy against the risk of thoughtlessness or distraction on the part of future Governments—a risk that would ultimately cost lives.

David Burrowes (Enfield Southgate, Conservative): It will not surprise the House to learn that I strongly support what my hon. Friend has said about the importance that should be attached to the life-saving cause of collecting cord blood and transplantation. As he has said, the Government are wholly committed to investing in and improving collections and to transplantation, but is it not important for us to consider whether that should form part of the duty of the Secretary of State? Is it not a priority, given that one in five members of black and ethnic minorities cannot obtain a match for the purposes of the transplantations that are sorely needed for life-saving operations?

Nick de Bois: My hon. Friend raises a key point. If we were to make prospective parents aware of the possibility of donation, we could address the major deficit in the BME community.

I will not take up too much of the House's time, but I hope Members will bear with me as I reiterate some of the important points that drove me to table these amendments. Patients in the UK requiring a bone marrow donor have a one in four chance of survival. Only 50% of those looking for a donor will find one, and of those who do so only 50% will survive. Many of those who find a bone marrow donor do so too late for the treatment to be successful, which contributes to the failure rate. Greater provision of cord blood could help patients get treatment faster and improve the chances of survival.

Greater provision of cord blood would give many who currently have no bone marrow donor a potentially life-saving option. The baby's blood that is left behind in the umbilical cord contains many different types of cells, and some of them are stem cells, which have been shown to have a number of medical applications. Over the past 20 years, collected cord blood has been used for transplantation in the same way as bone marrow, so we can square the circle and see the advantages of drawing attention to the benefits of collecting cord blood and requiring the Secretary of State to ensure that this is done consistently and banked accordingly.

Researchers believe that cord blood has the potential to treat many more diseases once adult stem cells are properly understood. Trials have shown that cord blood may be helpful in treating brain injuries in children. It has also been developed for other possible treatments, including for testicular cancer, multiple sclerosis and diabetes, and for regenerating damaged heart cells. The potential is exciting, therefore. It is particularly valuable in the treatment of leukaemia. It can be used as an alternative to bone marrow transplantations.

Collection of umbilical cord blood is a far less invasive procedure than extracting bone marrow, and the units can be collected, frozen and stored for years, which leads to fewer complications and makes transplants more readily available than for bone marrow. More importantly, it is easier to find matching stem cells from cord blood than from bone marrow. If we can develop a proper infrastructure for the collection and storage of cord blood, that will do much to alleviate the severe shortage of life-saving stem cells.

David Burrowes (Enfield Southgate, Conservative): Is it not also important to ensure, through the Bill or other means, that commissioners are able to make the right decisions? Evidence of some commissioners questioning the economic value of proceeding with stem cell transplants was brought before the all-party group on stem cell transplantation. It is important that we pursue commissioning excellence.

Nick de Bois: I understand that the UK Stem Cell Strategic Forum recommended to the Government that there should be a regional centre of excellence, and I hope Ministers will let us know by letter if that policy is indeed being pursued, as I think it might deal with the issue that my hon. Friend raises.

Cord blood is a natural, safe, ethical and sustainable resource, and it offers many advantages over using traditional bone marrow transplants. We in this country should be proud that the NHS was one of the first bodies to recognise the potential importance of cord blood and significant breakthroughs were made in Britain. In 1996 an NHS cord bank was established, which is now working alongside the Anthony Nolan trust. At a time when the health service is mindful of the need to inform patients fully about their health care, the issue of the collection of a mother-baby's cord blood does not seem to get the same degree of attention. The principles of full information and consent do not seem to apply to cord blood, which is, in general, treated as a waste product, unbeknown to parents, apart from in exceptional circumstances. By agreeing to my amendments, we can change that situation and the Government can demonstrate that they are giving a lead in the dissemination of information to expectant parents.

Last year academic research said that in order to have a truly effective operation we should strive to obtain 50,000 units of cord blood. I congratulate the Government, who have already committed £4 million to reach the first benchmark of 20,000 cord blood units. I commend the work of the Anthony Nolan trust and the NHS, which have also been sharing in building up to this target. Of course this is only the start, and I know that the Government have already expressed their commitment to helping to develop this very important work.

We have an opportunity for more lives to be saved, for valuable scientific research to be undertaken and for the UK to become a centre of excellence in cord blood. We can avoid the current situation whereby every day two people die waiting for a stem cell transplant, and 65,000 litres of cord blood are discarded every year. I welcome the Minister's words of support and I appreciate the sentiments behind the Government's thinking. I urge them to continue to get behind this valuable cause.

Public Disorder

Business without Debate - Sittings of the House

Nick de Bois (5:45pm): May I use some valuable seconds and take this opportunity to enjoy a decent moment in this difficult debate, and say congratulations to Heidi Alexander on her recent wedding and that I am very sorry that her honeymoon was interrupted?

I made a solemn promise to my constituents at half- past 9 on Sunday 7 August, having spent four hours witnessing what was happening to ourconstituency. That promise was simply that at the first opportunity I would come to this House so that Members could hear first hand what had happened and the views of my constituents. I will therefore focus entirely on that in the few minutes that I have to speak. It is important that those views are represented, because they are also reflected elsewhere.

At around 6 o'clock in the evening, as youths—generally under the age of 25—gathered in our town centre, it became clear that this had been built up by social media throughout the day. The first outbreak occurred at about 7 o'clock, when those youths—150 of them—took to the high street, having gathered together, and then started their rampage down Church street in Enfield town. Sadly, although that outbreak was contained relatively quickly by good police work, it led to the destruction of some very good shops that have been there for more than 30 years. Mantella, the jewellery store, which has been a sole trader for more than 30 years in Enfield, lost more than £40,000 of stock. Pearsons, one of the few independent retailers with a long legacy in Enfield, was damaged front and back. And what was stolen? It was the good quality leather handbags. With a clear target in mind, high-quality goods ware taken.

We lost many, many stores down our high street, but at that point it was not over. For about an hour, the youths increased their numbers. As I stood among them, I heard them on their phones organising to bring other people up and talking about what trains they should take. Indeed, some of them hinted at where they may be going next.

Adam Adams (Selby and Ainsty, Conservative): Is my hon. Friend aware that there were riots recently in a holiday resort in Spain where the police used very robust tactics? We have heard talk about water cannon, but they used rubber bullets. Does my hon. Friend think that if the people rampaging through hisconstituency had seen pictures on TV of rubber bullets or water cannon being used, they would have had the incentive to go out and commit copycat crimes?

Nick de Bois: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Indeed, he reflects the views of my constituents in advance of what I was going to say. Of course they were very distressed, and one of the questions—one of the wishes—was, "Why do we not use water cannons or rubber bullets?" They have proved effective in other locations. I accept that they are limited in their effectiveness in some parts—indeed, around London it would be difficult—but this case was a classic example of a wide town centre where dispersal could have been achieved, which might have changed things. Indeed, I believe that the mere threat would also restrict any future activity.

Unfortunately, later in the evening, when the outburst grew more serious and the thugs attacked a police vehicle containing a territorial support group unit, they would disperse and run up nearby residential streets—quiet, detached streets. It was there, at around 9.30, that 30 or

40 of them ran past me, pushing a 70-year-old man out of the way. We were face to face with them in the garden of some neighbours, and as they ran past, with their foul-mouthed abuse—these brave individuals, hidden behind their hoodies across their faces, clutching their expensive mobile phones—they embarked on finding their rather souped-up cars, which were parked in the same residential street. This was no moral crusade. This was not a campaign for social justice; this was simply criminal activity by those determined to profit from it. My constituents are furious at what happened to their town, but what is worrying was the extreme arrogance of the individuals involved. They had no fear of being recognised and no sense of right and wrong. As a country we now have to address this issue, and we will look at how to deal with such issues in the future.

David Burrowes (Enfield Southgate, Conservative): My hon. Friend describes the high street that we share as constituencyneighbours. On the subject of what we will do about it, he will go home on the tube with me and we will see the headlines about the fury at the soft sentences being handed down to the latest offenders. Does he share my concern that the punishment must fit the crime? If it is not to be prison, it must be proper restitution, paying for their plunder and repairing the damage that they have done to our communities.

Nick de Bois: My hon. Friend and neighbour, who suffered similar problems, identifies a key point. One of the other wishes of my constituents was that justice should be seen to be served. It is not unreasonable to expect that the thugs involved should receive custodial sentences and be put to good use in repairing some of the damage that they have done. We must take them out of this cycle of crime and make efforts to reform them.

I have three questions and I would be grateful for answers. The railway line ends at Enfield Townstation. During the course of the day, the trains were packed with people coming to cause mayhem. A request was made to Transport for London to stop some of those trains, and the buses that were coming from other parts of London. It never happened, and my constituents would like to know why.

Secondly, we believe that the vast majority of these criminals were not from Enfield, as I saw first hand myself. If we share information from CCTVand YouTube with the education authorities and the police, they can work together to identify more of them. Thirdly, why were we not able to disperse the more than 100 people who were there in the early hours?

Let me pay tribute to the borough commander, Dave Tucker, and his team, and to Enfield council, who are now working together. Enfield is open for business. It has recovered well and our last legacy sadly—

Missing Persons (Cyprus)

Westminster Hall Debate

Nick de Bois: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. This issue affects families right across the island. Does he not think that with the right level of commitment and a speedy resolution, massive confidence-building measures could be delivered for the future?

Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green, Conservative): My hon. Friend makes a good point. This is not specifically about the politics of the negotiations over the reunification of Cyprus. Both sides in that negotiation are looking to build confidence. There could be no better confidence-building measure than the return of the remains of the 1,500 missing people or information on what happened to them.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Second Reading

Nick de Bois: My hon. Friend knows that my constituents in Enfield North will very much welcome the mandatory proposals on using a knife in a threatening way, but is he aware that, of those cases followed up involving individuals carrying a knife or using a knife offensively, more than 30% involved people under 18, and that the legislation before us will not apply to such people? Perhaps that is something we should press for.

David Burrowes (Enfield Southgate, Conservative): My hon. Friend may be making an early bid to be on the Public Bill Committee, but we certainly need to recognise, particularly in areas such as Enfield, that such behaviour is prevalent, that sadly all too often those under 18 are involved in gangs and possess knives, and that clause 113 does not apply to them.

Higher Education Policy

Opposition Day - [15th allotted day]

Nick de Bois: Does the shadow Secretary of Statenot understand that he is fuelling fears for those who wish to go university by constantly referring to what students have to pay? They do not. In the words of a former Home Secretary, it is graduates who pay and who benefit. That is the difference. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman thinks carefully about the damage that he is doing to the potential of young individuals.

Members' Salaries

Nick de Bois: I am staggered that I should have to make this comment - no one in the House is suggesting that we should take that 1%.

David Heath (Deputy Leader of the House of Commons; Somerton and Frome, Liberal Democrat): In that case I am extremely pleased, as it means that we will quickly move to a conclusion of this difficult matter. The commitment to independent review is retained. The anomalous position this year is recognised. We do to ourselves what others have had done to them. It is not a decision for Government; it is a decision for the House. Members must make up their own minds, but in my view- and I do not think I am alone-it is a no-brainer. I hope all right hon. and hon. Members will support the motion.

Youth Unemployment

Opposition Day - [11th Allotted Day]

Nick de Bois (3:03pm): It is a pleasure to follow Ian Lavery. I hope that he will understand if I return to some of his more outrageous comments a little later. First, let me say how pleased I am that we are debating youth unemployment: it is a major issue, and it is clear that Members on both sides of the House understand the need to discuss it.

Before I came to the House, I derived real pleasure from being able to offer someone a job in our company. I also understood the absolute nightmare of having to make someone unemployed in difficult times. I hope that Members on both sides of the House have approached the debate with the shared goal of alleviating what are very difficult circumstances. I also feel, however, that the debate should be put into context. It takes place against a background of economic failure, a legacy of banks that were not supporting business, a massive decline in manufacturing, and an essentially unbalanced economy.

Governments can take a wide range of measures to ease the problem of youth unemployment, but in my view nothing is more important than enabling the economy to grow at a sustainable level so that business can expand, create those much-needed jobs and, indeed, flourish. That is why difficult measures are being taken: vital measures to deal with deficit control, and positive fiscal measures to support investment. We are seeing changes in employment law, export support for small and medium-sized enterprises, and a review of many of the welfare schemes and benefits out there to encourage people to move from a life of dependence to one of independence.

I am therefore somewhat disappointed by the fact that the debate is focusing almost entirely on the future jobs fund. It was, I am sure, a project born of good intentions, and I admit that there are good stories about it from various parts of the country. The fact is, however-this brings me back to the hon. Gentleman's speech-that we were creating a large number of temporary jobs, predominantly in the public sector, which did not offer a sustainable solution to the problem of youth unemployment. I hope, indeed I know, that I speak for Government Members when I say that any suggestion that we were disparaging public sector workers is utterly unacceptable. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but he has had his say, his say was wrong, and the House should not accept it.

What is wrong, and what we do challenge, is the temporary nature of many of those jobs. We intend to deliver permanent, sustainable jobs, and I believe that most of them will have to be in the private sector. If Members are not willing to take my word for it, as I am sure some are not, let me tell them what the Confederation of British Industry said to the Work and Pensions Committee.

"We are concerned the programme for the most part failed to deliver a long-term strategy to tackle youth unemployment. While there are undoubtedly some successes within the programme, the CBIargued there needs to be better business involvement and a greater focus on long-term job sustainability with future programmes. The Work Programme is the way to deliver this."

I am surprised that the Opposition have not raised some of the other measures that we have had to consider to help employers take people on. It is beyond question that employers who feel restricted by the heavy hand of all the employment legislation that has grown up over the last decade will think twice not just about employing people, but about retaining them. They may feel that someone who has worked for the company for nearly a year-just before the employment legislation protection kicks in-needs more training or help because he is not quite up to the job. At that point they will seriously consider whether it would be better to lose that employee immediately, before the rules kick in and cause difficulties in future, than to invest more time in him. That is a trade-off governed by excessively burdensome regulation. Such a restriction is not acceptable, and I am pleased that the Government are loosening it to provide flexibility for both employers and employees. [Interruption.] If Mark Hendrick wishes to intervene, all that he need do is ask, rather than chuntering from a sedentary position. I should be more than happy to take hisintervention; otherwise I shall press on.

There is, I believe, evidence that we will produce more long-term sustainable jobs through apprenticeships. What evidence is there for this? I witnessed the hunger of those who wish to work and the appetite for recruitment in the private sector when I held a jobs fair in my constituency. It was put together without any cost to the state, and we managed to engage with local businesses and those who were looking for work, either immediately or in the near future. We brought in the voluntary sector too, so that those who wished to keep their CVs active and engaged could do so. We brought more than 40 companies together after a two-month period. Hundreds of visitors turned up and companies such asJohnson Matthey offered apprenticeships. That company is running a programme of apprenticeships which is not supported by the state but which will offer sustainable, long-term jobs to some of those who successfully get through. We had people willing to go to work in the voluntary sector, such is their appetite to keep their CVs active. I admire them and their hunger. Above all, we should note that at this jobs fair the jobs fundamentally came from the private sector in the local economy, thus keeping local jobs for local people. That is the future, which is why I believe that the combination of our enterprise economies, our welfare reforms and our support for apprenticeships will lift us out of this situation and help tackle youth unemployment.

Youth Unemployment

Opposition Day - [11th Allotted Day]

Nick de Bois: Does the right hon. Gentleman not understand that there is one significant distinction in respect of the figures he is discussing, in that there was massive over-reliance on putting people into the public sector through many of these programmes as a result of the legacy of economic failure that we have inherited? Therefore, there is naturally now some shrinkage in the public sector. That is the big difference. We have to create real jobs in the private sector for the long term.

Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill, Labour): I genuinely appreciate the point that the hon. Gentleman is making and the argument he is rehearsing. Perhaps he could intervene again to let me know whether a job in the public sector is better than no job at all.

Nick de Bois: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his invitation. A job is very important to the individual, no one doubts that; but we are talking about dealing with youth employment by creating work in a real sector that will last. That is the difference. We will only deal with the problem when the private sector has the opportunity to deliver long-term sustainable jobs-however well intentioned the programmes to which the right hon. Gentleman referred.

Voting by Prisoners

Backbench Business - [20th Allotted Day]

Lorely Burt (Solihull, Liberal Democrat): When we take away a prisoner's human rights, we deny their humanity. We are telling them that they are worthless and reinforcing their isolation from the world.

Nick de Bois: I have listened carefully to the hon. Lady and to her last suggestion that we are taking away prisoners' human rights. Are we not simply taking away a civil right, rather than a human right?

Health and Social Care Bill

Second Reading

Nick de Bois: I am very grateful for this opportunity to contribute to the debate. It is a great relief to note that we are now having a debate, having passed the stage where people, such as the previous Government, believed that pouring in more money improved outcomes. We are now debating reform, and we should welcome its scale, so that we can head towards what patients want-improved outcomes.

Whatever the good intentions of the previous Government, there is no question but that, unfortunately, their measures led to reduced productivity, a massive increase in bureaucracy and a distortion of clinical priorities, which meant that, on the outcomes that we seek, patients were not satisfied. I have been more concerned about health outcomes and the fact that patients were becoming remote from the thing that mattered to them most. That is what the NHS is about. Whom do patients trust? Do they trust a remote primary care trust or their local doctor? There really is no contest, so I welcome these reforms, because they will give commissioning powers to GPs and bring their patients closer to the decisions about their future.

I do not recognise the picture painted byOpposition Members who say that GPs do not welcome the proposals. Already more than half the country is working under the pathfinder shadowconsortia, and in Enfield we are already rushing to sign up. We have agreed our consortium, which I warmly welcome. It is keen to seize the opportunity.

Let us turn to local accountability, which goes hand in hand with local commissioning-based services. In the past, it has proved impossible to have genuine local accountability as the NHS processes ultimately all led directly to Whitehall and theSecretary of State. I agree with the Nuffield Trust that the widening involvement of independent providers, the use of social enterprises and community services, and the increase in foundation trusts mean that local accountability mechanisms should indeed be robust.

Malcolm Wicks, who, sadly, is not in his place, and Rosie Cooper expressed concerns that the mechanisms would not be robust, but I refer them to clause 170, on independent advocacy services, and to clause 175, which emphasises the scrutiny role of the local health authorities, not to mention the local representation of councillors.[Interruption.] Liz Kendall says, "One" from asedentary position, but I shall not take lectures from a member of a party whose Government carried out no consultation as they tried to reconfigure services in Enfield against the wishes of the public. I shall turn to that now.

It makes no sense that the people who want to hold the health care community to account for their local services should have to go to an intransigent bureaucracy and ultimately up to theSecretary of State. That process is removed from where the local decision making takes place. As I said, in my constituency we are reaching a critical stage now in the future configuration of our acute hospital services. The decision prompted by the previous Government, to downgrade and rip out our vital A and E service and axe the consultant-led maternity services that see 3,000 births a year, is being relentlessly pursued by those same bureaucrats and officials from the health services, despite the fact that the decision will cost lives.

In ignoring the wishes of thousands who took to the streets and the view of the majority of Enfield GPs, those same PCT officials, even at this late hour, are effectively trying to bully the residents into accepting the changes without the consent or consultation of the people. No such arrogance would have been evident if this Bill had been in place. Local people would have been engaged in a genuine process of change because such a proposal would have had to have been agreed by the local health and wellbeing board. As theSecretary of State said yesterday morning, any possible future changes would have to be agreed in the health and wellbeing board of the local authority, which is publicly open and accountable. Gone is the "Whitehall knows best" attitude, to be replaced with local accountability, local engagement and local decision making.

Had the Bill been in place as law, I do not believe that we would have reached the 11th hour for this critical decision in Enfield. The four tests that theSecretary of State rightly requires would have kicked the issue into touch long ago because of genuine local accountability. The local authority, local GPs and, above all, local residents have spoken with one voice. I am grateful that we have a Secretary of State who believes in local accountability and decision making. In future, the voice that was ignored by the Labour party will be enshrined in this legislation. For years, we have suffered from a lack of local accountability in the health service.

Henry Smith (Crawley, Conservative): Had the Bill been law 10 years ago, Crawley hospital would not have lost accident and emergency and maternity services. It seems that my hon. Friend thinks the same about hospital services in his constituency.

John Bercow (Speaker): Order. Nick de Bois is being generous in giving way, but I remind him that the Front-Bench winding-up speeches begin at 9.39 pm.

Nick de Bois: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

For years, we have suffered from a lack of local accountability in the health service. The Bill delivers that accountability. For the health service, the Bill is evolutionary, building on the successes and correcting the failures of the past, and leading to improved outcomes. This revolutionary Bill decentralises power to local people.

Clause 9 - Approal required in connection with Title V of Part 3 of TFEU

European Union Document

Nick de Bois: My hon. Friend has touched on a matter of great importance. I welcome the safeguards. It seems to me that justice in other countries is very different from justice in ours, principally on the basis of mutual recognition that many things are the same. It concerns me that we must keep as divorced as possible from the system in France, for example. Even a former French Justice Minister said, "The assumption here is that one is innocent until one is proven guilty, but in reality, with our magistrates courts, it is the other way around." That will be difficult to reconcile and we must have very strong safeguards.

Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton, Conservative): I thank my hon. Friend for thatintervention and I agree entirely with him. We can already see an example of that in the European arrest warrant. We have jumped in and we are now reviewing its domestic implementation and the potential for the international instrument. The presumption of innocence is just one area, as my hon. Friend has suggested, where we have a fundamental difference of legal cultures. I do not think that either party should show that any disrespect.

Clause 9 - Approal required in connection with Title V of Part 3 of TFEU

European Union Document

Nick de Bois: My right hon. Friend is well aware of my long-term interest in matters pertaining to the European arrest warrant and the European investigation order. By that explanation, he has demonstrated the importance of, and the need for, the EAW and the EIO. I hope he will reassure us that the Bill gives the House the chance to debate and pass judgment such things, and to facilitate decisions on opting in or out.

David Lidington (Minister of State [Europe and NATO]; Aylesbury, Conservative): My answer to that is on two fronts. TheEAW is, of course, a pre-Lisbon, pillar three arrangement. It was not subject to post-Lisbon scrutiny, let alone to the detailed scrutiny and discussions with Committees and other representatives of Parliament that the Government are proposing. On the European investigation order, I can give comfort to my hon. Friend. It is the Government's view that the decision to opt in to the order is one of the matters that would not only have attracted significant parliamentary interest, but which would also have raised questions of political and legal importance that would fully justify a full debate being held in Government time. With that debate would obviously come the opportunity of a parliamentary vote.

Clause 1 - Interpretation of Part 1

European Union Bill

Nick de Bois: I am very attracted to amendment 11, but I am struggling to understand one thing. It has been debated, but perhaps my hon. Friend can give me some clarity on it. He rightly says that an Act of Parliament will be required, but a Bill that is whipped will surely get through. Why does he believe that hisamendment will be any more successful here?

James Clappison (Hertsmere, Conservative): For the same reason that placing something in a Bill is a stronger defence-it has stronger legislative authority-than leaving it to chance in the future. My amendmentis a safeguard in addition to the Act of Parliament that will be required, and including in the Bill requirements on a referendum would make things legislatively stronger.

We come back to the question outlined by my hon. Friend Mr Jenkin, "Why put any of these requirements in the Bill and why provide these 44 situations where a referendum is required, given that each time we have an Act of Parliament for a treaty change, as we would have to have, we could simply do the same thing then?" That argument is being run in certain quarters, but it makes a mockery of the whole Bill. I do not want to be too unkind to those who promote that argument, but I merely say that it was fully ventilated during theEuropean Scrutiny Committee's deliberations and it was dismissed, and not only in one report. We produced a majority and a minority report, which disagreed on almost everything but agreed that a change needed to be made on the significance test. When one understands the two spectrums of opinion in the European Scrutiny Committee, one can see the measure of achievement in uniting the two.

Clause 4 - Holiday for new businesses

National Insurance Contributions Bill

Nick de Bois: Will the Minister advise whether he envisages any problems from perhaps less than scrupulous companies that might go into pre-pack administration? Would they be able to claim the benefit if their new business started after a pre-pack administration, for example? If that is the case, will he take some measures to consider what can be done about this?

David Gauke (Exchequer Secretary, HM Treasury; South West Hertfordshire, Conservative): As we discussed in earlier stages of the debate, it is right that we look at this closely to see that the scheme applies where we believe it should, that we do not have artificial creations, that there is a proper need for this, and that the compliance capability of HRMC to address the matter is adequate, and we are ensuring that that happens.

European Union Bill

Safe Standing (Football Stadia)

Nick de Bois (8:54pm): I am privileged to follow my hon. FriendJacob Rees-Mogg, who does justice to the House, as he does justice to the sentiments that he expressed and the cause to which he spoke. That makes it harder for me to follow him. I realise that that is usually a challenge for Members, but I will do my best.

I echo my hon. Friend's sentiment and I will support the Bill because I regard it as the first serious attempt to stop the erosion of power from Westminster to Brussels. I say "serious" because it is legislation before the House, and I say "attempt" because I recognise that it does not go as far as I and other Members might like. EU interference has dogged us for many years. We as a sovereign nation have been bled dry of powers, which has increased the frustration of the public with an institution that is so remote yet so influential on their lives.

I support the attempt to introduce a referendum lock. For too long, the people have been sidelined as dodgy deals are done and negotiated across Europe, stealing our sovereignty. How? It has been done through treaties such as Lisbon, Amsterdam and Nice. The previous Government handed over so many of our powers during the past 13 years. When the former Prime Minister,Tony Blair, said that he wanted to be at the heart of Europe, he was not kidding. He effected one of the most powerful transplants ever of so much power to Europe from Britain. We all sensed the betrayal that the British people felt as a result of the Lisbon treaty.

The Bill moves to give Parliament more say over Europe. The Government will have the opportunity to pass primary legislation before we have more self-amending clauses. There is good stuff in the Bill. As for sovereignty and clause 18, I know that there are many learned Members in the House and I dare not question their judgment, but when lawyers say to me that something is enshrined in common law, I am immediately concerned that common law and precedent mean that it could change over time. I have no problem with an attempt to establish clause 18, but I acknowledge, as my hon. Friend Mr Cash said, that it carries some risk with lawyers in the future.

My main concern is that the Bill may be seen as the end of a process, rather than as the beginning of a process to ensure that the present or any future Government cannot continue to transfer powers to the EU. My hon. Friend Richard Drax spoke eloquently of wiggle room. There is wiggle room in the Bill, and that is not good because we are attempting not just to pass a Bill, but to rebuild trust between the British people and the Government by challenging the transfer of powers in our relationship with Europe.

The existence of wiggle room raises the question of who decides what is material and what is not. Ministers clearly have the right to determine what constitutes a transfer of powers, and mechanisms spelled out in the Bill make it clear in many cases what constitutes a transfer of powers, but it is the little grey areas of wiggle room that are, in effect, a Trojan horse that can be exploited and undermine the genuine attempts of the Bill to protect any transfer of power.

I tried to apply a test. Had the Bill been in place when the European arrest warrant was introduced, would we have had a referendum on a significant directive from Europe? I attempted to find out. I am grateful to the Minister's staff, who spent some time briefing me on the Bill. I raised the question, but I have to say that I am still confused-not because of their lack of effort, but because of the potential greyness surrounding the issue.

What is more illustrative of our sovereignty than the fact that the courts in an individual's own land cannot protect him, but could lead him to be extradited merely by ticking boxes in a process and undermining the right of a British court to pass judgment on him?

The Minister knows that, until recently, one of my constituents, Andrew Symeou, languished in jail for many months after being subjected to a European arrest warrant, and the Minister is kindly trying to make representations to the Greek Government to assist him. The family keenly await any outcome, and I thank him for that. But my constituent would believe that the sovereign power of his country had not served him well by agreeing to transfer those powers outside the jurisdiction of our courts and to Europe. I think he would say that his Government had not protected him.

Will the Minister look closely at the wiggle room in the Bill and see how we can reconcile the conflicts that no doubt will lead to other issues over transfer of power? Yes, of course, issues can come to Committee, to scrutiny and to Parliament, but ultimately a Government can get their way, and however much we may protest, a Government may get a motion through and the people will not have had their say in a referendum on a transfer of powers.

I sympathise with my hon. Friend Mr Carswellwhen he suggests that we may be shutting the gate after the horse has bolted, but on balance that would not be a reason to oppose the Bill, because it marks a massive step forward for Britain and her relationship with Europe. It is a confidence-building measure for the British people in their relationship with what can only be described as an empire-building EU, and it is an important marker in the sand for this coalition Government to rebuild trust with the British people. We must not breach that trust.

Decisions have been remote from the British people. Yes, Parliament does have more say. I accept that the Bill only draws a line under the past, but it still leaves the future somewhat grey. It could be tightened further, and that is in the interests of constructive engagement, which I hope we will have the chance to debate at length in Committee, but I have no hesitation in supporting it, and I believe that my constituents will also seek to take advantage of engaging in future European debate if they have the opportunity to have their voice heard should the Bill be enacted.

Housing Benefit

Opposition Day - [5th Allotted Day]

Nick de Bois: As an outer-London MP with the 13th highest proportion of LHA claimants, I very much welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate, in preparation for which I met representatives from Shelter and other interested parties. I had looked forward to this debate, but I must say that as the afternoon has grown longer and I have grown a little wearier, I have been disappointed that, apart from some notable contributions, we seem to have heard a lot of cant, hyperbole and soundbites from manyOpposition Members, which has done little to improve the quality of the debate.

I have sat here for so long that I started looking for some fresh ideas, and at one point Mr Bettssaid that there was no strategy. Well, strategy there is, and strategy is the point that has been missed by Opposition Members, because it is a mistake to look at housing reform in isolation. That is a mistake that we have seen all afternoon. To do so is to miss the point of what the Government are trying to do. This Government's strategy is to try to lift people out of poverty, taking them from dependency to independence-something that theOpposition have neither embraced nor understood, but even at this late hour I hope that they might just reflect on it. They are missing the point of what the Government are doing, but by understanding my constituency they will see what we can do for our constituents.

Enfield North has 7% unemployment, higher than average youth unemployment, and pockets of poverty, mainly in the eastern area. Those are issues that I want to conquer, and that requires reform. Doing nothing is not an option, but constructive suggestions have been notably lacking from the Opposition. Of course the decisions are difficult- [ Interruption. ] I welcomed the conversion of Ian Austin to the cap for London, which was seriously missing from everything that the Opposition had said previously. Of course the changes are difficult, but that does not mean that they are wrong. They will drive out poverty by the most reliable means of helping people and contributing to getting them back into paid employment.

The Secretary of State is sensitive to many of the demands. He was quick to point out the discretionary funds that are available and to which due acknowledgment has not been given today. Is it right to have a system-

Eiidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan, Scottish National Party): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Nick de Bois: I will not give way until I have made some progress. I am sure the hon. Lady will understand that I have been here for many hours, and I am not sure whether there is anything new coming from the OppositionBenches.

Is it right to sustain a scheme that works against employment? No. What do I say to the employer who came to my surgery only last week and told me that people are queuing up for jobs, but they want to work for only a limited number of hours for fear of losing their house? How absurd is that? Whatever the Labour party's good intentions when it was in government, its reforms produced a grotesque situation. What do I say to the people who come to my office and want to work, but are caught in the poverty trap- [ Interruption. ] I am sorry that hon. Members do not want to listen, but week after week in my constituency I see the evidence of a failed policy on my doorstep, and it is absolutely right to represent my constituents' interests not only of where there has been failure, but where there is an opportunity for success. That is what this Government are trying to do, and rightly so.

What will the changes mean? We are talking about the LHA, not social housing. Rents are high. There has been a 25% increase over seven years in the LHA sector compared with 15% in the private sector. It was interesting when an OppositionMember-forgive me, I cannot remember hisconstituency-said that the 40% share of the LHA market that the Government are driving is not influencing rents. It is utter nonsense to think that such a massive contribution can have no impact on the level of rents. Opposition Members may deceive themselves if they wish, but I assure them that in the real world that is definitely the case.

Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Kilburn, Labour): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Nick de Bois: I will not give way at the moment. I want to finish my speech, but if there is time I will happily take a furtherintervention later.

A four-bedroom house will allow almost £20,000 ofLHA, which is equivalent to a substantial amount of gross income. We talk about fairness, but it must work both ways. Hon. Members should come with me down the Hertford road in myconstituency to meet those who are working hard to pay their rent and trying to look after their family on a low income. They should try to understand the frustration of living next door to people who may be living in a bigger house, subsidised by the state. We must bear that in mind when making judgments. We are all in this together, and we must reform and change.

The Labour Government believed that the answer to defeating poverty was to use targets and money-some £20 billion of our money in housing benefit. They rationalised that that was how to fix the problem, but it failed. It did not help; it hindered. Instead of releasing those in poverty and suffering inequality, it imprisoned many in a spiral of unwelcome state dependency. The time has come to change. Our proposals are part of a holistic, joined-up programme.

Caroline Flint (Don Valley, Labour): My understanding is that nearly 7,000 people will lose out as a result of the cuts in Enfield. What does the hon. Gentleman have to say to them?

Nick de Bois: The hon. Lady should change the end of the telescope she is looking down. She should look at what she can do to encourage employment and encourage people back to work, and start to take people out of real poverty. That is the contribution that she could make, and I hope that I can welcome her to such a conversion later this evening.

Our proposals are part of a holistic, joined-up programme to reform the Labour party's policy of surrender to dependency to a future of independence free from poverty. I understand that hon. Members do not want to hear that, but they have heard and perhaps they will learn.

Hon. Members: Follow that!

European Arrest Warrants and Extradition

Adjournment Debate

Nick de Bois: I congratulate my hon. Friend Mr Gyimah on securing this importantAdjournment debate. In the time permitted, I cannot review all the aspects of this matter, but I must focus on the key points as pertaining to my constituent, Andrew Symeou. Enfield has a unique and specific interest in the European arrest warrant and extradition, given that two of the current most high-profile cases exposing the system's failings involve Enfield residents-Andrew Symeou and, of course, Gary McKinnon. I and my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend Mr Burrowes, hope and expect that the review of Gary McKinnon's case will mean that he is not the last victim of an imbalanced process, but the recipient of a new, just and proportionate approach. Perhaps the Minister can update us on that review.

My central premise today, however, is that for the last decade the European Union has been driven by procedural safeguards and processes, not defendants' rights, as moves to enhance speed and efficiency do so at the price, in this case-I believe-of a potential miscarriage of justice. Those who support the European arrest warrant do so because they believe that more criminals get caught. That is a noble goal, and one that I and, I am sure, all Members of the House fully support, but the performance of the warrant is flawed.

Sadly, those who criticise the operation of the European arrest warrant are often cast as apologists for wild European extremists, or organised crime and terrorism. That, of course, is arrant nonsense. For me, it is a question of balance. I do not believe that a system that produces potential miscarriages of justice at one level should be tolerated in the interests of speed at another. The application of the warrant without proper procedural guarantees has in some cases led to the denial of justice. One of those cases concerns my constituent Andrew Symeou. Andrew was in prison in Greece for 10 months awaiting trial on a charge of manslaughter. Until his final release on bail, the charge was one of manslaughter, although as testified by our High Court, there is sufficient evidence of what I can perhaps describe as the over-enthusiastic interrogation of witnesses. Indeed, there even appears to have been a case of mistaken identity. In Andrew's case and others, surely the European arrest warrant has been misused.

Let me summarise Andrew's experiences. In doing so, I hope in parallel to illustrate how the European arrest warrant has failed, and perhaps thereby help the review by Lord Scott Baker. In short, there has been a failure to scrutinise the case by British courts for prima facie evidence; a lack of bail or euro-bail; a failure of mutual recognition; and, we must never forget, delayed justice for the family of the victim of that tragic incident, which led to the death of Jonathan Hiles-a delayed process that, three years on, leaves us with no one having come to trial yet. As much as anything else, that is not good for the family of the victim.

I cannot address all those issues, but let me turn to the point highlighted earlier, about submitting prima facie evidence prior to extradition. In British law, the Crown Prosecution Service makes the decision to charge individuals with criminal offences in complex cases. The decisions must be made fairly, independently and objectively. It is the duty of the CPS prosecutors to ensure that the right person is charged for the right offence. The key point is that when making a decision, the CPS will always decide whether there is enough evidence against the defendant. Therefore, the quality and reliability of that evidence will also be investigated, and cases progress only if there is considered to be a realistic prospect of conviction.

However, the EAW is based on one of 32 listed crimes in respect of which there is no need for a dual criminality test or any obligation to ensure that prima facie evidence is provided by the member state requesting extradition. Essentially, it requires us to go through a tick-box exercise. All that is required is that the judicial authority in the member state requesting extradition should detail the criminal offence believed to have been committed-that is, ticking the box-and indicate the length of sentence to be expected. In Andrew's case, he contested the request for extradition between 27 June 2008 and May 2009, but the court was able to examine only the process, and at no stage the facts of the case.

How powerless has British justice become when the High Court dismisses the appeal by the Symeou family even though in some instances it agrees that the evidence submitted shows that the local police investigation was flawed and when it could not rule out the possibility that the police were guilty of the manipulation and fabrication of evidence? How futile is our justice when it is decided that a young British man's future is not under our control, but is instead an argument to be had in Greek courts? Leave was granted to appeal to the House of Lords, but the House of Lords in turn rejected it.

The second point that I would like to consider in the time available is the issue of bail. When the European arrest warrant was agreed in 2002, it was with the understanding from all sides that this measure, which would have the effect of causing EU citizens standing trial to be held in prison in another member state, would be swiftly followed by measures guaranteeing their fair trial rights, as well as guaranteeing that there would be no miscarriages of justice. That promise was betrayed by member states when they failed to agree in 2004 to a proposal for a framework decision on procedural rights. All we can hope for now is, at best, a piecemeal approach.

The European Council is promising only to consider, not to legislate on, a so-called euro-bail, which would have helped my constituent who had been explicitly refused bail because he was a foreigner. Several years ago, Lord Lamontpredicted with characteristic foresight the plight of my constituent when he said:

"In some countries, bail is frequently refused to foreigners for fear they will abscond. In fact, there are several hundred British citizens on remand in Europe's prisons many of whom would have been released on bail if they were nationals of the country holding them."

Is it any wonder that my constituent and his family feel the UK Government have repeatedly let them down? Andrew was forced to languish in jail on remand for 10 months until June this year, yet with the existing EAW, one member state could all too easily have returned him, if he had been able to serve bail over here-under the European arrest warrant.

The emotional and financial cost to the family, who have remained supportive throughout, has been extraordinary. They have had to decamp to Greece to be with their son when he was first extradited 16 months ago. Their ability to continue to run their business and provide an income has been seriously compromised, but despite that, the family members have remained united and passionate in their campaign for justice for their son. They want him to have his day in court. I pay tribute to their courage and resilience in the face of this huge adversity.

To conclude, we should have an agreed framework of extradition for member states within the European Union-I accept that. The process needs to be fast, but should not be carried out without respect for an individual's right to a fair trial and a fair judicial process. At the heart of these flaws is the expected notion of mutual recognition between the judicial process in member states. The process of mutual recognition allows for miscarriages, as we have discussed. I suggest that a system of mutual understanding would suit the process of a European arrest warrant far better. Such a process would allow for reasoned debate before EAWs were acted on rather than allow European law simply to supersede our law. This would allow European warrants to be declined if the acts were viewed as non-criminal in the UK or the evidence was insufficient.

It seems perverse that hon. Members on both sides of the House were up in arms over the 42-day detention provisions of the last Parliament, yet we are willing to have our own citizens held in foreign prisons for far longer as a result of a flawed piece of legislation. Should we as a House accept that liberty and justice be sacrificed for expediency?

Lawful Industrial Action (Minor Errors) Bill

Second Reading

Nick de Bois: I thank my hon. Friend for being so generous in giving way. In effect, we have a situation in which every cause will have an effect. My hon. Friend outlines admirably the fact that in this case, if the processes are not followed and a strike subsequently takes place, many people outside the immediate target of the strike action are affected. They have no recourse. They have nowhere to go. When I was running my company, we were in the unfortunate position of having to make a small number of redundancies. We had to go through-and rightly so-a strict but nevertheless somewhat burdensome process and, as a result of a minor technical error, there was the right for redress for those involved. It strikes me that in this situation, the process should be adhered to as strictly as possible because there is no form of redress for those outside the immediate consequences of the action. Does he agree?

Philip Davies (Shipley, Conservative): I very much agree with my hon. Friend. I know that he is a great advocate for rail commuters in his constituency-he has even had Westminster Hall debates on the problems that his commuters face. He is a great champion for his constituents and I agree with him. This is a very interesting point. If the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington wants to make it easier to have strike action, perhaps, as a quid pro quo, he might consider what my hon. Friend Nick de Bois says and introduce into his Bill a provision that some statutory consultation must take place with all affected parties before any strike action, so that people can understand the full consequences of that action. It might well be that when a union decides that it wants to go out on strike because of a grievance with a particular employer, it does not take into consideration the wider impact it will have on innocent third parties who are no part of the dispute at all. My hon. Friend makes a very good point-perhaps that is an anomaly that should be addressed in legislation. I hope that theMinister was listening carefully to hisintervention, because he is in a far better position to do something about that than I am. It is certainly worth considering.

Lawful Industrial Action (Minor Errors) Bill

Second Reading

Nick de Bois: The Minister touches on a point on which I would welcome some clarity: the consequences of industrial action go far wider than have been mentioned so far, as my hon. Friend Philip Davies highlighted. There is no call for redress for those who are affected outside of the immediate action. Therefore, surely it is responsible for the law as it stands to require the maximum process to ensure that strike decisions are not taken lightly. In that way, those who will suffer as a consequence of that action can at least draw some grim satisfaction from that maximum process. They have no other form of redress.

Edward Davey (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Business, Innovation and Skills; Kingston and Surbiton, Liberal Democrat): My hon. Friend puts his finger on it. We need to weigh in the balance not just the rights of ordinarytrade union members, but the rights of the business, the shareholders, the public, customers and other businesses that are affected by strike action. That is why the law has evolved as it has. It is a balancing act. Sometimes people say that the democratic result of a ballot was clearly in favour of strike action but ignore the fact that the procedural way in which the ballot was conducted was against the current law. They fail to understand why the procedures are there. They are there for good reason.

Lawful Industrial Action (Minor Errors) Bill

Second Reading

Nick de Bois: I am grateful to the Minister, who has been very generous with his time. Given the small number of applications for injunctions, would the Minister like to speculate on the motives behind this Bill? It strikes me that it is simply a device to allow and encourage more industrial disharmony at a time when we clearly cannot do such a thing, as well as to cover up the failure of unions to get their act together when they wish to follow this process.

Edward Davey (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Business, Innovation and Skills; Kingston and Surbiton, Liberal Democrat): I always like being invited to speculate, but the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington is an hon. Gentleman, so I could only ascribe honourable motives to him.

Nick de Bois: I would not wish to suggest otherwise; I was merely asking about the situations that might arise at a time we can ill afford them.

Edward Davey (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Business, Innovation and Skills; Kingston and Surbiton, Liberal Democrat): I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that were we to pass this Bill, it would not help the economy, in its current fragile state, to recover. There would be a danger of more strike action and that is not something that we want.

Elections and Returning Officers

Nick de Bois: Is not part of the problem, as I found during the election, that if someone wishes to challenge a household's electoral registration there are only 21 days in which the returning officer can do so? In the heat of the work in the run-up to an election, that is effectively impossible.

Brian Binley (Northampton South, Conservative): My hon. Friend makes an important point. The Minister should consider, and I hope that he noted it.

Rail Services (Enfield)

Adjournment Debate

Nick de Bois: I was delighted to hear that this is the first time that you have chairedWestminster Hall, Mr Bone. I can confirm that this is my first debate in Westminster Hall. I am sure that you will agree that at our respective ages, it is good to be maidens in anything.

I am grateful to have secured the debate. I requested it because of the significant disquiet about delays and overcrowding from Enfield Town, Turkey Street, Southbury, Enfield Lockand Brimsdown railway stations. Unlike in other parts of north London, there are barely any alternatives to rail for commuters in Enfield. I am grateful to have had my right hon. Friend the Minister's time on many previous occasions, when she has shown considerable interest in commuter services for my constituents. I also welcome my hon. Friend Mr Burrowes, who has worked closely with me on the issues under discussion today.

I am keen to show that the new franchise agreements could be used positively to support wider community objectives as well as to deal with the immediate transport issues, but to understand that opportunity, we need to appreciate the local geography and how the railway is organised. That will enable us to learn from past mistakes and look to the future.

Let me start with the local area. Enfield as a community is already changing. There are, of course, classic suburbs, but it is worth noting that across the wider borough, there are six of the most deprived areas not just in London, but in Europe. However, there are also opportunities, particularly in the Lea valley, where we can succeed in regenerating and place shaping for the future. Such plans exist, but they will depend on the right infrastructure. In theory, the Lea valley and Enfield as a whole are linked by the umbilical cord of the railway system. Clearly, there is commuting straight out of London, through Enfield and up to Cambridge, Stansted and beyond. We can attract, but also need services to attract, inward commuting to help to support regeneration.

What is the railway offer? In our part of London, we have one main line from Cambridge and Stansted that goes through the eastern corridor of Enfield and the Lea valley to Tottenham Haleand Liverpool Street. It is run by National Express East Anglia. That franchise also runs the suburban line through central Enfield, which serves two end points-Cheshunt and Enfield Town-running through Seven Sisters. There is a second suburban line, run by First Capital Connect into Moorgate via Finsbury Park, which serves western Enfield.

Both suburban lines are overcrowded. There is no question about that, particularly for the underground interchanges, and the train capacities are limited. In particular, from Cheshunt and Enfield Town via Seven Sisters, there are at best six trains an hour, with perhaps six to eight coaches. In the off-peak period, there are at best two services an hour from Enfield Town. Such services can hardly be described as underground or even metro standard. The problems have been compounded by limited investment in recent years. I should add that only five stations across the whole west Anglia network are gated, and revenue is being lost as a result.

As for the main eastern Lea valley line, which goes through Enfield Lock and Brimsdown, we have a mix of limited-stop and local trains, governed by 15-minute scheduled Stansted Expresses. West Anglia is one of the most demanding and pressurised rail corridors in the country. There is no place for a fast train to pass a slower one until Broxbourne, some 17 miles from central London, with the obvious result that the faster trains do not go fast enough and the slower trains are going slower than required and are not able to stop and serve all the stations. That leads to immense frustration for commuters on platforms, who are quite keen to get on those trains. There are no winners at the moment.

The railway area that I am talking about is predicted to grow, in passenger transport terms, by up to 37%. Admittedly, we may see some variation in that, given current economic circumstances, but it is a fast-growth area. It is true that over the whole franchise, there will be up to 120 new carriages in 2011-12, but they will principally be focused on the 12-coach train fast services. The losers will be Enfield suburban services. So it really is a case of when, not if, we can invest in additional track and signalling as well.

I now turn to the wider national picture, examining the linkage between Government rail policies and the franchising process. As we know, National Express operates under a franchise awarded by the Strategic Rail Authority in 2004. The specification focused on improving performance, but it also allowed more Stansted Express trains, which, as I have explained, did not do Enfield services any favours. At best, we were marking time, but services were made worse on the eastern Lea valley line.

With the benefit of hindsight, we can see that the franchise agreement did not deal with the underlying problems, but just worked the existing railway harder. Of course, that has not necessarily been to our advantage. It shows that we have lacked investment and are still waiting for that investment. In that respect, the previous Government cannot avoid the blame, because they had been controlling the SRA since 2005.

Latterly, the Labour Government had three simultaneous desires: to maintain a command-and-control process in relation to the railways, to move the taxpayer to fare-payer ratio from 50:50 to about 30:70, and to try to breathe life into a money-go-round of fares generating profits for investment. That led to the unacceptable highly leveraged bids for a number of franchises. The most notorious was the east coast bid by National Express, which failed commercially in 2009. Sadly, the record shows that that was not the only failure; there was one in 2006 as well. I am no great literary scholar, but as Oscar Wilde might have put it, to lose one operator is a misfortune; to lose two is somewhat careless. Unfortunately, it proves that the franchising money-go-round is not working.

That brings us to the national position on franchising. If the money-go-round is not working, the funding rules must change, but that depends on how franchises are constructed. The basis of franchising has a history of always changing. Objectives have focused on lowest net subsidy, highest premiums or achieving specified service performance and quality for passengers. That meant increasingly that although operators might have been working in the private sector, they had a straitjacket on them that prevented them adding the value that passengers and commuters want.

In parallel, the contractual length of franchises had been adjusted. Sometimes they were on a bespoke basis. A franchise was longer if a railway needed more investment in trains. However, in recent times the norm has been about seven years, sometimes with an extension for good behaviour. Fundamentally, as many of us recognise, that short-termism does not incentivise major investment by the private sector.

Furthermore, the franchising rules did not achieve the right outcomes for National Express East Anglia lines in Enfield. Passengers' overall satisfaction is measured by the national passenger survey. The operator has consistently performed below the London and south-east sector average and well below the highest franchise in the sector. That is despite punctuality having improved.

I noticed today-I trust that the Financial Times is correct-that an announcement has been made to grant a temporary extension to the franchise for another seven months. I understand the reasons behind that and accept it fully, but what concerns me is that many passengers might interpret that as an endorsement of what has happened in the past. That clearly is not the case. It is designed ultimately to allow us to have a better system for the future.

The new franchising reform consultation suggests that future franchise bids will be judged on the quality of the overall package of proposals. My constituents will welcome that. Let us look to the future. Public funds are tight. We must look to a new partnership between the Government and the private sector to secure long-term funding by train operators to leverage better services and facilities. That is good news. Enfield is awaiting a new franchise; it will be one of the first. The Government emphasis on outcomes and long-term franchises presents us with short and long-term opportunities.

Bob Stewart (Beckenham, Conservative): Does my hon. Friend think that this new franchise might be a model for other franchises, such as in south-east London?

Nick de Bois: I am grateful for that intervention. In fact, I will go on to address such issues-particularly local ones in London, which I am sure my hon. Friend faces in hisconstituency. That is exactly my point: now is the time to be bold and imaginative, notwithstanding the constraints that we are all working within.

I shall turn to the priorities that commuters wish to see. These include refurbishing trains, so that we can get consistent appearance and quality, and improving security by introducing ticket barriers, and perhaps increasing CCTV as well. More stations protected by ticket barriers will lead to better revenue protection. In addition, investing in the key interchanges of Seven Sisters andTottenham Hale, which service Enfield, will be crucial in making them more accessible. A fundamental priority is train frequency.

I accept that, in the short term, infrastructure will largely be as it is now, which limits what can be achieved. I commend to the Minister an interesting recent report from the London borough of Enfield showing a positive case for a more frequent local train service between Enfield andLiverpool Street in the off-peak. That analysis is based on journey-time savings and does not include the other expected community and economic benefits. I believe the benefit-cost ratio, as the report demonstrates, would be under current rules of 1.46:1. That is before we take into account the greater community and economic benefits. I understand that 1.5 is the guideline for investment. There is a strong case.

As an aside, many stakeholders regret that the current official proposals for four trains per hour to Stratford from the Lea valley line through Enfield will only exist for the 2012 Olympic games. The Enfield report shows how a revision to train-stopping patterns on the Lea valley line could regularly achieve four trains per hour, peak and off-peak, to the busiest stations in the areas requiring regeneration. I am happy to commend the report, on which much work was done, to theMinister.

Other short-term matters must be highlighted, including work to solve passenger crowding at the Victoria line interchanges. I look to action on the local level crossings, which are a source of risk-all too tragically, in Enfield, very recently. I also look to action on performance delay. Improving disability access, particularly at the key interchange routes, is a must.

Further progress on studies about expenditure during the new investment periods is needed. For example, a long-term franchise should be able to address the broader spectrum of opportunities, including the case for partial four-tracking on the Lea valley line, which will improve the service, as I have explained, as previously it was two-track.

To conclude, I fully support the approach taken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State when he said that he will involve all elements of the rail industry more fully in the decision-making process. I support the decision, and regard it as vital to accelerate the rail value-for-money review under the leadership of Sir Roy McNulty. It is vital that we look to improve our existing infrastructure even in these hard times and his work should help drive that forward.

For Enfield, it is crucial that franchise agreements set out not just clear performance indicators but levels of investment and service agreements that can be benchmarks, and that they send a clear signal that economically important areas served by railways-such as my constituency and neighbouring areas-are open for business and that we can help rail services to support that and regenerate the area. Our business community and developers will be keenly watching franchise agreements before making investment decisions.West Anglia will, as my hon. Friend Bob Stewartpointed out, be a test for the new Government of the new rail management and franchising system. Those routes could be exemplary and even a fast-track trial area for a new approach to delivery. A new franchising policy presents us with such an opportunity, delivering, as it says in the coalition agreement,

"the improvements that passengers want-like better services, better stations, longer trains and better rolling stock".

Summer Adjournment

Nick de Bois: May I add my congratulations to the hon. Members for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) and for Livingston (Graeme Morrice), and to my hon. Friend Priti Patel, on their maiden speeches? I was advised early on that one should wait some considerable time before making one's maiden speech. I foolishly chose to ignore that advice, and today was a perfect example of why it was such good advice.

I want to take this opportunity to articulate the frustrations of many commuters in myconstituency of Enfield North, who, frankly, have been ignored for years. I have campaigned for at least five years to try to improve the level of commuter services. The rail operator that serves the bulk of the constituency-National ExpressEast Anglia-and its predecessor brand both failed to recognise something that they should know: that the conditions on the trains are frankly unacceptable, and that their frequency and reliability are generally poor. I even had a National Express manager tell me that, although it had rolling stock, it had chosen not to put the required additional stock on some of the Enfield North local lines because we were bottom of their list of priorities. That is no comfort to my constituents, who pay zone 6 fares.

We also suffer from generally ill-kept stations which could do with a deep clean. Staffing at stations is limited and often non-existent; late at night, of course, that does not encourage a feeling of safety and security. Sunday services are non-existent. Many loyal Tottenham Hotspur fans travel regularly to see their team-is that not suffering enough? [ Interruption. ] I will not be forgiven for that comment, but to add to that the indignity of an unreliable service on a Sunday, when engineering works are scheduled to coincide with important travel days, just does not make sense and reflects the attitude of neglect towards my constituents.

I do not want the House to take my word for it. The statistics show that Network SouthEast had the lowest satisfaction ratings of all the services in the south-east and London. That is not good enough, but what do some of my constituents say? With perfect timing, I received a letter from some constituents only yesterday. They say that

"our local trains seem unable to move, therefore leaving us stranded on platforms, and"-

when they finally get on to the train-

"having to travel like cattle in sweltering carriages."

All that they request is more carriages and an increase in the number of timetabled trains, which is not unreasonable. They even ask-this shows how bad things are-for a

"replacement bus service to Tottenham Hale when the line is closed for work".

How many of us groan when we are offered a replacement bus service? My constituents want one because they see it as an improvement-how shocking is that? As I have said, they have to pay the most in our area, which is in zone 6.

National Express's reply was most illuminating, because after several paragraphs of basically saying, "No change", it said, "Please go to our improvement plan on the website." Hon. Members will not be surprised to hear that that link, which I tried only this morning, does not work either. The frustration is all too evident. [ Interruption. ] As my hon. Friend Gordon Henderson says from asedentary position, it is much like the website of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority.

I wish to be constructive, because I am confident that my constituents will welcome the steps that were announced by the Minister of State,Department for Transport, my right hon. FriendMrs Villiers. It is encouraging that we will ensure that new rail franchising systems will impose demanding performance requirements based on passenger outcomes and satisfaction. It is also good to know that if operators do not meet those requirements they could ultimately face the serious sanction of losing their franchises. We believe and welcome the idea that longer franchises will lead to greater investment and perhaps to greater improvement in services. That is vital.

I understand the role of the carrot and the stick, but I urge the Government, in the spirit of localism that I am keen to embrace, to consider one or two other opportunities. In particular, as we approach the round of new franchises, we have the chance to consider two important possibilities. First, should we consider allowing greater local control over train services operating in the London area? Secondly, and more importantly, should there be greater local input into the new franchise negotiations?

What could we gain from that? A locally accountable transport authority would know how vital transport is to the local economy and would understand the micro-issues affecting local commuters far better than does a rail operator. Such bodies answer to voters and can respond more effectively. There is an incentive for them to have issues fixed, to ensure rail performance, to ease overcrowding, to address safety in unsafe stations and to put those issues up the agenda. Significantly, they would also be ready to provide input into future negotiations. I am very keen that the experiences of my constituent commuters in the past five years should not be wasted. Instead, we could gain real intelligence about many of the shortcomings on the ground, which could then be considered when dealing with services. This issue is of great importance to people who spend two to three hours a day getting in and out of work.

Who could fulfil that task? Is there a role forTransport for London or the local authority? Should we give statutory weight to such a body? I put these ideas on the table because in areas such as health, education and housing, we are leading the way on greater devolvement locally and greater local involvement and decision making. However tempting it might be, I do not propose that local people should write the timetables or decide the level of rolling stock, but I do propose that the people of Enfield North and elsewhere should have the opportunity to have their local say on a matter of such great local importance.

Jobs and Unemployed

Opposition Day - [3rd Allotted Day]

Nick de Bois: Will my hon. Friend add to that the outrageous attack on many SMEs, with banks inflating margins for captive customers with nowhere else to go? Does he welcome the opportunity for competition in that marketplace?

Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon, Conservative): My hon. Friend is right, and that is one of the areas I am passionate about.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation - Capital Gains Tax (Rates)

Ways and Means

Nick de Bois: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall do some immediate live editing to meet your request.

As a relative newcomer to the Chamber, let me say that we need to remember that there is no such thing as free money. The vast sums that we are discussing have had to be earned by people, and those same people will pay the price for the failed policies of the previous Administration. We should bear in mind the fact that they will be making sacrifices because of Labour's mistakes.

In a former life, I was fortunate enough to be able to run my own business. During 20 years in the private sector, I have enjoyed the ups and downs that go with that territory, as well as sharing the challenges and opportunities that all families face. Given that reality, I recognise that this Budget, and the legacy we have inherited, will hurt people, and will hurt some in their pockets. Obviously, noChancellor would wish to give such a Budget, but it is the one that any responsible Chancellorwould have to give.

We are like the receivers coming in to clear up the chaos left by the previous owners. It falls to us to tell the shareholders, the staff and stakeholders what must be done to save them from bankruptcy. In government, Labour Members were always keen to hold company directors to account for their mistakes, and would often pursue criminal prosecution. I notice that there is not the same alacrity to do so with the right hon. Members for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) and forEdinburgh South West (Mr Darling).

In the limited time available, I want to focus on enterprise in the Budget, because my constituents in Enfield North will welcome steps to protect jobs and create an enterprise environment that can create new jobs-and why not? Given the 15% annual increase in the number of jobseeker's allowance claimants under 24 and the 30% drop in the number of vacancies, jobs are clearly a key issue in our area.

By reducing the burden of taxation and regulation, the Budget will give business the confidence to invest in the long term, which is crucial. Toby Perkins suggested that the tax cut for companies would be of no value and would do nothing except, perhaps, create extra profits for those involved. That is nonsense. According to a survey of its members by the Federation of Small Businesses, 42 per cent. of small firms will use savings from tax cuts to invest in growing their businesses, 20% will use them to employ more staff, and some 22% will try to invest in new services and products. We must allow our companies to invest and, in doing so, create jobs.

I welcome the benefits to increase the level of business rate support temporarily for new businesses. We are trying to introduce help in the regions, and the exemption from national insurance for the first 10 employees will certainly be welcome. Let me, however, introduce a note of caution, and ask my colleagues to bear it in mind. I do not want to see the emergence of a series of phoenix companies that may wish to take advantage of the exemption as an aside. This is not the occasion on which to discuss the merits of phoenix companies, but they have the potential to abuse what is otherwise a very welcome policy.

Above all, I welcome the Government's commitment to urging banks to promote small and medium-sized enterprises in particular. That too is crucial. Many people in my constituency and-I declare an interest here-in my own experience have seen the abject failure of banks, some of them owned by the people, in that regard. Many pursue a twin-track approach: they tell us that they are publicly committed to lending to SMEs, while in the real world actively discouraging them from applying for loans. Such disgraceful behaviour should not be allowed to continue without comment. I for one will be watching the banks carefully and holding them to account in the future. Their behaviour explains why, according to the FSB report, only 18% of its SME membership apply for loans, and only 9% are awarded them. SMEs are being discouraged from applying, and that is distorting the certificates.

Andrew Bingham (High Peak, Conservative): I agree with what my hon. Friend has said about the banks. Will he also acknowledge that hard-working counter staff are being criticised by members of the public although they are not to blame for the difficulties that the banks have caused? They have been working very hard, and they are being unfairly criticised.

Nick de Bois: I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting that distinction. Indeed, it does not apply only to those working on the shop floor. Many senior managers are clearly being directed to follow a policy which-I am extremely pleased to note from the Budget-we are prepared to challenge. The Red Book refers to a review of the way in which banks should respond to the need to lend in the future. I realise that Britain needs its banks, but the banks need to play their part openly and honestly, and I look forward to seeing that happen. It is a key part of the proposals outlined in the Red Book.

This is a necessary Budget. It is a tragedy for our country that every 20 years or so Conservative Chancellors must make difficult decisions and accept public unpopularity for sorting out the mess left by their opponents. That has now happened again. I dislike many of the measures in the Budget, but I support them because I dislike even more the idea of our country literally going bankrupt. I hope that many of the tax rises that have been announced will eventually be reversed as our economy grows over the coming years, but our priority now is to stop the country slipping into a spiral of debt-driven decline, to rebuild our businesses, and to create jobs and opportunities to turn our economy round.

Energy and Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Debate on Address

Nick de Bois (5:05pm): I am grateful for the opportunity to make my maiden speech in this important debate. I congratulate all hon. Members who have made their maiden speeches, but my hon. Friend Chris Heaton-Harris raised the bar even higher with his speech. Not only was it entertaining, but it had depth and content, and I warmly congratulate him on that. I also congratulate the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change on leading today's debate on the Gracious Speech, which represents a triumph of localism over centralisation and prescriptive government. That will be particularly welcome in my constituency, as I shall explain a little later.

First, I wish to say a word about my predecessor, the right hon. Joan Ryan, who served theconstituency from 1997 with such distinction and with such a commitment to campaigning on behalf of her constituents. I am sure that she would wish to hear no better message of thanks than that she was a fine and welcome constituency MP. Hon. Members may recall that her predecessor prior to 1997 was the right hon. Tim Eggar, who served Enfield, North from 1979 and served for 12 continuous years as a Minister. Tim was kind enough to support me during all my campaigns-those of 2001 and 2005, as well as the more recent one in 2010. People who remember Tim will recall him as the eternal optimist, with an outgoing and friendly nature; I did not know a day when he appeared a little down. Unfortunately, his optimistic outlook was put to the test in 2001 and 2005. With that same optimism, commitment, determination and self-belief he had assured me that we would win those elections with vast majorities, so it was extremely notable that in the most recent campaign he stayed silent.

As tradition requires, I shall spend a few moments telling the House about my Enfield Northconstituency, which I am so proud to represent. It is a constituency of contrasts. It is London's most northerly constituency and it boasts some of the largest areas of green-belt land in its west. Many people say that it has the finest landscapes in the Greater London area. I agree with that view and I intend to work hard with local groups such as the Enfield Society, the Federation of Enfield Residents and Allied Associations-FERAA-the Crews Hill Residents Association and Friends ofHilly Fields, which, along with others, have worked so hard to preserve the character and nature of our constituency. Enfield Chase and areas such as Forty Hill have been blessed with many royal visitors during the past 400 years, the most regular of whom was Henry VIII, followed byElizabeth I. The visits continue to the present day, but I can confidently say that nowadays most of our visitors come from the region; the area is very accessible, as it neighbours the M25.

Enfield town is, at heart, a traditional English market town, but I hasten to add that it has one unique distinction: it boasts the world's first automated teller machine-it was known as "the cashpoint" in those days. I must say that it has been far more reliable in dispensing money than some of the banks that we got used to in the last couple of years, and it is still there to this day.

Eastern Enfield, by contrast, is a much more urban scene. My constituency has a diverse population. Diversity is evident in culture, ethnicity, language and religion. More than 40 languages are spoken by children attending schools in Enfield North, including my own school, Chesterfield, of which I have been fortunate enough to be an active governor for the last four years. The same local communities bring a vibrant economic and social mix to the area, with a wonderful sense of entrepreneurial spirit. The spirit of our Cypriot, Turkish, Greek, Asian, Kurdish and Somali communities is evident if one goes down the Hertford road. As someone mentioned earlier, hon. Members are most welcome to do so, so long as they are willing to part with some money to support our local business.

Above all else, Enfield is shaped by industry. Indeed, its motto is "By industry ever stronger". This part of Enfield gave the world such things as Belling cookers, Scrabble and the first manufactured colour television, and it is of course famous for the Lee Enfield rifle, which, I believe, served the British Army until 1957. The subsequent disappearance of much of eastern Enfield's old manufacturing industry has brought its challenges and its problems. Much of that industry has been succeeded by other entrepreneurial efforts but at the heart of my ambition for Enfield is the wish to ensure that we capitalise on the strategic advantages of theconstituency to attract new businesses and a new economy, to support new local jobs and, above all, to deal with the plague of youth unemployment, which is far too high in myconstituency. We have particular strengths, including an advantageous location next to the motorway network, direct connections into London on the trains and, of course, Stansted airport nearby. We have excellent communications, a reliable and skilled work force and a resilient enterprise culture with a burgeoning small business sector.

We have to create and attract new industries from the high-skilled sectors. We have to attract the creative industries that will be tempted to move from London and, of course, industries from the green economy that can and should come to Enfield. If, during my term-however long it might be-I can demonstrate that I can be the No. 1 salesman for our constituency, I will be a very happy MP as I would have improved the quality of life of many of my constituents.

On taking full advantage of the strategic location of Enfield, I noticed earlier that the Minister of State,Department for Transport, was in the Chamber. Perhaps she would have anticipated what I am about to say, because she is familiar with the need for us to compete, when the finances are right, for a northern gateway access road that that will link from the M25, and take mainly industrial traffic down through our eastern corridor. I join my colleagues who spoke earlier in knowing that this will be on our agenda. It will be a win-win situation, as it will help to develop our eastern corridor for business and take away one of the harshest environmental blights in the north of theconstituency where the traffic goes along Bullsmoor lane-at its peak, 150 heavy goods vehicles a minute pass residential housing. Such a measure would be a win-win for the economy and for the local environment. I am sure that that is a subject that my constituents will ask me to revisit in due course.

One of the many qualities that Enfieldians have is that they are proud-proud of their area and of their neighbourhood. Many residents have grown up and spent all their lives in Enfield. They have strong views on their home town, and yearn for strong independent minded representation that will genuinely put their interests first and protect the environment and public services.

The localism that is evident from the Gracious Speech is one that I know the people of Enfield will welcome, so that they, and not remote politicians, can shape and influence the neighbourhood as they see fit. We were honoured when that localism was made acutely evident when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health visited our hospital, Chase Farm, within 14 days of thegeneral election. He immediately stopped the top-down, London-led, unwelcome and unpopular reconfiguration plans for our hospital and returned the control and direction of our health care needs to residents and GPs, removing the threat of forced closures. That was a welcome demonstration of localism and of the new Government in action. That same localism is proposed across other key areas that dominate people's day-to-day lives, including planning, which can literally have an impact on the street they live on. The Queen's Speech marks the first real opportunity for an MP to work with his constituents, local authorities and public bodies to shape their neighbourhoods, services and environment and thus deliver real improvement to quality of life for all. I welcome that challenge and opportunity, as will my constituents. Mr Speaker, thank you very much for allowing me to speak today.