here - United Kingdom Parliament
here - United Kingdom Parliament here - United Kingdom Parliament
Wednesday Volume 519 1 December 2010 No. 82 HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD) Wednesday 1 December 2010 £5·00
- Page 2 and 3: © Parliamentary Copyright House of
- Page 4 and 5: 803 Oral Answers 1 DECEMBER 2010 Or
- Page 6 and 7: 807 Oral Answers 1 DECEMBER 2010 Or
- Page 8 and 9: 811 Oral Answers 1 DECEMBER 2010 Or
- Page 10 and 11: 815 Oral Answers 1 DECEMBER 2010 Or
- Page 12 and 13: 819 Oral Answers 1 DECEMBER 2010 Or
- Page 14 and 15: 823 Public Libraries and Museums Ac
- Page 16 and 17: 827 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 1 D
- Page 18 and 19: 831 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 1 D
- Page 20 and 21: 835 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 1 D
- Page 22 and 23: 839 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 1 D
- Page 24 and 25: 843 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 1 D
- Page 26 and 27: 847 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 1 D
- Page 28 and 29: 851 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 1 D
- Page 30 and 31: 855 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 1 D
- Page 32 and 33: 859 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 1 D
- Page 34 and 35: 863 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 1 D
- Page 36 and 37: 867 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 1 D
- Page 38 and 39: 871 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 1 D
- Page 40 and 41: 875 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 1 D
- Page 42 and 43: 879 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 1 D
- Page 44 and 45: 883 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 1 D
- Page 46 and 47: 887 Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 1 D
- Page 48 and 49: 891 National Policy Statements 1 DE
- Page 50 and 51: 895 National Policy Statements 1 DE
Wednesday Volume 519<br />
1 December 2010 No. 82<br />
HOUSE OF COMMONS<br />
OFFICIAL REPORT<br />
PARLIAMENTARY<br />
DEBATES<br />
(HANSARD)<br />
Wednesday 1 December 2010<br />
£5·00
© <strong>Parliament</strong>ary Copyright House of Commons 2010<br />
This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the <strong>Parliament</strong>ary Click-Use Licence,<br />
available online through the Office of Public Sector Information website at<br />
www.opsi.gov.uk/click-use/<br />
Enquiries to the Office of Public Sector Information, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 4DU;<br />
e-mail: licensing@opsi.gov.uk
801 1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
802<br />
House of Commons<br />
Wednesday 1 December 2010<br />
The House met at half-past Eleven o’clock<br />
PRAYERS<br />
[MR SPEAKER in the Chair]<br />
Oral Answers to Questions<br />
SCOTLAND<br />
The Secretary of State was asked—<br />
Energy<br />
1. John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab):<br />
What (a) recent meetings he has had and (b) meetings<br />
he plans to have with representatives of Scottish Power<br />
to discuss the energy industry in Scotland. [26707]<br />
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Michael Moore):<br />
I have regular meetings with the energy industry, including<br />
with Scottish Power, and will continue to do so, given<br />
the sector’s importance to the Scottish economy.<br />
John Robertson: I thank the Secretary of State for his<br />
answer. He says that he has had these meetings, yet<br />
British Gas, Scottish Power and Scottish and Southern<br />
Energy have said that on no occasion has he ever<br />
discussed the price hiking that these companies are<br />
undertaking. When will he try to support the people of<br />
Scotland by doing something about the price hikes?<br />
Michael Moore: What I recognise is the importance<br />
of ensuring that we get a fair deal for consumers, as well<br />
as for the shareholders—the companies are concerned<br />
about that. As the hon. Gentleman will know, Ofgem<br />
has announced an inquiry into consumer protection<br />
and competition in the sector. I expect that to be a very<br />
thorough process.<br />
Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/<br />
Co-op): I am glad to see that the Secretary of State was<br />
able to get back from Scotland to be <strong>here</strong> today, despite<br />
the cold weather and the travel difficulties. Given that<br />
cold weather, and the increase in energy bills that many<br />
people have experienced, is he aware of the concern<br />
among many of my constituents and many others that<br />
the most vulnerable people will struggle to pay their<br />
bills, when they should be entitled to be on social<br />
tariffs? Will he t<strong>here</strong>fore undertake to convene a summit<br />
of the six energy companies to discuss, in particular,<br />
what they are doing to ensure that people who should<br />
be on social tariffs are on them, and that people in<br />
Scotland are not left cold at home this winter?<br />
Michael Moore: I am glad of the hon. Gentleman’s<br />
welcome, and I appreciate, as he will, that many people<br />
in Scotland, and indeed in the whole of the <strong>United</strong><br />
<strong>Kingdom</strong>, have been struggling to get to work and go<br />
about their business today. He rightly focuses on temperature<br />
and the fact that this will cause extra difficulty for<br />
people, so I am sure he will welcome the fact that we are<br />
maintaining the cold weather payments and the winter<br />
fuel allowance. I am certainly happy to discuss ideas of<br />
getting together with the different energy companies to<br />
make sure that they are properly focused on the needs<br />
of their customers.<br />
Asylum Seekers<br />
2. Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab): What<br />
discussions he has had with the UK Border Agency on<br />
the cancellation of its contract with Glasgow city<br />
council to provide services to asylum seekers. [26708]<br />
5. Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP):<br />
What recent discussions he has had with the UK<br />
Border Agency on the welfare of asylum seekers in<br />
Scotland. [26711]<br />
The <strong>Parliament</strong>ary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland<br />
(David Mundell): The Secretary of State and I are in<br />
regular contact with the Home Office on matters relating<br />
to asylum seekers. I understand that the UK Border<br />
Agency is working closely with support organisations in<br />
Glasgow to ensure that t<strong>here</strong> is minimum disruption to<br />
those affected by the termination of UKBA’s housing<br />
contract with Glasgow city council.<br />
Anas Sarwar: I thank the Minister for that answer.<br />
Does he think it acceptable that no detailed discussions<br />
were held between UKBA and either Ypeople or the<br />
Angel Group ahead of the decision to scrap the contract<br />
with Glasgow city council, even though they will be<br />
made to take responsibility for more than 1,000 asylum<br />
seekers in the city? Will he agree to meet representatives<br />
of all those involved in the dispute, so that he can make<br />
an informed contribution to the Immigration Minister?<br />
David Mundell: I will certainly be happy to meet the<br />
hon. Gentleman and other people who have an interest<br />
in this matter. I know that he has already had the<br />
opportunity to meet UKBA, and I think that he will<br />
share with me the positive view that although the people<br />
involved will no longer have a contract with Glasgow<br />
city council and will instead have one with another<br />
provider, many of them will stay in the same properties<br />
and that will minimise disruption.<br />
Pete Wishart: Does the Minister even start to understand<br />
and appreciate the outrage that exists in Scotland about<br />
the treatment of asylum seekers? This is not just about<br />
the Glasgow situation, appalling though that is; it is<br />
also about the detention of children and the operation<br />
of the section 4 card. Will he get down to the UKBA to<br />
explain that we look at these issues very differently in<br />
Scotland and we expect the UKBA to act accordingly?<br />
David Mundell: I do recognise that t<strong>here</strong> are concerns<br />
in Scotland about how the matter in Glasgow was<br />
handled, and the Immigration Minister accepts that the<br />
correspondence with those affected could have been<br />
much better handled. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman<br />
will welcome, as I do, the inquiry that the Scottish<br />
Affairs Committee is conducting into relations in Scotland<br />
with UKBA.
803 Oral Answers<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
Oral Answers<br />
804<br />
Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD): I welcome<br />
the Minister’s acceptance that the correspondence could<br />
have been handled better on the cancellation of the<br />
Glasgow contract, because as a result of letters sent out<br />
by UKBA, vulnerable people, including many families,<br />
were left in a state of extreme anxiety about w<strong>here</strong> they<br />
would be living. Can he reassure us that lessons will be<br />
learned from this, so that such mistakes are not repeated<br />
in future?<br />
David Mundell: Indeed, I can give the hon. Lady that<br />
assurance. As soon as these issues came to light, the<br />
Secretary of State for Scotland was in contact with<br />
the Immigration Minister. T<strong>here</strong> is a recognition that<br />
the correspondence was inappropriate, and a number of<br />
measures have been taken. For example, everyone affected<br />
will have at least 14 days’ notice if they have to move.<br />
Progress has been made. The initial letter was regrettable,<br />
but the situation will be better in future.<br />
HIV<br />
3. David Cairns (Inverclyde) (Lab): What recent<br />
discussions he has had with the (a) Secretary of State<br />
for Health and (b) Scottish Executive on strategies to<br />
reduce the incidence of HIV in the UK. [26709]<br />
The <strong>Parliament</strong>ary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland<br />
(David Mundell): I am in contact with the Secretary of<br />
State for Health and the Scottish Government on a<br />
range of matters. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the<br />
Government published their public health White Paper<br />
yesterday. As that is taken forward, close attention will<br />
be paid to the lessons that can be learned from the<br />
Scottish Government HIV action plan.<br />
David Cairns: I am grateful to the Minister for that<br />
answer. On world AIDS day, it is worth reminding<br />
ourselves of the rather obvious fact that viruses such as<br />
HIV do not respect borders. Will he reassure me that as<br />
the Government seek to draw up their sexual health and<br />
HIV strategy they will work closely with all the devolved<br />
Administrations to ensure a co<strong>here</strong>nt and joined-up<br />
approach? That is the only way that we will slow the<br />
spread of the virus, which has already claimed far too<br />
many lives.<br />
David Mundell: It is indeed appropriate that the hon.<br />
Gentleman has asked his question on world AIDS day.<br />
He is to be commended for his work as chairman of the<br />
all-party group on HIV and AIDS and for his work on<br />
the “Halve It” campaign. The Secretary of State will<br />
shortly meet the Minister for Public Health in Scotland,<br />
Shona Robison, and I shall ensure that this matter is on<br />
the agenda.<br />
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con): Will my<br />
right hon. Friend give an undertaking to discuss with<br />
the Scottish Government the findings from the eight<br />
pilot projects that the Department of Health is running<br />
to extend HIV testing in primary care hospitals and<br />
community centres?<br />
David Mundell: I am happy to give that undertaking.<br />
As the hon. Member for Inverclyde (David Cairns)<br />
intimated, HIV and AIDS know no borders and the<br />
rest of the <strong>United</strong> <strong>Kingdom</strong> can learn from what has<br />
happened in Scotland, just as Scotland can learn from<br />
what is happening elsew<strong>here</strong> in the <strong>United</strong> <strong>Kingdom</strong>.<br />
Economy<br />
4. Mr David Amess (Southend West) (Con): What<br />
recent discussions he has had with the First Minister<br />
on the relationship between the UK Government and<br />
Scottish Executive with regard to economic policy<br />
under the devolution settlement. [26710]<br />
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Michael Moore):<br />
I have had a number of exchanges with the First Minister<br />
in recent weeks. Yesterday, the Scotland Bill was introduced<br />
in this House. If enacted, the Bill will strengthen devolution<br />
by giving the Scottish <strong>Parliament</strong> a financial stake in<br />
the Scottish economy while maintaining the economic<br />
strength we all desire from being in the <strong>United</strong> <strong>Kingdom</strong>.<br />
Mr Amess: Now that we know that the Scottish<br />
nationalist party—[HON. MEMBERS: “National party.”]<br />
It put Holyrood’s tax-raising powers out of commission<br />
for two years without telling the Scottish <strong>Parliament</strong>.<br />
Does the Secretary of State agree that the Scottish<br />
Government should be made more accountable for<br />
their financial management to such an extent that t<strong>here</strong><br />
should be a closer relationship between economic growth<br />
and how much money is spent?<br />
Michael Moore: My hon. Friend makes some interesting<br />
observations. I can confirm that the Scotland Bill, if<br />
enacted, will provide exactly what he asks for. It will<br />
empower the Scottish <strong>Parliament</strong>, increase its financial<br />
accountability and secure Scotland’s place in the <strong>United</strong><br />
<strong>Kingdom</strong>.<br />
Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP): W<strong>here</strong> the Scotland<br />
Bill makes a real difference to the lives of people in<br />
Scotland and to the Scottish economy, it will have the<br />
support of the SNP. During the passage of the legislation<br />
in this House, will the Secretary of State and his Tory<br />
colleagues accept improvements that will deliver additional<br />
powers that will give the Scottish economy a competitive<br />
advantage?<br />
Michael Moore: I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s<br />
initial comments. As he is aware, the Bill introduced<br />
yesterday and the Command Paper that goes with it are<br />
the result of the work not just of the Conservative party<br />
and the Liberal Democrats but of the Labour party and<br />
others across Scotland. I hope that we will get proper<br />
engagement. I am confident that the measures in the<br />
Bill get the balance right for Scotland. They are right<br />
for this time and I am sure that they will pass the test of<br />
time.<br />
Angus Robertson: The Secretary of State knows that<br />
many of Scotland’s leading businessmen and women<br />
issued a statement this week, in which they said that<br />
t<strong>here</strong> must be<br />
“real economic levers to help sustain recovery and grow the<br />
economy.”<br />
Will the Secretary of State and his Tory colleagues<br />
reconsider their plans and consider improvements to<br />
the legislation, such as devolving corporation tax to<br />
help business grow?<br />
Michael Moore: I listen carefully to a range of opinion<br />
from business and elsew<strong>here</strong> about the future of<br />
Scotland’s—
805 Oral Answers<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
Oral Answers<br />
806<br />
Mr Speaker: Order. I apologise for interrupting the<br />
Secretary of State. I do not know what the hon. Member<br />
for Blyth Valley (Mr Campbell) had for breakfast this<br />
morning, but I am not sure that it has had the desired<br />
effect. [Interruption.] Order. The hon. Gentleman must<br />
not rant at the Government Chief Whip or anybody<br />
else. He must calm himself—it is better for his health if<br />
he does.<br />
Michael Moore: If I can repeat what I was saying<br />
before your intervention, Mr Speaker, I listen carefully<br />
to a range of opinion from across business and different<br />
sectors of Scottish society. The business community<br />
was well represented in the Calman commission, which<br />
produced and supported the proposal. We will continue<br />
to listen to a range of opinion, but we have no intention<br />
of devolving powers over corporation tax.<br />
Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD): In 1997, the<br />
Scottish people voted to give the Scottish <strong>Parliament</strong><br />
tax-varying powers, but in a disgraceful and secret<br />
decision, the SNP Government gave up those powers. I<br />
welcome the Scotland Bill. Will the Secretary of State<br />
assure us that those tax-varying powers will remain<br />
with the Scottish <strong>Parliament</strong> and that the Bill will be<br />
phrased in such a way that, were the SNP ever elected<br />
again, it would not be able to give up those powers in a<br />
secret decision?<br />
Michael Moore: As my hon. Friend knows, the<br />
consequences of the Scottish Government’s decision<br />
not to maintain the Scottish variable rate have been<br />
debated in the Scottish <strong>Parliament</strong> in recent days. The<br />
fundamental difference between the existing arrangements<br />
and what will follow if the Bill is enacted is that the Bill<br />
will create a Scottish income tax that sits alongside<br />
<strong>United</strong> <strong>Kingdom</strong> income tax, and t<strong>here</strong> will be a<br />
requirement to set that rate every year. That is a fundamental<br />
change, and it will bring the accountability and<br />
empowerment that I discussed earlier, which will be a<br />
good thing for Scotland.<br />
Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab): It is shocking<br />
that both the UK and Scottish Administrations are<br />
failing to prioritise job growth. While t<strong>here</strong> was a slight<br />
fall in UK-wide unemployment last month, the jobless<br />
total for Scotland continued to increase. The latest<br />
figures show that in Campbeltown an astonishing<br />
13 claimants are chasing every available job. Our youngest<br />
people are suffering the most, and if Labour wins in<br />
2011, we are committed to continuing the future jobs<br />
fund to help them into work. Why is the Secretary of<br />
State set on removing that vital support, while at the<br />
same time supporting tax cuts for our biggest banks,<br />
which are at the root of our economic problems?<br />
Michael Moore: That was an interesting insight into<br />
the Opposition’s economic policy, although I realise<br />
that Opposition Front Benchers are divided on exactly<br />
what it should be. I remind the hon. Lady that we are<br />
dealing with the consequences of the largest deficit in<br />
peacetime history—£155,000 million. We took urgent<br />
action to deal with that, which has drawn us back from<br />
the danger zone. We will announce proposals in due<br />
course on the Work programme which will replace the<br />
future jobs fund. We are dedicated to ensuring that we<br />
create the conditions for growth and for a private sector-led<br />
recovery to deal with the problems that we inherited.<br />
Ann McKechin: Unfortunately, yet again Scotland’s<br />
youth are not the Secretary of State’s priority. His party<br />
does not think twice about dancing on the head of a<br />
pin. In its autumn edition of “Scottish News Extra”,<br />
which is turning out to be one of Scotland’s better<br />
reads, his colleague, the Business Secretary, is described as<br />
“launching a scathing attack on the previous government’s unfair<br />
tuition fees which still have to be paid by Scottish students<br />
studying elsew<strong>here</strong> in the UK. He likened tuition fees to the<br />
infamous poll tax.”<br />
Now that his colleague has said that he may abstain on<br />
the forthcoming vote to increase tuition fees in England<br />
to £9,000, will the Secretary of State confirm whether<br />
he will support the increase, whether he will vote against<br />
it in support of the 3,000-plus Scottish students who are<br />
directly affected, or whether he will be absent again<br />
from the vote?<br />
Mr Speaker: Order. In replying, the Secretary of<br />
State must bear in mind that we are referring to economic<br />
policy rather than higher education policy.<br />
Michael Moore: It is interesting that the hon. Lady<br />
interpreted the question by seeking to get away from<br />
anything that might focus attention on Labour’s record<br />
on the economy and on our determination to create the<br />
conditions that will get us back to sustainable growth<br />
for Scotland and the <strong>United</strong> <strong>Kingdom</strong>.<br />
Scotch Whisky<br />
6. Mr Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con): What<br />
recent discussions he has had with representatives of<br />
the Scotch whisky industry; and if he will make a<br />
statement. [26712]<br />
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Michael Moore):<br />
I regularly have exchanges with the industry and will be<br />
meeting the Scotch Whisky Association in the near<br />
future.<br />
Mr Holloway: The Prime Minister’s recent trade<br />
delegation to China succeeded in securing geographical<br />
indication of origin status for Scotch whisky. How<br />
much will that be worth to the UK trade balance?<br />
Michael Moore: The importance of the Scotch whisky<br />
industry, not just to Scotland but to the <strong>United</strong> <strong>Kingdom</strong>,<br />
is shown by the fact that it contributes roughly £4 billion<br />
to our economy, £3 billion of which is represented by<br />
exports. At the moment our exports to China are very<br />
small in comparison with those to the rest of the world.<br />
This important new concession—this agreement with<br />
the Chinese—which we very much welcome, will ensure<br />
that we can grow our exports in China as we have done<br />
in the rest of the world.<br />
Mr Brian H. Donohoe (Central Ayrshire) (Lab): I<br />
declare an interest as secretary of the all-party group on<br />
Scotch whisky and spirits. What representations has the<br />
Secretary of State made to the Treasury in connection<br />
with the imbalance in the tax on whisky?<br />
Michael Moore: As the hon. Gentleman will know<br />
from his distinguished position, the industry is well<br />
represented in discussions with the Treasury at all times<br />
throughout the year, as it was under the previous<br />
Administration. I continue to have discussions with my<br />
Treasury colleagues on this very important issue, and<br />
will continue to do so in the months ahead.
807 Oral Answers<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
Oral Answers<br />
808<br />
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP): The Secretary<br />
of State will know that only yesterday the Scotch Whisky<br />
Association said that the Treasury’s review on alcohol<br />
tax was a missed opportunity. Will he confirm to the<br />
House today that he will make specific representations<br />
to his Treasury colleagues for fair taxation of all alcoholic<br />
drinks based on their alcohol content only, and no<br />
other spurious issues?<br />
Michael Moore: The hon. Gentleman has a distinguished<br />
record of following these issues very carefully. He will<br />
have made representations, as has the industry. The<br />
review was concluded a few weeks ago and will report in<br />
due course. As I said in answer to the earlier question, I<br />
will continue to discuss these issues with the Treasury.<br />
Commonwealth Games<br />
7. Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) (Con): What<br />
assessment he has made of the lessons learned from the<br />
2010 Delhi Commonwealth games which could inform<br />
his Department’s contribution to the 2014 Glasgow<br />
Commonwealth games. [26713]<br />
The <strong>Parliament</strong>ary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland<br />
(David Mundell): The Commonwealth Games Federation<br />
is currently leading a formal review of the Delhi games.<br />
The Scottish Government and Glasgow 2014 games<br />
partners are participating in that review, and will be<br />
seeking to identify the key messages to inform planning<br />
for the 2014 games. The Scotland Office will do whatever<br />
we can to contribute to a successful games in 2014.<br />
Greg Hands: The Minister will know that one of<br />
Delhi’s troubles was in attracting the top athletes. What<br />
will the UK Government do to ensure that the best<br />
from across the Commonwealth come to Glasgow in<br />
2014?<br />
David Mundell: As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate,<br />
most of the responsibilities in respect of the 2014<br />
Commonwealth games are devolved and rest with the<br />
organising committee. I have already met the leader of<br />
Glasgow city council and assured him that the UK<br />
Government will do everything that we can to support a<br />
successful games.<br />
Economy<br />
8. Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con): What<br />
recent discussions he has had with ministerial<br />
colleagues on measures to promote economic growth in<br />
Scotland. [26714]<br />
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Michael Moore):<br />
I have regular discussions with ministerial colleagues<br />
on this issue. In the spending review, the UK Government<br />
took decisive action to reduce the inherited record<br />
deficit. Along with the June Budget, the spending review has<br />
set the conditions to promote a balanced economy and<br />
sustainable economic growth for all parts of the UK.<br />
Julian Smith: The Scottish Government used to be<br />
very keen on the economic growth achieved by Ireland.<br />
Will the Secretary of State assure me that, as well as<br />
taking measures to promote growth, he will ensure that<br />
the First Minister has fiscal responsibility at the top of<br />
his agenda?<br />
Michael Moore: All of us are very concerned about<br />
what has happened to Ireland in recent months, and our<br />
Government have set out some very important steps<br />
that we are taking to contribute to the recovery in<br />
Ireland and other parts of Europe. We need to ensure<br />
Scotland’s place within the stability of the <strong>United</strong> <strong>Kingdom</strong>.<br />
The Scotland Bill, given its First Reading in this House<br />
yesterday, will ensure that we give Scotland the tools to<br />
achieve that, and I hope that it will be an Act in due<br />
course.<br />
Mr Frank Roy (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab): For<br />
every job vacancy in Lanarkshire t<strong>here</strong> are 10 people on<br />
jobseeker’s allowance. Indeed, in Motherwell and Wishaw,<br />
that figure rises to 12 or 13. What priority will the<br />
Secretary of State give to the Lanarkshire economy to<br />
ensure that it gets back on track as quickly as possible?<br />
[Interruption.]<br />
Mr Speaker: Order. T<strong>here</strong> are far too many private<br />
conversations of a noisy character taking place in the<br />
Chamber. I want to hear the Secretary of State.<br />
Michael Moore: I recognise the challenges faced by<br />
Lanarkshire and other parts of the Scottish economy<br />
and by those who are looking for a job. As the hon.<br />
Gentleman will be aware, I visited Lanarkshire recently<br />
and met people who are working their way into<br />
employment, and students at Motherwell college. We<br />
have to keep focused, and we have to put in place the<br />
right conditions to ensure that we achieve a sustainable<br />
recovery across the country. I believe that the measures<br />
we are taking will ensure that that happens.<br />
Sir Robert Smith (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)<br />
(LD): The Secretary of State will know from his visit to<br />
the north-east of Scotland just how important the<br />
region is, not just to the Scottish economy, but to the<br />
UK economy as a whole. We received a welcome boost<br />
this week with the announcement of the extension of<br />
the runway at Aberdeen airport and improvement in<br />
that transport link, but will he emphasise to the Scottish<br />
Government that all transport links in the north-east<br />
need to be improved? They do not need new levers to<br />
improve Scotland’s economy; they need to use the existing<br />
levers, as well.<br />
Michael Moore: My hon. Friend makes an important<br />
point. Our Government <strong>here</strong> in the <strong>United</strong> <strong>Kingdom</strong><br />
are committed to ensuring that we invest in infrastructure<br />
that will support growth, and we have produced other<br />
support for business that is geared towards growth, but<br />
I take his points about the Scottish Government. His<br />
points will have been heard, and I am sure that they will<br />
form the basis of further discussions between myself<br />
and Scottish Ministers.<br />
VAT<br />
9. Pamela Nash (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab): What<br />
recent discussions he has had with the Chancellor of<br />
the Exchequer on the effect on average household<br />
outgoings in Scotland of raising the rate of value<br />
added tax to 20%. [26715]<br />
The <strong>Parliament</strong>ary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland<br />
(David Mundell): The VAT rise is part of the Government’s<br />
credible plan to tackle the largest deficit in peacetime<br />
history. Difficult decisions are necessary, but as a
809 Oral Answers<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
Oral Answers<br />
810<br />
consequence we will get our country back on a sustainable<br />
economic footing, to the benefit of everyone.<br />
Pamela Nash: Does the Minister not agree that the<br />
rise in VAT—the most regressive tax, by his party<br />
leader’s own admission—will hit the poorest in our<br />
society hardest, particularly in Scotland, w<strong>here</strong> incomes<br />
are lower and jobs continue to be lost?<br />
David Mundell: What I acknowledge is that the Labour<br />
Government left us with a deficit £12 billion larger than<br />
they had told us, and that if we do not tackle that deficit<br />
everyone in Scotland will be worse off. [Interruption.]<br />
Mr Speaker: Order. This sort of noise is very<br />
discourteous. I want to hear Fiona O’Donnell.<br />
Fiona O’Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab): Thank you,<br />
Mr Speaker.<br />
The voluntary sector in Scotland plays a vital role in<br />
supporting some of our most vulnerable families. The<br />
increase in VAT will cost Scotland’s voluntary sector<br />
dearly. What is the Minister actually doing to support<br />
that sector, so that it can deliver his vision of a big society?<br />
David Mundell: This Government are committed to<br />
supporting the voluntary sector in Scotland and elsew<strong>here</strong><br />
in the UK, but the hon. Lady should tell people in that<br />
sector and elsew<strong>here</strong> in Scotland that the rise in VAT is<br />
a consequence of her party’s Government’s overspending.<br />
MOD Hospital Unit<br />
10. Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab):<br />
What discussions he has had with ministerial<br />
colleagues on commissioning a Ministry of Defence<br />
hospital unit in Scotland. [26716]<br />
The <strong>Parliament</strong>ary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland<br />
(David Mundell): Although t<strong>here</strong> are currently no plans<br />
to extend the existing network of Ministry of Defence<br />
hospital units, I can assure the hon. Lady that the<br />
Government recognise the importance of maintaining<br />
world-class medical services for our armed forces in<br />
the UK.<br />
Katy Clark: Despite the increase in the number of<br />
injured coming back, we have no MOD hospital unit in<br />
Scotland. Organisations such as the Royal British Legion<br />
Scotland believe that t<strong>here</strong> should be one. Will he meet<br />
the Royal British Legion Scotland, myself and any<br />
interested colleagues to discuss the matter?<br />
David Mundell: Indeed, I am happy to meet the hon.<br />
Lady and any colleagues. It is important to say, though,<br />
that many military personnel are treated extremely well<br />
in non-military hospitals in Scotland, w<strong>here</strong> they are<br />
closer to their friends and family.<br />
Employment<br />
11. Mr Ian Davidson (Glasgow South West) (Lab/Co-op):<br />
What recent assessment he has made of trends in the<br />
level of employment in Scotland; and if he will make a<br />
statement. [26718]<br />
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Michael Moore):<br />
In recent months, the numbers in employment have<br />
been rising in Scotland, though overall labour market<br />
trends remain mixed. This Government will continue to<br />
create the conditions to foster sustainable and balanced<br />
economic growth.<br />
Mr Davidson: What steps are the Government taking<br />
to ensure that unemployment in Scotland does not rise<br />
to the level in the Republic of Ireland—part of the<br />
circle of misery? Does he agree with me that a small<br />
country and bad banks result in misery for working<br />
people?<br />
Michael Moore: I am happy to agree with the hon.<br />
Gentleman that Scotland benefits hugely from being<br />
part of the <strong>United</strong> <strong>Kingdom</strong>, and under our proposals<br />
set out in the Scotland Bill, it will firmly stay within the<br />
<strong>United</strong> <strong>Kingdom</strong>.<br />
Mrs Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest) (Con): Does the<br />
Secretary of State agree that current levels of unemployment<br />
in Scotland are the fault of 13 years of mismanagement<br />
by the previous Labour Government and that the people<br />
of Scotland need to back this coalition Government to<br />
give Scotland a chance again?<br />
Michael Moore: Since this Government came to office,<br />
they have taken decisive action to tackle the issues that<br />
we inherited—a record deficit of £155,000 million. We<br />
have pulled Britain back from the danger zone, we are<br />
setting out the conditions for sustainable economic<br />
growth, and that is the right way for this country.<br />
Economy<br />
12. Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con): What recent<br />
estimate he has made of levels of economic growth and<br />
inward investment in Scotland. [26719]<br />
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Michael Moore):<br />
The latest official statistics show strong economic growth<br />
in Scotland in the second quarter of this year. We are<br />
determined to ensure that Scotland will benefit as the<br />
Government tackle the deficit to secure growth, and<br />
provide the confidence that businesses and individuals<br />
need to invest.<br />
Mel Stride: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House<br />
whether those figures support the claim made by the<br />
last Labour Secretary of State for Scotland that the<br />
right hon. Member for Witney (Mr Cameron) would be<br />
a “kamikaze” Prime Minister who would “plunge”<br />
Scotland “back into recession”?<br />
Michael Moore: Funnily enough, I completely disagree<br />
with that assessment. I am pleased to say that not only<br />
has the Prime Minister led the Government’s efforts to<br />
get us away from the danger zone that the economy was<br />
in, but he has set out a constitutional path for Scotland<br />
that will enhance its economic growth and keep it<br />
within the <strong>United</strong> <strong>Kingdom</strong>.<br />
PRIME MINISTER<br />
The Prime Minister was asked—<br />
Engagements<br />
Q1. [27558] Margaret Curran (Glasgow East) (Lab): If<br />
he will list his official engagements for Wednesday<br />
1 December.
811 Oral Answers<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
Oral Answers<br />
812<br />
The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron): This morning<br />
I returned from Zurich, w<strong>here</strong> I have been meeting<br />
decision makers, aiming to convince them of what a<br />
brilliant World cup England could host in 2018. On my<br />
return, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and<br />
others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall<br />
have further such meetings later today.<br />
Margaret Curran: May I give the Prime Minister<br />
Glasgow’s best wishes in the bid for England? I mean<br />
that most sincerely.<br />
In a recent Lib Dem leaflet in Scotland, the Business<br />
Secretary compares tuition fees to the poll tax. Is it<br />
acceptable for the Business Secretary to say one thing in<br />
the House and, when campaigning for votes in Scotland,<br />
to condemn that policy?<br />
The Prime Minister: I thank the hon. Lady for what<br />
she says about the England 2018 World cup. I know she<br />
would never mislead the House, so I know that what she<br />
said was utterly sincere, and I am sure it is shared by<br />
Members, whatever part of the <strong>United</strong> <strong>Kingdom</strong> they<br />
represent.<br />
On tuition fees, let us look at the system that we are<br />
introducing. Under the new system, nobody pays anything<br />
up front. Every single student will pay less per month<br />
than they do currently. Half a million students will<br />
benefit from the increase in maintenance loans. It is<br />
time we started looking at the substance of the issue,<br />
rather than just the process.<br />
Q2. [27559] Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con): The<br />
Prime Minister explained how he is shuttling between<br />
London and Zurich in support of England’s World cup<br />
bid. Can he update the House on how that bid is<br />
progressing, please?<br />
The Prime Minister: I am grateful for that question.<br />
England 2018 has a very strong bid. With regard to the<br />
technical aspects, we have the stadiums, the facilities<br />
and the transport networks. We have the enthusiasm in<br />
our country for football and we can put on an absolutely<br />
first-class World cup. I know that many people will ask,<br />
“Are you spending too much time on something that<br />
might not succeed?” I would say, “If you don’t get on to<br />
the pitch, you have no chance of winning.” We should<br />
all get behind the bid.<br />
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab): I start by<br />
wishing the Prime Minister well as he plays his part in<br />
efforts to secure England’s bid for the 2018 World cup.<br />
As he says, ours is a fantastic bid and all of us will be<br />
hoping for a successful outcome tomorrow.<br />
We note that the Deputy Prime Minister is away on<br />
official business, and left the country before the tuition<br />
fees vote, but of course we understand that he had<br />
urgent business to attend to in Kazakhstan and we wish<br />
him well in that.<br />
The Office for Budget Responsibility forecast on<br />
Monday was hailed as a great sign of success by the<br />
Chancellor, but I want to test out what it will mean for<br />
families up and down the country. The Prime Minister<br />
has been telling us for months that under his plans<br />
unemployment will fall next year, but on Monday the<br />
OBR said that unemployment would rise next year. Can<br />
he explain why that is the case?<br />
The Prime Minister: First, I thank the right hon.<br />
Gentleman for his kind remarks about the England<br />
2018 bid. I know that the former Prime Minister worked<br />
extremely hard on it, and I know that t<strong>here</strong> is cross-party<br />
support for it. We need to maintain that as we go into<br />
the vital last 48 hours.<br />
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the OBR<br />
forecast, which the Chancellor announced on Monday.<br />
Let me stress again that these are independent forecasts,<br />
published for the first time independently, and not<br />
interfered with by a Chancellor of the Exchequer. On<br />
unemployment, what the Office for Budget Responsibility<br />
found is that unemployment this year will be lower than<br />
previously forecast. It has not altered its forecast for<br />
unemployment next year, for which it is forecasting a<br />
rate of 8%, but it is forecasting increases in employment<br />
all the way through the forecast period. Above all, what<br />
the forecasts showed is that our policy of trying to cut<br />
the deficit and get growth at the same time is working.<br />
Edward Miliband: What the OBR actually shows is<br />
that growth will slow next year compared with the<br />
forecast, and that is what will mean that unemployment<br />
will rise. What the Prime Minister needs to explain is<br />
why unemployment will fall next year in the USA, in<br />
Germany and in other major industrial countries, but<br />
will rise in the <strong>United</strong> <strong>Kingdom</strong>. Why is that the case?<br />
The Prime Minister: I know that the right hon.<br />
Gentleman is determined to talk down the economy,<br />
but even he will find difficulty in finding depressing<br />
statistics in the OBR’s report, because, generally speaking,<br />
what it reported was good news for the UK economy. It<br />
finds, and the last European Commission forecast report<br />
found, that average UK growth for the next two years<br />
will be higher than in Germany, France, the US, Japan,<br />
and the eurozone, or the EU average. It would be more<br />
worth while for us to debate across the Dispatch Box<br />
how we get the country’s growth rate up. What reforms<br />
do we make to try to make our economy more efficient?<br />
Has he got something to say about that, or is it another<br />
blank page?<br />
Edward Miliband: The Prime Minister asks how we<br />
get the growth of the economy up—absolutely right.<br />
What we should not do is put up VAT next year from<br />
4 January and cut public spending by £20 billion. That<br />
is why the OBR says that we will have the weakest<br />
recovery from recession for 40 years. I come back to my<br />
point about unemployment. Can he tell us when, over<br />
the five years of the <strong>Parliament</strong>, unemployment will<br />
return to pre-crisis levels? That tests the strength of the<br />
recovery. When will it return to the levels before the<br />
recession?<br />
The Prime Minister: We inherited an 8% unemployment<br />
rate, and the OBR says that it will be 6% by the end of<br />
the <strong>Parliament</strong>. He asked the question, he gets the<br />
answer. Let me just remind the right hon. Gentleman of<br />
something. At the last election, the Labour party, himself<br />
included, said that if we cut £6 billion out of the<br />
Budget, it would end in catastrophe for the British<br />
economy. He was proved completely and utterly wrong.<br />
Edward Miliband: Mr. Speaker, have you ever heard a<br />
more complacent answer to a question? Families up and<br />
down the country are worried about their jobs and
813 Oral Answers<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
Oral Answers<br />
814<br />
unemployment will rise next year, and all the Prime<br />
Minister can say is that it is some kind of rosy scenario.<br />
Let us take the rise in VAT, because that is one of the<br />
reasons why unemployment will rise next year. Can the<br />
Prime Minister tell us what impact that will have on<br />
economic growth and jobs next year?<br />
The Prime Minister: First of all, let me deal with VAT<br />
precisely. The former Chancellor, the right hon. Member<br />
for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling) said:<br />
“VAT would have allowed you to pay off a sizeable chunk of<br />
the deficit.”<br />
That is the policy that the last Chancellor supported.<br />
If we had followed over the last six months the advice<br />
of the Leader of the Opposition, we would be linked<br />
with Portugal, with Ireland—[HON. MEMBERS: “No.”]<br />
Yes. We would not be standing <strong>here</strong> today discussing<br />
how we will get faster growth and lower unemployment;<br />
we would be sitting around discussing how to rescue<br />
and bail out Britain.<br />
Edward Miliband: Okay, Mr. Speaker—[[HON.MEMBERS:<br />
“Ooh!”] You can rewrite history for only so long. Let us<br />
be—[Interruption.] Let us be absolutely clear about<br />
this—[Interruption.]<br />
Mr Speaker: Order. We are wasting the time of Back-<br />
Bench Members. Let us hear the Leader of the Opposition.<br />
Edward Miliband: The deficit was 2.5% of national<br />
income before the crisis—the recession—hit all around<br />
the world. It went up all around the world; it was a<br />
global economic recession. The question is: should we<br />
cut too far and too fast, which is what the Prime<br />
Minister is doing, so that t<strong>here</strong> are four years of sluggish<br />
recovery—the most sluggish recovery from recession in<br />
40 years? Why does the Prime Minister not answer the<br />
question? Is this the most sluggish recovery from recession<br />
in Britain for the last 40 years? Yes or no?<br />
The Prime Minister: This is one of the fastest recoveries<br />
in Europe, and the point is, if we had followed the right<br />
hon. Gentleman’s advice we would not be discussing<br />
recovery; we would be discussing meltdown. He can<br />
have a blank sheet of paper about the future; he cannot<br />
have a blank sheet of paper about the past. We know we<br />
were left a record budget deficit; we remember “no<br />
more boom and bust”; we remember all the things that<br />
he was responsible for. I have to say to him that, after all<br />
that—and he has been doing the job for the last three<br />
months—people are beginning to ask, “When’s he going<br />
to start?”<br />
Edward Miliband: With that answer, it is no wonder<br />
that today we learn that the Foreign Secretary describes<br />
this gang as the “children of Thatcher”. It sounds just<br />
like the 1980s—out of touch with people up and down<br />
the country. Why does the Prime Minister not admit<br />
that he is complacent about the recovery and complacent<br />
about the people who will lose their jobs? And it is they<br />
who will pay the price.<br />
The Prime Minister: Not waving, but drowning. My<br />
mother is still with us, so she is able to testify that what<br />
the right hon. Gentleman has just claimed is not literally<br />
true, but let me say this: I would rather be a child of<br />
Thatcher than a son of Brown. [Interruption.]<br />
Mr Speaker: Order. I call Tobias Ellwood.<br />
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con): Thank<br />
you, Mr Speaker.<br />
The Prime Minister will be aware that British citizens<br />
affected by the 7/7 bombings were supported by the<br />
criminal injuries compensation scheme. However, when<br />
such attacks take place abroad, such as in Bali, Mumbai<br />
or Sharm el Sheikh, no such compensation for things<br />
such as prosthesis and long-term care exists. Does the<br />
Prime Minister agree that any Britons caught up in<br />
terrorist attacks deserve our support, no matter w<strong>here</strong><br />
in the world that attack takes place?<br />
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right<br />
to raise that issue. People who are victims of terror,<br />
whether at home or overseas, deserve our support, as he<br />
says. People might not know, but my hon. Friend’s<br />
brother was tragically killed in the Bali bombing—that<br />
horrific attack that took place some years ago. We are<br />
looking at this very difficult issue of trying to make sure<br />
that, when we consider criminal injuries compensation<br />
and what has been proposed for injuries overseas, we<br />
have a fair and reasonable system. The Justice Secretary<br />
is looking at that, and we will come forward with<br />
proposals.<br />
Q3. [27560] Lindsay Roy (Glenrothes) (Lab): The<br />
Prime Minister’s Government are spending £4 billion<br />
so that councils can promote wellness, £2 billion on<br />
reorganising the NHS, £100 million on electing police<br />
commissioners and £2 million on a happiness survey.<br />
Does that not demonstrate that the Prime Minister has<br />
lost touch with reality?<br />
The Prime Minister: No, it does not. Let me take—<br />
[Interruption.] Generally speaking, I think the hon.<br />
Gentleman should cheer up a bit. Let me take the issue<br />
of NHS reform. Even with the settlement that we have<br />
set out for the NHS, which involves real-terms increases<br />
each year, if we stand still with the NHS and keep the<br />
current system, we will find it running into very severe<br />
problems each and every year. So, it is necessary to<br />
reform the NHS, it is necessary to cut out bureaucracy<br />
and it is necessary to reduce management costs, so that<br />
we have a system w<strong>here</strong> we actually try to create a<br />
healthier nation and, t<strong>here</strong>fore, reduce the demands on<br />
our NHS. That is what our reforms are all about.<br />
Q4. [27561] Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con):<br />
Along with Jamaica, Nigeria and Vietnam, the Irish<br />
Republic has one of the largest groups of foreign<br />
national prisoners in the UK. Given that we are about<br />
to lend it more than £7 billion, could the Irish Republic<br />
be persuaded to pay for the incarceration of those<br />
people by taking them back to jails in their own<br />
country?<br />
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes an extremely<br />
good point. We are looking at how we can transfer<br />
prisoners who are foreign nationals from the UK to<br />
other countries. Obviously with Ireland the situation is<br />
slightly different, because of the long relationship between<br />
our countries. The previous Government announced<br />
that they would not routinely support the deportation<br />
of Irish nationals from the UK; that was announced in<br />
February 2007. Since then, t<strong>here</strong> has been a European<br />
directive that is helpful, because it makes more automatic<br />
the removal of prisoners to other countries. But t<strong>here</strong> is
815 Oral Answers<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
Oral Answers<br />
816<br />
still the specific issue with Ireland, and I will ask my<br />
right hon. and learned Friend the Justice Secretary to<br />
look at it to see whether we can do a little better.<br />
Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op):<br />
The Government are cutting their teaching grant to<br />
Liverpool university by 30%, to Liverpool John Moores<br />
university by 70%, and to Liverpool Hope university by<br />
97%. Is this a policy for closing down opportunity?<br />
The Prime Minister: No, this is a policy to make sure<br />
that we have a strong university sector in this country.<br />
[Interruption.] Opposition Members can object, but it<br />
was the Conservatives and the Labour Government<br />
who set up the Browne review. I would recommend that<br />
hon. Members read the Browne review, because with<br />
the alternative of staying w<strong>here</strong> we are now, we would<br />
either have to cut student numbers or find universities<br />
struggling. What Browne has come up with is a proper<br />
answer for a strong university sector for the future.<br />
Q5. [27562] Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington)<br />
(LD): Does the Prime Minister agree that when this<br />
Government are devising policy they should look at the<br />
evidence of what works in tackling reoffending,<br />
substance abuse and youth crime, rather than relying<br />
on the tub-thumping, shroud-waving, ambulancechasing<br />
antics that pass for a policy-making process in<br />
the Labour party?<br />
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman makes a<br />
very good point. The fact is that with the difficulties of<br />
the budget deficit and the spending problems that we<br />
have, we do not have any choice but to look at the<br />
evidence and make sure that what we do works and is<br />
cost-effective. I think that we should start with the issue<br />
of drug rehabilitation, because if we can reduce drug-related<br />
crime and cut those costs we will make very great<br />
progress.<br />
Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab): Will the<br />
Prime Minister carry out an urgent check on the satellite<br />
navigation system used in ministerial cars? My concern<br />
is that just a few short months ago the Deputy Prime<br />
Minister could not be stopped from driving himself<br />
from university campus to university campus, but since<br />
he has got his chauffeur-driven ministerial car, he has<br />
not been seen near a student union. Is the sat-nav broke,<br />
or has he simply lost his political direction?<br />
The Prime Minister: That was a wonderfully involved<br />
metaphor. At least the Deputy Prime Minister can<br />
make up his mind whether to join a demo or not—the<br />
Leader of the Opposition cannot even decide whether<br />
to sit on the fence.<br />
Q6. [27563] Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con):<br />
Last week the governors of Christleton high school in<br />
my constituency made the decision to apply for<br />
academy status. However, before they made that<br />
decision, they faced a barrage of opposition from trade<br />
unions and local Labour party activists. What message<br />
would the Prime Minister send to those who seek to<br />
undermine much needed reforms of public services in<br />
order to fulfil old-fashioned, outdated, left-wing<br />
ideology?<br />
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right.<br />
The academy movement—just like the city technology<br />
colleges before it—has brought greater independence<br />
and greater authority to head teachers and has led to an<br />
improvement in educational standards. If Labour Members<br />
have got any sense, they will not back off from it, and<br />
they should tell their friends in the trade union movement<br />
to stop objecting to new academies.<br />
Q7. [27564] Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab): I have recently<br />
come across workers in Wigan who were forced by<br />
gangmasters to work 12 hours a day, seven days a<br />
week, below the minimum wage, and were threatened<br />
and bullied when they complained. Why have the Prime<br />
Minister’s Government failed to take any action to<br />
tackle this issue? Will he join me in supporting the<br />
Gangmasters Licensing (Extension to Construction<br />
Industry) Bill and help to bring an end to this appalling<br />
abuse?<br />
The Prime Minister: This is a problem, and it is not<br />
one that has arisen suddenly under this Government—it<br />
has been a problem for many years. T<strong>here</strong> are problems<br />
with gangmasters not paying the minimum wage, and<br />
we need to make sure that this is properly policed.<br />
Q8. [27565] David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con):<br />
Does the Prime Minister agree that the Olympics<br />
offer a golden opportunity to encourage more disabled<br />
people to take part in sport? Would he like to pay<br />
tribute to the Welsh Paralympic team, who we hope<br />
will be visiting the Welsh Affairs Committee in<br />
February? Should my right hon. Friend be available on<br />
that day, he would be very welcome to come and give<br />
his best regards.<br />
The Prime Minister: I am happy to endorse what my<br />
hon. Friend says. As to his invitation, as he is an<br />
amateur boxer, I should probably say yes immediately.<br />
It is great that the Paralympics are returning to their<br />
birthplace for London 2012, and I am sure that it will be<br />
a great showcase for sporting talent. Obviously, I wish<br />
the Welsh team well.<br />
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP): As the happy son<br />
of Paisley, may I too wish the Prime Minister well in his<br />
bid to bring the World cup to the <strong>United</strong> <strong>Kingdom</strong>?<br />
Will he support the campaign of the historic town of<br />
Ballymena in County Antrim to achieve city status<br />
during Her Majesty’s jubilee year?<br />
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is not only<br />
metaphorically, but biologically the son of Paisley—he<br />
is on safe ground t<strong>here</strong>. I shall certainly look at the<br />
matter that he raises. I know that campaigns for city<br />
status can gain great traction. Before I start endorsing<br />
every single one, I shall look at what he has said, but I<br />
am sure that t<strong>here</strong> is a strong case.<br />
Q9. [27566] Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con): The Prime<br />
Minister may have noted that the Leader of the<br />
Opposition approaches economic questions with the<br />
acumen of a novice out of his depth. By the next<br />
general election, families in my constituency will each<br />
have paid back £21,000 in Government debt. Will the<br />
Prime Minister resist Opposition demands to scale<br />
back on the deficit-reduction measures?
817 Oral Answers<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
Oral Answers<br />
818<br />
The Prime Minister: I will certainly resist those demands.<br />
The fact is that we inherited a situation that was completely<br />
unsustainable. Not just the Conservative party made<br />
that point; the Governor of the Bank of England, the<br />
CBI, the Institute of Directors, the OECD and the IMF<br />
were all saying that the previous Government did not<br />
have a proper plan. We needed a plan, we have got a<br />
plan and we should stick to that plan.<br />
Mr Gerry Sutcliffe (Bradford South) (Lab): I wish the<br />
Prime Minister well in his efforts in Zurich and hope<br />
that we will get the right result tomorrow. T<strong>here</strong> was a<br />
great debate in the House yesterday on school sport<br />
partnerships and t<strong>here</strong> was consensus that something<br />
needed to be done. T<strong>here</strong> was an offer from the shadow<br />
Front-Bench team to try to come to an arrangement on<br />
the issue. Will he look at it urgently with the Secretary<br />
of State for Education? I am sure that we can resolve<br />
this matter, because it is important that sport is available<br />
to all.<br />
The Prime Minister: I know that the hon. Gentleman<br />
was a very successful Sports Minister in the previous<br />
Government. I thank him for his endorsement of the<br />
2018 bid and all that we are doing to win for England.<br />
The hon. Gentleman’s point about school sport is<br />
important. I am looking carefully at yesterday’s debate.<br />
We all have a shared interest: we all want good sport in<br />
schools and more competitive sport, and we all have to<br />
ensure that money is spent well. Everyone accepts that<br />
not every penny was spent well in the past. T<strong>here</strong> is a<br />
quite bureaucratic system. The Secretaries of State for<br />
Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport and for Education<br />
are working hard on this issue. We are talking with head<br />
teachers to ensure that what we come up with works on<br />
the ground. I hope that we will be able to make an<br />
announcement soon.<br />
Q10. [27567] Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con): The<br />
plans to link London and Manchester by high-speed<br />
rail will bring huge economic benefits to my<br />
constituency and the greater north-west. Does the<br />
Prime Minister agree that anyone who wants to<br />
eliminate inequality between north and south should<br />
support High Speed 2?<br />
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes the right<br />
point in the right way. I understand that t<strong>here</strong> will be<br />
difficulties with High Speed 2 in terms of the impact on<br />
some hon. Members’ constituencies and on some<br />
neighbourhoods. However, it is true to say that<br />
Governments of all parties for 50 years have tried to<br />
deal better with the north-south divide and to bring our<br />
country closer together. I profoundly believe that high-speed<br />
rail and good transport links are a really good way of<br />
making that happen. This measure could succeed w<strong>here</strong><br />
others, frankly, have failed.<br />
Q11. [27568] Tony Lloyd (Manchester Central) (Lab):<br />
The community of Collyhurst in Manchester has<br />
waited patiently and stoically with its insecure doors<br />
and draughty windows, while it has seen huge<br />
regeneration across large parts of Manchester. The<br />
Prime Minister will understand the sense of anger and<br />
despair in that community last week when the Minister<br />
for Housing and Local Government announced that its<br />
regeneration will not go ahead. Will the Prime Minister<br />
or the Minister for Housing and Local Government<br />
meet my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and<br />
Broughton (Graham Stringer) in Collyhurst with<br />
tenants’ representatives to see how the matter can be<br />
taken forward?<br />
The Prime Minister: I will make sure that the Minister<br />
for Housing and Local Government does as the hon.<br />
Gentleman says. The regional growth fund will be available<br />
for investment in those sorts of areas, and the replacement<br />
of regional development agencies—the local enterprise<br />
partnerships—will, partly because they will be more<br />
locally based, have a finer-tuned ear to local problems<br />
such as the one that the hon. Gentleman raises.<br />
Q12. [27569] Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con):<br />
With the renewed prospect of travel chaos for British<br />
Airways passengers, will the Prime Minister condemn<br />
the leader of Unite’s implied threat to families when he<br />
said to them, “Don’t go on holiday”?<br />
The Prime Minister: Opposition Members do not<br />
seem to think it is serious that we now have trade union<br />
leaders who actually say that t<strong>here</strong> is no such thing as<br />
an irresponsible strike. T<strong>here</strong> is such a thing, and those<br />
who are bankrolled by the unions ought to speak up<br />
about it.<br />
Q13. [27570] Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish)<br />
(Lab): Every year, about 25,000 people die from<br />
thrombosis in hospitals, which is two to three times<br />
greater than the number of people who die from<br />
hospital-acquired infection, yet many of those deaths<br />
are avoidable if hospitals follow the NHS guidance on<br />
blood clot risk-assessment. What are the Prime<br />
Minister’s Government doing to ensure that the UK’s<br />
No. 1 hospital killer becomes the NHS’s No. 1 health<br />
priority?<br />
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman makes an<br />
extremely important point, and I know that he is chair<br />
of the all-party group on thrombosis. In answer to his<br />
question about what we are going to do, the first thing is<br />
to make available more information. It was a freedom<br />
of information request by the all-party group that showed<br />
that only 14 acute trusts in England were even close to<br />
meeting the goals for risk-assessing patients submitted<br />
to hospital for the dangers of thrombosis and blood<br />
clots. He is right, and the best thing that we can do is<br />
provide more information. That will help us to ensure<br />
that hospitals are coming up to the mark.<br />
Stephen Williams (Bristol West) (LD): The Prime<br />
Minister will be aware, I am sure, that today is world<br />
AIDS day. What are the coalition Government doing to<br />
ensure that the tide of HIV is stemmed both at home<br />
and abroad?<br />
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely<br />
right to raise that issue, and to say that we need to look<br />
at what is happening both at home and abroad. Abroad,<br />
the biggest decision was to maintain the commitment to<br />
0.7% of gross national income going to our aid budget,<br />
and we make a very big contribution out of that budget<br />
to the battle against AIDS globally and to ensuring that<br />
antiretroviral drugs are made available. We also have to<br />
look at home, w<strong>here</strong> t<strong>here</strong> are worrying signs of infection<br />
rates that are still extremely high. We need to get the<br />
message out today and on other days about the importance<br />
of safe sex and the precautions that people should take.
819 Oral Answers<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
Oral Answers<br />
820<br />
Q14. [27571] Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab): I<br />
have just got back from a visit to Israel and the west<br />
bank, and I was shocked to witness with my own eyes<br />
13-year-old Palestinian children in leg irons and<br />
manacles in Israeli military prisons. That is one of<br />
numerous breaches of the UN charter and of article 49<br />
of the fourth Geneva convention. Whether or not the<br />
Prime Minister is the legitimate son of Thatcher, I am<br />
sure that as a father he would join me in condemning<br />
that appalling practice, but what will the British<br />
Government do to put pressure on the Israeli<br />
Government to comply with their obligations under<br />
international law and to relieve the suffering of the<br />
Palestinian people in both the west bank and Gaza?<br />
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman raises an<br />
extremely important point. Every country should obey<br />
the Geneva convention and the other conventions that<br />
it has signed, and Israel should be no exception to that.<br />
Ministers in the Government I lead raise those issues<br />
with Israeli Ministers, as we should, and that is extremely<br />
important. The fact is, what we really need is a long-term<br />
settlement of the Palestinian issue, and we want a<br />
two-state solution. It is very important that we put<br />
pressure on both sides at all times to ensure that we<br />
make progress. The lack of progress only plays into the<br />
hands of the extremists, and we can see that all the<br />
moderates in the middle east who are trying to make<br />
progress are being undermined by our failure to do<br />
better.<br />
Q15. [27572] Priti Patel (Witham) (Con): If the Human<br />
Rights Act is<br />
“a glaring example of what is going wrong in our country”,<br />
when will the Government put the human rights of the<br />
law-abiding majority above those of dangerous convicted<br />
criminals?<br />
The Prime Minister: It is right that we should be<br />
replacing the Human Rights Act with a British Bill of<br />
Rights. I have personally looked at the matter long and<br />
hard and believe that t<strong>here</strong> is no better solution than<br />
that. We are committed to starting a process of looking<br />
at that to see whether we can remove some of the<br />
nonsenses that have grown up over recent years and<br />
show that we can have a commitment to proper rights,<br />
but they should be written down <strong>here</strong> in this country.<br />
Eric Joyce (Falkirk) (Lab): The Government have<br />
announced an injection of £50 million of new money<br />
into the interim cancer drugs fund. Can the Prime<br />
Minister say whether t<strong>here</strong> will be Barnett consequentials<br />
for Scotland, because that is new money?<br />
The Prime Minister: We have not made any changes<br />
to the Barnett formula, so if that is Barnett-able, as it<br />
were, t<strong>here</strong> will be consequentials, and if it is not, t<strong>here</strong><br />
will not be.<br />
Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD): Does the Prime Minister<br />
think it fair that a war widow has to pay income tax on<br />
her war widow’s pension?<br />
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend raises a very<br />
good point. We need to look at all those sorts of issues<br />
under the work that we are doing on the military<br />
covenant—t<strong>here</strong> are very complicated issues of pensions<br />
and interaction with taxes. I do not want to give a flip<br />
answer from the Dispatch Box; we have a proper process<br />
of looking at the military covenant, which is the right<br />
way to do things.<br />
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green): Climate<br />
finance will be critical at the ongoing climate summit at<br />
Cancun. Although I welcome the fact that the Government<br />
have pledged £2.9 billion to the global climate fund, will<br />
the Prime Minister confirm that any future money<br />
pledge will be additional to existing aid budgets, and<br />
can he say what further innovative funding mechanisms<br />
he plans to employ to deliver the UK’s share of the<br />
annual $100 billion pledged at Copenhagen?<br />
The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady is absolutely<br />
right to raise that. Although Cancun will not achieve<br />
the binding global agreement that we want, it can make<br />
important steps towards that, so we can stay on track.<br />
On climate finance, first, we will stick to what was set<br />
out previously on the limit in the aid budget for money<br />
used for climate change purposes, although t<strong>here</strong> are<br />
very real connections between climate change and poverty;<br />
and secondly, t<strong>here</strong> is a commitment, which we will<br />
keep to, of £2.9 billion for climate change finance.<br />
Britain is a leader on that, but as she said, we must look<br />
at innovative ways of levering in more money from<br />
other parts of the world, including—frankly—from<br />
some fast-growing areas which, when Kyoto was first<br />
thought of, were very underdeveloped and are now<br />
fast-developing countries. We need to help them, but<br />
the finance should not flow only from us.<br />
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con):<br />
Will the Prime Minister have urgent talks with the<br />
Leader of the House and the Business Secretary on<br />
introducing legislation for a national regulator or<br />
ombudsman for supermarkets before more suppliers<br />
are decimated by their conduct?<br />
The Prime Minister: We have new arrangements in<br />
terms of ensuring that supermarkets treat farmers fairly.<br />
All of us as constituency MPs have heard stories about<br />
supermarkets behaving very aggressively towards farmers,<br />
and it is right that t<strong>here</strong> is a proper way of trying to<br />
police that independently, so that our farmers get a fair<br />
deal for the food that they produce.
821 1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
822<br />
Point of Order<br />
12.32 pm<br />
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab):<br />
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I should like to secure<br />
advice on an answer that was provided to me yesterday<br />
during questions to the Attorney-General. In response<br />
to my question—[Interruption.]<br />
Mr Speaker: Order. May I appeal to hon. and right<br />
hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber to do so<br />
quickly and quietly? It would be helpful if I could hear<br />
the point of order from the hon. Lady—I might then be<br />
in a position to respond to it.<br />
Chi Onwurah: I asked the Solicitor-General about the<br />
UK’s failure to sign up to the proposed EU directive on<br />
preventing and combating the trafficking of human<br />
beings. He said that the UK was a signatory, and<br />
repeated that in response to a question from my hon.<br />
Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Gemma<br />
Doyle). However, that is not the case: the UK has opted<br />
out of the proposed directive. Could you advise me,<br />
Mr Speaker, on what is the best way for the Solicitor-<br />
General to correct his mistake?<br />
Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her<br />
point of order. The short answer to her question is that<br />
the best way for a mistake to be corrected is for the<br />
Minister, if he has made a mistake, to correct it. We are<br />
about to hear from the hon. and learned Solicitor-General.<br />
The Solicitor-General (Mr Edward Garnier): T<strong>here</strong><br />
was a degree of confusion; the hon. Lady’s question was<br />
too general. I answered the question correctly. T<strong>here</strong> are<br />
two European directives, one of which is signed, and<br />
one of which is not, hence the confusion. The former<br />
right hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts, now Lord<br />
Reid, signed on behalf of the Government the European<br />
directive to which I referred in my answer yesterday.<br />
The hon. Lady may have referred to a different directive<br />
that has not yet been signed, so we were both right and<br />
we were both wrong.<br />
Mr Speaker: I do not want in any sense to treat this<br />
matter with levity, but I hope the Solicitor-General will<br />
understand if I say that that absolutely ingenious response<br />
is proof of the argument that no reply from a lawyer is<br />
ever simple.<br />
The Solicitor-General rose—<br />
Mr Speaker: Order. We are grateful to the hon. and<br />
learned Gentleman. The hon. Lady has put her view<br />
very fairly and squarely on the record. We will leave it<br />
t<strong>here</strong> for today. I am grateful to the hon. Lady, and<br />
indeed to the Solicitor-General.<br />
Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964<br />
(Amendment)<br />
Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order<br />
No. 23)<br />
12.34 pm<br />
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab): I beg to<br />
move,<br />
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Public<br />
Libraries and Museums Act 1964 to broaden the scope of the<br />
general duty of library authorities so as to include a duty to<br />
provide related cultural facilities alongside the library service; and<br />
for connected purposes.<br />
At a time of global economic turmoil, it may seem<br />
strange to some to want to talk about culture. However,<br />
I would like to quote in favour of doing so one of this<br />
country’s finest economists, Maynard Keynes. On the<br />
publication of the first annual report of the Arts Council<br />
in 1945, he said:<br />
“The day is not far off when the economic problem will take<br />
the back seat w<strong>here</strong> it belongs, and the arena of the heart and the<br />
head will be occupied…by our real problems—the problems of<br />
life and of human relations, of creation”.<br />
He was right about that. The economic problems that<br />
we face are real, many and serious; however, culture and<br />
its role in our towns and cities is highly important. I<br />
want to raise the matter in my ten-minute rule Bill, in<br />
order to put on record my concerns about what could<br />
happen to culture in some of our towns, cities and<br />
counties in Britain.<br />
T<strong>here</strong> is real fear out t<strong>here</strong> that t<strong>here</strong> could be not just<br />
cuts in the arts sector—everybody appreciates that t<strong>here</strong><br />
will be cuts and that the cultural sector will need to bear<br />
its share of efficiencies—but the total withdrawal by<br />
some local authorities from providing cultural services.<br />
I give the example of Somerset, which recently cut all<br />
160,000 of its direct grants to arts and cultural bodies,<br />
while Bedfordshire looks set no longer to fund its music<br />
service. I draw on my own experience as a councillor in<br />
the London borough of Southwark, w<strong>here</strong> I had to<br />
watch the local authority close the only children’s museum<br />
in London. That showed me the importance of ensuring<br />
that local authorities continue to prioritise culture.<br />
Of course local funding choices are important. I<br />
would not dream of telling local authorities what to<br />
do—by and large. The Government’s role in giving local<br />
authorities enough funding will have a massive part to<br />
play in determining whether they can provide decent<br />
cultural services. Nor do I want to be prescriptive. I am<br />
not introducing my Bill in order to tell local authorities<br />
that one kind of culture is good for them. Diversity in<br />
the cultural services provided by our local authorities is<br />
a truly good thing. In my experience, great local authorities<br />
lead on culture in places as diverse as Kent, Merseyside—my<br />
part of the world—and Leicester. We have some visionary<br />
local authorities. I pay tribute to what they do in<br />
ensuring that our towns and cities are places we can be<br />
proud of, and w<strong>here</strong> t<strong>here</strong> are public spaces that bring<br />
people together to share in their history and heritage.<br />
The reason for my suggestion is to start a debate. The<br />
Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964 gives the Culture<br />
Secretary an important role. It enables the Culture<br />
Secretary, if they feel it necessary, to say to a local<br />
authority, “You’re in danger of not providing sufficient<br />
library services. I want you to stop with those plans.
823 Public Libraries and Museums Act 1 DECEMBER 2010 Public Libraries and Museums Act 824<br />
1964 (Amendment)<br />
1964 (Amendment)<br />
[Alison McGovern]<br />
They’re not good enough for the people in your area.<br />
They need a library service that provides public<br />
education”—and for a very good reason. My argument<br />
is that this public education role should be extended to<br />
the wider cultural service. T<strong>here</strong> are lots of people in<br />
local authorities up and down the country who are<br />
fearful of what is to come. My question is what kind of<br />
country do we want to be? Do we want to be the kind of<br />
country w<strong>here</strong> culture is, by and large, for those who<br />
already access it? Or do we want to be the kind of<br />
country w<strong>here</strong> culture is for everybody and w<strong>here</strong> local<br />
authorities fulfil their responsibility in involving people?<br />
I know that t<strong>here</strong> is a real appetite among local<br />
authorities to take on that role. When I put the word<br />
out that I was seeking to ask leave to introduce my Bill,<br />
I asked people to come forward with examples. I would<br />
like to quote Councillor John Warmisham from Salford.<br />
I do not know whether Councillor Warmisham agrees<br />
with my Bill—he might not—but he told me that the<br />
best example of what can be done is that of Salford<br />
Quays:<br />
“First we had the Lowry, which attracted the Imperial War<br />
museum in the north, and this laid the foundation for MediaCity.<br />
This will give us more jobs than when we had the docks in<br />
Salford”.<br />
That, coming from a local councillor, is a powerful<br />
example of the good that culture can do.<br />
T<strong>here</strong> is sometimes a view in the cultural sector that<br />
local authorities do not care about cultural services<br />
because they do not consider them to be as important<br />
as housing or social services, but t<strong>here</strong> are many councillors<br />
out t<strong>here</strong> who really do care. I want this Bill to start a<br />
debate, to highlight those councils that do great work<br />
and to determine whether we need protection in law for<br />
the cultural services provided by local authorities. I<br />
think that we do; and we at least need to have that<br />
discussion.<br />
In Merseyside, we know—probably better than many<br />
other parts of the country—the massive value of culture<br />
to places. Of course, this is about the economy, and I<br />
must mention the impact that City of Culture ’08 had<br />
on Liverpool, Merseyside and the wider north-west. I<br />
know that people will understand the importance of<br />
that, but this is also about the strength of community<br />
that was created at the time. People have pointed out to<br />
me examples of the work that went on to bring culture<br />
not only to Liverpool city centre but to the wider area<br />
of Merseyside. I know from experience in my own<br />
constituency how empowering it was for the young<br />
people and older people in our communities when the<br />
cultural services in the local authorities brought them<br />
together to discuss their history and their heritage. We<br />
need to ask whether that needs some protection in law.<br />
The 1964 Act has been a vital backstop to our library<br />
services at a time when they feel under constant threat<br />
of being de-prioritised, driven down and questioned. I<br />
have every sympathy with local authority leaders, who<br />
are having to make terribly difficult decisions, but the<br />
1964 Act is an important check on what might happen.<br />
It ensures that we will never have to face the situation<br />
that my own grandfather faced when he was growing up<br />
in the inter-war years. He used to go to Liverpool<br />
central library and, I confess, he used to steal books<br />
because it was not possible to borrow library books for<br />
free at that time. The Act is important because it provides<br />
a backstop and enables the Government to question<br />
any local authority that is proposing to decimate its<br />
library services.<br />
We all know the importance to our own constituencies<br />
of the local art gallery, the museum and the local<br />
theatre. We have all seen young people from our schools<br />
gain confidence from coming into the theatre for their<br />
first performance. My reason for introducing the Bill is<br />
simply to ask whether we want to be the kind of<br />
country in which those services are available to everybody.<br />
Do we want the Secretary of State to take responsibility<br />
for those services? Such a task need not be prescriptive<br />
or demanding, and it would not require a large amount<br />
of funding, but it would allow local people to appeal to<br />
the Secretary of State and say, “Please stop. We don’t<br />
want our local cultural services to close.”That is important<br />
for all of us.<br />
Question put and agreed to.<br />
Ordered,<br />
That Alison McGovern, Tristram Hunt, Stephen Twigg<br />
and David Miliband present the Bill.<br />
Alison McGovern accordingly presented the Bill.<br />
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on<br />
Friday 17 June 2011, and to be printed(Bill 118).
825 1 DECEMBER 2010 Fixed-term <strong>Parliament</strong>s Bill 826<br />
Fixed-term <strong>Parliament</strong>s Bill<br />
[3RD ALLOCATED DAY]<br />
Further considered in Committee<br />
[DAWN PRIMAROLO in the Chair]<br />
Clause 2<br />
EARLY PARLIAMENTARY GENERAL ELECTIONS<br />
Amendment proposed (24 November): 5, page 2, line 11,<br />
leave out from ‘Government’ to end of line 14.<br />
—(Mr Cash.)<br />
Question again proposed, That the amendment be<br />
made.<br />
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means<br />
(Dawn Primarolo): With this it will be convenient to<br />
discuss the following:<br />
Amendment 22, page 2, line 12, leave out ‘14’ and<br />
insert ‘ten working’.<br />
Amendment 36, page 2, line 14, at end insert—<br />
‘(2A) In reckoning for the purposes of subsection 2(b), no<br />
account shall be taken of any time during which <strong>Parliament</strong> is<br />
prorogued or during which the House of Commons is adjourned<br />
for more than four days.’.<br />
Amendment 37, page 2, line 14, at end insert—<br />
‘(2B) W<strong>here</strong> the House of Commons passes a motion of no<br />
confidence in Her Majesty’s Government, the Prime Minister<br />
shall tender his resignation to Her Majesty within a period of<br />
seven days of the motion being passed.<br />
(2C) On tendering his resignation under subsection (2B), it<br />
shall be a duty on the Prime Minister to advise Her Majesty to<br />
appoint as his successor the person who appears to him most<br />
likely to command the confidence of the House of Commons.’.<br />
Amendment 25, page 2, line 24, at end add—<br />
‘(6A) In this section a “motion of no confidence in Her<br />
Majesty’s Government” shall be—<br />
(a) in the terms “This House has no confidence in Her<br />
Majesty’s Government” or<br />
(b) in the terms “This House has no confidence in the<br />
Prime Minister”.’.<br />
12.44 pm<br />
The <strong>Parliament</strong>ary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Mark<br />
Harper): Being in this position almost persuaded me of<br />
the merits of knives, which at least enable us to conclude<br />
debates at approximately the point at which everyone<br />
else has spoken.<br />
I remind the Committee that the amendments deal<br />
with the mechanism providing for an early general<br />
election following a vote of no confidence, as set out in<br />
clause 2(2). Last week, on the second day of this Committee<br />
stage, we engaged in a wide-ranging discussion both of<br />
the merits of the various amendments and of the Bill.<br />
Before I deal with the amendments, let me respond to<br />
some of the questions raised by Members last week.<br />
My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest<br />
(Mrs Laing), who is present and who speaks for the<br />
Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, asked<br />
a number of questions relating to the constitutional<br />
consequences of a vote of no confidence under the Bill.<br />
She was particularly concerned about the possibility of<br />
a Government’s forcing a general election by refusing to<br />
act both in accordance with conventions and in the<br />
spirit of the Act. She gave the example of a Government<br />
who engineered a vote of no confidence in themselves,<br />
or who sought to trigger a series of elections close to<br />
one another by refusing to resign after an election result.<br />
If a Prime Minister who would presumably be seeking<br />
to be re-elected in a subsequent election engaged in such<br />
constitutional shenanigans, he or she would first suffer<br />
a political penalty at that election. If a Prime Minister<br />
behaved in an absolutely unconstitutional fashion, t<strong>here</strong><br />
would always be the ultimate long stop: Her Majesty<br />
the Queen could dismiss the said Prime Minister. That<br />
is the ultimate check and balance in our system. Clearly<br />
it would require an extraordinary set of circumstances,<br />
but it is the position that would obtain if our unwritten<br />
or other conventions were breached in a really appalling<br />
fashion.<br />
Mr Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con):<br />
By what constitutional authority does the Minister cite<br />
the extraordinary proposition that the long stop of the<br />
constitution is that the Queen may dismiss a Prime<br />
Minister?<br />
Mr Harper: Her Majesty the Queen appoints the<br />
Prime Minister. If the Prime Minister were to behave in<br />
an unconstitutional fashion, the Queen would have the<br />
right to dismiss the Prime Minister.<br />
Mr Shepherd: So that is the Minister’s new interpretation<br />
of a constitution, or of defined practice over the years.<br />
Mr Harper: It is not an invention; it is the constitutional<br />
position.<br />
Mr Shepherd: No, it is not.<br />
Mr Harper: Yes, it is.<br />
Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con): I<br />
cannot think of an example of such a position since the<br />
reign of Queen Victoria, who refused to accept Robert<br />
Peel as Prime Minister, and I think it inconceivable that<br />
it would arise in a modern constitution.<br />
Mr Harper: I did say that t<strong>here</strong> would have to be an<br />
extraordinary set of circumstances for the Prime Minister<br />
to behave in such a constitutionally outrageous way.<br />
They would be circumstances in which a Prime Minister<br />
was abusing and stretching the constitution in order to<br />
stay in office and avoid the consequences of losing a<br />
vote of confidence in <strong>Parliament</strong>.<br />
Jacob Rees-Mogg: I think that that is extraordinarily<br />
unlikely. It is theoretically possible that the Queen could<br />
refuse assent to a Bill, but that has not happened since<br />
the reign of Queen Anne. Such constitutional anomalies<br />
remain theoretical, but so theoretical that it is inconceivable<br />
that they would arise whatever the emergency. I really<br />
feel that to rely on that for the passage of the Bill is<br />
most unsatisfactory.<br />
Mr Harper: I am not relying on it for the passage of<br />
the Bill. I was referring to the issue raised by my hon.<br />
Friend the Member for Epping Forest, who last week,<br />
on behalf of the Political and Constitutional Reform<br />
Committee, raised some potential scenarios with which<br />
she was uncomfortable. I believe, and the Government<br />
believe, that those scenarios are indeed, as my hon.
827 Fixed-term <strong>Parliament</strong>s Bill 1 DECEMBER 2010 Fixed-term <strong>Parliament</strong>s Bill 828<br />
[Mr Harper]<br />
Friend says, theoretical, and extremely unlikely to happen.<br />
My point is that if a Prime Minister behaved<br />
unconstitutionally in such a theoretical and extremely<br />
unlikely way, a mechanism that already exists would be<br />
invoked. However, the Government contend—and I<br />
agree with my hon. Friend on this—that both sets of<br />
circumstances are highly unlikely. It is our contention<br />
that the eventuality to which my hon. Friend has referred<br />
would not be necessary, because a Prime Minister would<br />
not behave in a way that stretched constitutional convention<br />
to breaking point.<br />
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab): I must say that this is<br />
the second very worrying route the Minister has gone<br />
down. He is saying that if the Prime Minister were to<br />
behave unconstitutionally, the monarch would act. How<br />
would the monarch know whether the Prime Minister<br />
had acted constitutionally or unconstitutionally?<br />
Mr Harper: I am not setting out anything that is<br />
groundbreaking; this is the position that exists now. I<br />
agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North East<br />
Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) that t<strong>here</strong> would have to<br />
be an extraordinary set of circumstances; indeed, I said<br />
as much. I did so because I was referring to a point my<br />
hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest made last<br />
week in raising some concerns of the Select Committee’s<br />
concerns. My view is that those concerns are not well<br />
founded because the events they address are extremely<br />
unlikely to happen and are only really theoretical in<br />
nature, but t<strong>here</strong> is a response to them if they were to<br />
happen.<br />
Mrs Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest) (Con): Will my<br />
hon. Friend reassure the Committee that it is the<br />
Government’s intention to fulfil their duty and that of<br />
<strong>Parliament</strong> to protect the Crown from being put in a<br />
position w<strong>here</strong> the monarch would ever have to make<br />
such an important constitutional decision?<br />
Mr Harper: Absolutely. I can certainly say on behalf<br />
of this Government that this Government and this<br />
Prime Minister would never wish to put Her Majesty<br />
the Queen in such a position. Clearly, I cannot speak for<br />
Governments of the future, however.<br />
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con):<br />
I think it would help the Committee if the Minister<br />
could cite an academic paper, some judicial text or<br />
something else that bears out this notion that Her<br />
Majesty the Queen would interfere in politics in the way<br />
he is suggesting she would. Can he quote anything?<br />
Mr Harper: The position is that Her Majesty the<br />
Queen appoints Prime Ministers and the ultimate<br />
constitutional long-stop is that if a Prime Minister<br />
behaves in a way that is outwith the constitutional<br />
position, the monarch can dismiss the Prime Minister—but<br />
that is the long-stop constitutional safeguard in our<br />
system.<br />
Mr Jenkin: Her Majesty would have to take advice on<br />
such occasions. From whom would she take advice?<br />
Mr Harper: Her Majesty would, indeed, take advice<br />
from, for example her Privy Council and her other legal<br />
advisers.<br />
Chris Bryant: Let us be absolutely clear: as I understand<br />
it, the Minister is saying that if the Prime Minister were<br />
“unconstitutionally”—to borrow the Minister’s word—to<br />
engineer a motion of no confidence in himself, for<br />
instance by tabling a motion of confidence in himself<br />
and urging his supporters to abstain, the monarch<br />
would sack him.<br />
Mr Harper: I am not setting out particular scenarios.<br />
I was making the point that we can set out some<br />
theoretical propositions that have not happened and<br />
that we think are extremely unlikely to happen. I was<br />
simply setting out that if such a theoretical and unlikely<br />
event, to use the words of my hon. Friend the Member<br />
for North East Somerset, were to happen t<strong>here</strong> is a<br />
constitutional long-stop. That was all I was saying, and<br />
I think the hon. Gentleman is making rather too much<br />
of it as it is not a new point.<br />
Sir Peter Soulsby (Leicester South) (Lab): Although<br />
we may well accept that the scenarios we are talking<br />
about are unlikely, they are none the less possible, and<br />
while they remain possible would it not be desirable for<br />
the Government either to accept the Select Committee’s<br />
amendments or, indeed, to bring forward some of their<br />
own to make sure that should such unlikely events<br />
occur, t<strong>here</strong> is a clear road map for the sovereign to<br />
follow?<br />
Mr Harper: The fact is that some of these things can<br />
happen under our existing constitutional position; they<br />
are not triggered by anything we are providing for in<br />
this Bill. Our flexible constitution has worked rather<br />
well over the years in dealing with events that have not<br />
been thought of in advance, and I see no reason to<br />
undertake a rather more significant constitutional rewrite.<br />
This Bill is intended to do one specific thing, which is<br />
remove from the Prime Minister the power to seek a<br />
Dissolution of <strong>Parliament</strong>. It makes the necessary changes<br />
to do that, but it does not seek to make changes that are<br />
not necessary to do that; it does not seek to go wider<br />
than achieving that particular change, and I think that<br />
is very sensible.<br />
My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest also<br />
asked last week how the Bill strengthened the power of<br />
the House to throw out a Government. Giving statutory<br />
effect to the vote that could bring about a general<br />
election, rather than simply relying on the conventions,<br />
strengthens the power of the House. The Bill transfers<br />
from the Prime Minister to this House the power to<br />
decide whether t<strong>here</strong> will be an early general election. If<br />
I remember rightly, my hon. Friend did, however, say<br />
that she is broadly supportive of the measures in the<br />
Bill, as, I think, is the Select Committee.<br />
The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) asked<br />
a number of questions last week. He asked whether the<br />
Bill should contain a provision to ensure that a motion<br />
of no confidence is given precedence so it is debated<br />
without delay. He is aware—he mentioned this last<br />
week—that t<strong>here</strong> is a convention that the Government<br />
find time to debate a motion of no confidence tabled by<br />
the official Opposition. That is a long-standing convention,<br />
which has been followed by Governments. Also of
829 Fixed-term <strong>Parliament</strong>s Bill 1 DECEMBER 2010 Fixed-term <strong>Parliament</strong>s Bill 830<br />
course, it would always be open to the Opposition to<br />
table an amendment to a Government motion, changing<br />
it to one of no confidence to ensure that that was debated.<br />
The hon. Gentleman also raised a number of related<br />
points about whether particular votes could be considered<br />
motions of no confidence and whether it was appropriate<br />
for the Speaker to rule on such matters. I think I am<br />
right in saying that he was concerned that the Bill would<br />
give too much discretion to the Speaker. The Government<br />
do not consider that to be the case. We would expect the<br />
Speaker by and large to take a fairly literal approach to<br />
clause 2(2). We do not think the Speaker would be left<br />
with appreciably more discretion in dealing with this<br />
sort of question than he already has, for example under<br />
the <strong>Parliament</strong> Act 1911 when he has to certify whether<br />
a Bill is a money Bill. That is a decision he makes; it is<br />
for him. It seems to me that that is a sensible amount of<br />
discretion for the Speaker to have, although I accept it is<br />
on a different issue.<br />
Chris Bryant: The Minister is right, of course. In fact,<br />
at present Members of the House of Lords are fiercely<br />
contesting the Speaker’s decision on whether certain<br />
Bills are money Bills. My point, however, is that all that<br />
that determines is whether or not it can be debated in<br />
another Chamber, w<strong>here</strong>as under this measure it would<br />
determine whether or not we had a general election and<br />
the Government had fallen. That is a very big decision<br />
to be placing in the hands of the Speaker, which <strong>here</strong>tofore<br />
has never been in the hands of the Speaker.<br />
Mr Harper: T<strong>here</strong> are two issues t<strong>here</strong>. I will not<br />
dwell on the money Bill issue to any great extent,<br />
because if I were to do so you would rule me out of<br />
order, Ms Primarolo, but I have read the account of the<br />
debate in the other place to which the hon. Gentleman<br />
refers and the other place is not challenging the Speaker’s<br />
ability to rule on whether a Bill is a money Bill. It is<br />
simply disagreeing with the consequences of that, and<br />
arguing that if something is a money Bill it is perfectly<br />
appropriate for the upper House to debate it in Committee<br />
and pass amendments to it, recognising that legally<br />
those amendments will have no effect if the House of<br />
Commons chooses not to take them into account. The<br />
upper House is t<strong>here</strong>fore not challenging the Speaker’s<br />
right to make that decision.<br />
The hon. Gentleman is also not right to say that this<br />
is about the Speaker deciding, effectively, whether to<br />
bring down the Government. That would be a decision<br />
for the House. The Speaker would have to make a<br />
decision about certifying something as a vote of confidence.<br />
As we debated last week, it would be extraordinary if<br />
the House were debating a motion of confidence—which<br />
the Speaker would certify as such—with everybody<br />
remaining in ignorance of the fact that it was a motion<br />
of no confidence in the Government. I simply do not<br />
think that would happen. Everyone would be very well<br />
aware of the fact that it was a motion of confidence—that<br />
it had that import to it. It would be for the House to<br />
vote on the matter, and the Speaker would then certify<br />
in a way that means the decision is outside the ambit of<br />
the courts.<br />
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP): As the Minister just<br />
appeared to touch on, under the Bill the Speaker issues<br />
the certificate only after the vote has taken place, not<br />
before. T<strong>here</strong>fore, would not the Labour amendment<br />
that specifies what is and what is not a vote of confidence<br />
be much better in everybody’s terms?<br />
1pm<br />
Mr Harper: I shall deal with the specific amendments<br />
shortly, when I set out why the Government think that<br />
they are unnecessary and that their drafting makes<br />
them flawed. If the hon. Gentleman does not think I<br />
have adequately dealt with his point, he will be able to<br />
intervene on me and I will happily take such an intervention.<br />
We have debated the fact that t<strong>here</strong> is also a purpose in<br />
the Bill’s not specifying the exact words in legislation,<br />
because such an approach gives the House some necessary<br />
flexibility. I will return to that in a moment.<br />
Let us consider the amendments in order. Amendment 5<br />
was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone<br />
(Mr Cash), who is not able to be <strong>here</strong> today because he<br />
is away on other parliamentary business. He explained<br />
that his amendment would remove the 14-day period<br />
before an early election was called in the event of the<br />
Speaker certifying that the House had passed a vote of<br />
no confidence. It is right to say that t<strong>here</strong> would be<br />
circumstances in which it would be appropriate to move<br />
to an early election when the House determined that we<br />
should do so, and the Bill provides for that in clause 2(1).<br />
But it is perfectly possible that t<strong>here</strong> may be circumstances<br />
within a fixed term in which a legitimate Government<br />
could be formed from the composition of the House as<br />
it then stood, so it would not be appropriate to insist on<br />
an election. Members will have been elected for five<br />
years, and they are able to give their approval to a<br />
Government formed from within their ranks without<br />
the need necessarily to go to the country. The House<br />
can decide to do so, because under our proposals if a<br />
vote of confidence is lost and no Government can be<br />
formed within 14 days who subsequently receive a vote<br />
of confidence, a general election would take place. It<br />
seems sensible to give the House the opportunity to test<br />
whether a Government can be formed.<br />
My hon. Friend’s amendment contained a fundamental<br />
misunderstanding about what a Prime Minister should<br />
do in the event of a Government losing the confidence<br />
of the House. Two things can happen. One possibility,<br />
under our current system, is that a Prime Minister<br />
remains in office but invites Her Majesty to dissolve the<br />
House and call a general election. Thus the Prime<br />
Minister does not resign immediately, and that is what<br />
happened when the House expressed its lack of confidence<br />
in the Government in 1979. Mr Callaghan did not<br />
resign when he lost the vote of confidence; he resigned<br />
only when he lost the subsequent election. Alternatively,<br />
the Prime Minister could resign almost straightaway<br />
after losing a vote of confidence, as happened in<br />
January 1924 when the Government’s motion for the<br />
Loyal Address after the Queen’s Speech was amended:<br />
Prime Minister Baldwin resigned and the Labour<br />
Opposition formed a Government. This Bill seeks to<br />
encapsulate that double-sided convention.<br />
At the moment, if a general election has an unclear<br />
outcome, the Prime Minister is able to test his support<br />
in the House of Commons. If the House then signalled<br />
that it did not have confidence in that Government, that<br />
Prime Minister would go and a new one could be<br />
appointed. Amendment 5 would insist that another<br />
general election took place, and if the result of that
831 Fixed-term <strong>Parliament</strong>s Bill 1 DECEMBER 2010 Fixed-term <strong>Parliament</strong>s Bill 832<br />
[Mr Harper]<br />
general election was unclear, we could end up having a<br />
succession of general elections. Amendment 5 would<br />
force such elections to be held. In countries that have<br />
fixed-term <strong>Parliament</strong>s it is very common for t<strong>here</strong> to<br />
be a period of Government formation after a vote of no<br />
confidence before an election is triggered. That is what<br />
happens in Germany, Greece, Italy, Spain and Sweden,<br />
so we are proposing an approach that has much precedent,<br />
which we think is sensible. We cannot ask my hon.<br />
Friend the Member for Stone to withdraw his amendment,<br />
because he is not <strong>here</strong> and thus unable to do so. However,<br />
we urge Members who are <strong>here</strong> not to insist on it being<br />
pressed to a Division.<br />
Mr Jenkin: I have been in touch with my hon. Friend<br />
the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), who makes things<br />
complicated because he does not text people. He is in<br />
Budapest representing the European Scrutiny Committee,<br />
but he has suggested that it would be in the interests of<br />
the scrutiny of this Bill to press the amendment to a<br />
Division, and one or two of us will attempt to do so.<br />
Mr Harper: As I said, my hon. Friend the Member<br />
for Stone is away on parliamentary business and, as he<br />
has perhaps not reached 21st century methods of<br />
communication, my words are unlikely to reach him in<br />
a timely way. So I can only urge him not to press his<br />
amendment to a vote, but I suspect that the decision on<br />
that will be for others, not for him.<br />
Chris Bryant: As it happens, I agree with the Minister<br />
on this amendment. However, the one area that it will<br />
be worth considering on Report is whether it would be<br />
sensible to have a motion of confidence on the forming<br />
of a new Government after a general election, which<br />
should be treated in a slightly different way. Such an<br />
approach would address the 1924 situation that he<br />
suggests.<br />
Mr Harper: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point,<br />
which has been raised by others. I believe I am right in<br />
saying that the hon. Member for Nottingham North<br />
(Mr Allen), the Chairman of the Select Committee on<br />
Political and Constitutional Reform, has said he is keen<br />
on the idea of installing Prime Ministers with an explicit<br />
vote in the House—he was speaking for himself t<strong>here</strong>,<br />
not for the Committee. That would be a further change<br />
to our system and, as I said in answer to the hon.<br />
Member for Leicester South (Sir Peter Soulsby), we<br />
have made the necessary changes in the law to take away<br />
the Prime Minister’s right to call an early general election,<br />
but we have not gone further. I shall think about what<br />
the hon. Member for Rhondda said and see whether we<br />
think it has merit.<br />
The hon. Gentleman’s amendment 22 seeks to replace<br />
the 14 days that we set out in the Bill for that Government<br />
formation period with a period of 10 working days. He<br />
is supportive of a Government formation period, because<br />
he would not be attempting to keep one through this<br />
amendment were he not. I think he was wanting to<br />
understand why we chose the period that we did, using<br />
calendar days rather than working days. The reason<br />
why we did so was because the calendar day period is<br />
fixed and certain, w<strong>here</strong>as working days are not, as they<br />
are dependent on things such as bank holidays.<br />
Two legitimate concerns are involved <strong>here</strong>, and they<br />
were touched on last week. T<strong>here</strong> is a concern that the<br />
number of business days in the 14-day period would be<br />
curtailed or that the date of the no confidence vote<br />
could mean that the date for the Government formation<br />
vote fell on a non-working day. Our view—I am interested<br />
to hear the hon. Gentleman’s—is that discussions on<br />
Government formation would not stop on weekends<br />
and bank holidays; I suspect that they would continue,<br />
given that having a Government is probably the most<br />
important thing for the country.<br />
T<strong>here</strong> are two ways around a scenario w<strong>here</strong> the vital<br />
14th day when the vote of confidence is due falls on a<br />
day when the House would conventionally not be sitting.<br />
The first is to arrange that the no confidence motion be<br />
taken on a day that means that the House will be sitting<br />
14 days later. The alternative is for the House simply to<br />
sit on what would traditionally have been a non-sitting<br />
day. T<strong>here</strong> is nothing to prevent the House from sitting,<br />
if it chooses to do so, on a bank holiday, a Saturday or a<br />
Sunday. Non-working days are not days when the House<br />
cannot sit, even though it does not do so. T<strong>here</strong> are<br />
precedents for the House sitting on such days when<br />
emergencies have happened. I believe I am right in<br />
saying that the House was recalled to sit on a Saturday<br />
when the Falkland Islands were invaded by the Argentines.<br />
Holding a vote on whether a new Government did or<br />
did not have the confidence of the House would be<br />
sufficiently important that it would be in order for the<br />
House to sit that day, even if it was not a conventional<br />
day.<br />
Chris Bryant: The Minister is right in relation to the<br />
Falkland Islands, and I believe that the House has also<br />
sat on a Sunday on the demise of the monarch. That is<br />
precisely why we did not specify “sitting days” in this<br />
amendment; we used the term “working days” because<br />
that is the language used throughout the rest of the Bill.<br />
We sought to provide a degree of flexibility; otherwise,<br />
over Easter, when t<strong>here</strong> are bank holidays on the Friday<br />
and the following Monday, t<strong>here</strong> might be a sustained<br />
period when the House would find it inconceivable to<br />
sit but the Government might, none the less, want to be<br />
able to do their business.<br />
Mr Harper: For the purposes of this particular set of<br />
motions, the only business that we would be talking<br />
about the House undertaking would be holding a vote<br />
on whether or not a new Government who had been<br />
formed had the confidence of the House. Given the<br />
things that the Government are responsible for, it would<br />
be important to have a clear Government in place for<br />
the financial markets and at difficult times. We know<br />
from experience and we can see it from what happens in<br />
other countries. T<strong>here</strong>fore, the Government formation<br />
negotiations would want to be concluded and it would<br />
benefit the country, the Government and the House for<br />
the House to vote on that without inordinate delay. If<br />
t<strong>here</strong> were a number of bank holidays or other holidays<br />
in the way, that could be dealt with. [Interruption.] The<br />
hon. Gentleman asks about Good Friday. As I have<br />
said, the alternative is that we could arrange things by<br />
moving the no confidence vote so that it was 14 days<br />
before a sitting day.<br />
Conventionally, no confidence motions are given time<br />
in the House very soon after they are tabled, but as long<br />
as the Government were prepared to table such a motion
833 Fixed-term <strong>Parliament</strong>s Bill 1 DECEMBER 2010 Fixed-term <strong>Parliament</strong>s Bill 834<br />
very soon and agreed that with the Opposition, it would<br />
not necessarily have to be tabled the next day. I do not<br />
think that it is an inordinate problem. We think that it is<br />
sensible for t<strong>here</strong> to be a fixed timetable for a Government<br />
to be formed so that everyone has some certainty. That<br />
is why we picked the time period that we have.<br />
My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest spoke<br />
in support of amendments 36 and 37, which are also<br />
tabled in the names of other members of the Select<br />
Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform.<br />
Amendment 36 would make the 14 days in a period<br />
following a Government defeat a period that would not<br />
include periods of Prorogation or Adjournment for<br />
more than four days. Although I do not think that this<br />
is the intention behind the amendment, its effect would<br />
be to permit the 14-day period for Government formation<br />
to be prolonged potentially indefinitely if the House<br />
was prorogued or adjourned. The Government do not<br />
think that that is appropriate. We think that the 14-day<br />
period strikes the right balance between giving parties<br />
in this House time to discuss and see whether a Government<br />
can be formed and not allowing things to go on for so<br />
long that the country is plunged into a period of uncertainty.<br />
We do not think that amendment 36 is acceptable.<br />
Amendment 37 provides that a Prime Minister must<br />
resign within seven calendar days of losing a vote of no<br />
confidence and recommend to the monarch a successor<br />
who appears to them to be the person most likely to be<br />
able to command the confidence of the House. I think I<br />
am right to say—my hon. Friend the Member for<br />
Epping Forest will correct me if I am wrong—that the<br />
purpose of the amendment is to avoid a situation in<br />
which a Prime Minister who has lost a no confidence<br />
vote wishes to remain in power and asks the monarch to<br />
prorogue <strong>Parliament</strong> to avoid an alternative Government<br />
receiving a vote of confidence, t<strong>here</strong>by forcing a general<br />
election.<br />
Mrs Laing: Yes.<br />
Mr Harper: My hon. Friend says that that is indeed<br />
the purpose of the amendment. However, I think<br />
amendment 37 is defective, because it rules out the<br />
possibility of what happened in 1979 occurring again.<br />
As I have said, Prime Minister Callaghan did not resign<br />
as a result of the no confidence motion. He remained in<br />
office, asked Her Majesty the Queen to dissolve <strong>Parliament</strong><br />
and resigned when he lost the subsequent general election.<br />
That outcome remains a possibility under the Bill. My<br />
hon. Friend’s amendment would have meant that he<br />
would have been forced to resign before the result of the<br />
election was known. I do not think that that would have<br />
been a sensible outcome.<br />
Mrs Laing: I fully appreciate the Minister’s point.<br />
Amendments 36 and 37 might well be technically<br />
defective—in any case, I have no intention of pressing<br />
them to a vote, as I said—but the Select Committee’s<br />
purpose was to ensure that this issue was properly<br />
discussed and scrutinised on the Floor of the House.<br />
Will the Minister reassure the House that he and his<br />
colleagues are satisfied that it would not be possible<br />
under the Bill’s provisions for the Government to seek<br />
indefinite prorogation in order to avoid a vote of confidence<br />
and a general election?<br />
Mr Harper: I think I have set out why I do not think<br />
that that is likely. As we have heard, t<strong>here</strong> are lots of<br />
theoretical possibilities that are very outlandish—I do<br />
not propose to rehash the conversations that we had<br />
at the beginning of this debate—but the Government<br />
do not think that they are realistic risks and that is why<br />
we do not think that amendments 36 and 37 are acceptable.<br />
Let me turn now to the last amendment in this group,<br />
amendment 25, which was also tabled by the Opposition.<br />
It specifies the wording of motions of no confidence for<br />
the purposes of clause 2(2). It aims to remove the<br />
discretion of the House over its wording and that of<br />
the Speaker in his certifying of a motion of no<br />
confidence. The Government recognise that no<br />
confidence motions might take different forms, as they<br />
do now, but we do not want to remove the flexibility<br />
entirely. That raises an issue, which we will come to in<br />
the next group of amendments, to do with the House’s<br />
exclusive cognisance.<br />
If we try to set out in statute the precise form of a no<br />
confidence motion, that could raise the risks to which<br />
the Clerk of the House has alluded. We think it is better<br />
for the Speaker’s certificate to be conclusive and for the<br />
Speaker to determine the nature of that certification.<br />
As I said when we touched on this matter in debating a<br />
previous group of amendments, if t<strong>here</strong> were doubt—I<br />
think it unlikely that t<strong>here</strong> would be—about whether<br />
what the House was discussing was a motion of no<br />
confidence, it would seem to be sensible for the Government,<br />
the Opposition and the Speaker to ensure that Members<br />
were clear on that point when they were debating it. I<br />
cannot believe that t<strong>here</strong> could ever be a debate in this<br />
House about a motion of no confidence in the Government<br />
in which Members were sitting t<strong>here</strong> completely unaware<br />
that they were debating the future of the Government<br />
of our country.<br />
1.15 pm<br />
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP): Of course,<br />
the Minister is right about the reality and the politics of<br />
the situation. He should remember, however, that we<br />
are talking about a situation in which legislation has<br />
been introduced and that legislation is always challengeable<br />
in the courts. Once things get into the courts, who<br />
knows what will happen regarding the interpretation of<br />
the provisions? For the sake of clarity and certainty,<br />
what is wrong with setting out the precise terms that<br />
must be used so that t<strong>here</strong> can be no doubt? That goes<br />
to the issue in amendment 6, tabled by the hon. Member<br />
for Stone (Mr Cash), which sets out provisions for the<br />
avoidance of doubt. Surely t<strong>here</strong> is merit in making it<br />
absolutely clear and plain.<br />
Mr Harper: I shall not attempt to rush forward to the<br />
certification procedure, because we will debate it when<br />
we discuss the next group of amendments.<br />
Let me turn to the specific amendment before the<br />
Committee. I do not think amendment 25 achieves the<br />
certainty that the right hon. Member for Belfast North<br />
(Mr Dodds) suggests would be desirable. It states that a<br />
motion of no confidence “shall be”, not “must include”,<br />
so it is not clear whether the motion would have to<br />
consist exclusively of the specified text or whether that<br />
text could be part of a motion, such as if it were added<br />
to a Government motion by amendment.
835 Fixed-term <strong>Parliament</strong>s Bill 1 DECEMBER 2010 Fixed-term <strong>Parliament</strong>s Bill 836<br />
[Mr Harper]<br />
The Opposition’s amendment tries to specify the text<br />
of the no confidence motion, but does not try to achieve<br />
equivalent clarity as regards the motion of confidence<br />
that would have to be passed within 14 days by an<br />
alternative Government in order to avoid a general<br />
election. The amendment is trying to achieve some<br />
certainty—that was what the hon. Member for Rhondda<br />
said—but I do not think it does. I also do not think it is<br />
desirable or appropriate to try to set out the text of the<br />
motions in the Bill.<br />
The Government think that clause 2(2) provides a<br />
clear and practical mechanism that gives statutory effect<br />
to a vote of no confidence. I have set out the Government’s<br />
concerns about the amendments and I hope that hon.<br />
Members will not seek to press them to a vote.<br />
Mr Shepherd: I should like to press amendment 5 to a<br />
vote, with the consent of my hon. Friend the Member<br />
for Stone (Mr Cash).<br />
The Second Deputy Chairman: The question is, that<br />
the amendment be made.<br />
Hon. Members: Aye.<br />
Hon. Members: No.<br />
The Second Deputy Chairman: I think the Noes have it.<br />
Mr Shepherd: We wanted to press the amendment to<br />
a Division, Ms Primarolo.<br />
The Second Deputy Chairman: I need to hear you<br />
pressing the amendment, Mr Shepherd. I need you to<br />
shout louder for me. I am happy to do it again, but I<br />
need to hear the vote.<br />
Question put, That the amendment be made.<br />
The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 498.<br />
Division No. 136]<br />
[1.17 pm<br />
Campbell, Mr Ronnie<br />
Davies, Philip<br />
Hollobone, Mr Philip<br />
Robertson, Mr Laurence<br />
Shepherd, Mr Richard<br />
Abbott, Ms Diane<br />
Adams, Nigel<br />
Afriyie, Adam<br />
Ainsworth, rh Mr Bob<br />
Aldous, Peter<br />
Alexander, rh Danny<br />
Alexander, rh Mr Douglas<br />
Alexander, Heidi<br />
Ali, Rushanara<br />
Andrew, Stuart<br />
Arbuthnot, rh Mr James<br />
Austin, Ian<br />
Bacon, Mr Richard<br />
Bain, Mr William<br />
Baker, Norman<br />
Baker, Steve<br />
AYES<br />
NOES<br />
Turner, Mr Andrew<br />
Tellers for the Ayes:<br />
Mr Bernard Jenkin and<br />
Mr David Nuttall<br />
Baldry, Tony<br />
Baldwin, Harriett<br />
Banks, Gordon<br />
Barclay, Stephen<br />
Barker, Gregory<br />
Barron, rh Mr Kevin<br />
Barwell, Gavin<br />
Bayley, Hugh<br />
Bebb, Guto<br />
Beith, rh Sir Alan<br />
Benn, rh Hilary<br />
Benyon, Richard<br />
Beresford, Sir Paul<br />
Berger, Luciana<br />
Berry, Jake<br />
Betts, Mr Clive<br />
Bingham, Andrew<br />
Birtwistle, Gordon<br />
Blackman, Bob<br />
Blackman-Woods, Roberta<br />
Blackwood, Nicola<br />
Blears, rh Hazel<br />
Blenkinsop, Tom<br />
Blunkett, rh Mr David<br />
Blunt, Mr Crispin<br />
Boles, Nick<br />
Bottomley, Peter<br />
Bradley, Karen<br />
Bradshaw, rh Mr Ben<br />
Brady, Mr Graham<br />
Brake, Tom<br />
Bray, Angie<br />
Brazier, Mr Julian<br />
Brennan, Kevin<br />
Bridgen, Andrew<br />
Brokenshire, James<br />
Brooke, Annette<br />
Brown, Lyn<br />
Brown, rh Mr Nicholas<br />
Brown, Mr Russell<br />
Browne, Mr Jeremy<br />
Bruce, Fiona<br />
Bryant, Chris<br />
Buck, Ms Karen<br />
Buckland, Mr Robert<br />
Burden, Richard<br />
Burley, Mr Aidan<br />
Burnham, rh Andy<br />
Burns, Conor<br />
Burrowes, Mr David<br />
Burstow, Paul<br />
Burt, Lorely<br />
Byles, Dan<br />
Byrne, rh Mr Liam<br />
Cable, rh Vince<br />
Cairns, Alun<br />
Campbell, Mr Alan<br />
Campbell, Mr Gregory<br />
Carmichael, Mr Alistair<br />
Carmichael, Neil<br />
Carswell, Mr Douglas<br />
Caton, Martin<br />
Chapman, Mrs Jenny<br />
Clappison, Mr James<br />
Clark, rh Greg<br />
Clark, Katy<br />
Clarke, rh Mr Kenneth<br />
Clarke, rh Mr Tom<br />
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey<br />
Coaker, Vernon<br />
Coffey, Ann<br />
Coffey, Dr Thérèse<br />
Collins, Damian<br />
Colvile, Oliver<br />
Cooper, Rosie<br />
Cox, Mr Geoffrey<br />
Crabb, Stephen<br />
Crausby, Mr David<br />
Creagh, Mary<br />
Crockart, Mike<br />
Crouch, Tracey<br />
Cruddas, Jon<br />
Cunningham, Alex<br />
Cunningham, Mr Jim<br />
Cunningham, Tony<br />
Curran, Margaret<br />
Dakin, Nic<br />
Danczuk, Simon<br />
Darling, rh Mr Alistair<br />
Davey, Mr Edward<br />
Davidson, Mr Ian<br />
Davies, David T. C.<br />
(Monmouth)<br />
Davies, Geraint<br />
Davies, Glyn<br />
Davis, rh Mr David<br />
de Bois, Nick<br />
De Piero, Gloria<br />
Dinenage, Caroline<br />
Djanogly, Mr Jonathan<br />
Dodds, rh Mr Nigel<br />
Donohoe, Mr Brian H.<br />
Doran, Mr Frank<br />
Dorrell, rh Mr Stephen<br />
Dorries, Nadine<br />
Doyle, Gemma<br />
Doyle-Price, Jackie<br />
Dromey, Jack<br />
Duddridge, James<br />
Dugher, Michael<br />
Duncan Smith, rh Mr Iain<br />
Dunne, Mr Philip<br />
Durkan, Mark<br />
Eagle, Ms Angela<br />
Eagle, Maria<br />
Edwards, Jonathan<br />
Efford, Clive<br />
Ellis, Michael<br />
Ellison, Jane<br />
Ellman, Mrs Louise<br />
Ellwood, Mr Tobias<br />
Elphicke, Charlie<br />
Engel, Natascha<br />
Esterson, Bill<br />
Evans, Chris<br />
Evans, Graham<br />
Evans, Jonathan<br />
Evennett, Mr David<br />
Fabricant, Michael<br />
Fallon, Michael<br />
Farron, Tim<br />
Fitzpatrick, Jim<br />
Flint, rh Caroline<br />
Foster, Mr Don<br />
Fovargue, Yvonne<br />
Francis, Dr Hywel<br />
Francois, rh Mr Mark<br />
Freeman, George<br />
Fullbrook, Lorraine<br />
Fuller, Richard<br />
Gale, Mr Roger<br />
Gapes, Mike<br />
Gardiner, Barry<br />
Garnier, Mr Edward<br />
Garnier, Mark<br />
Gauke, Mr David<br />
George, Andrew<br />
Gibb, Mr Nick<br />
Gillan, rh Mrs Cheryl<br />
Gilmore, Sheila<br />
Glass, Pat<br />
Glen, John<br />
Goggins, rh Paul<br />
Goldsmith, Zac<br />
Goodman, Helen<br />
Goodwill, Mr Robert<br />
Gove, rh Michael<br />
Graham, Richard<br />
Grant, Mrs Helen<br />
Grayling, rh Chris
837 Fixed-term <strong>Parliament</strong>s Bill 1 DECEMBER 2010 Fixed-term <strong>Parliament</strong>s Bill 838<br />
Greatrex, Tom<br />
Green, Damian<br />
Green, Kate<br />
Greening, Justine<br />
Greenwood, Lilian<br />
Grieve, rh Mr Dominic<br />
Griffith, Nia<br />
Griffiths, Andrew<br />
Gummer, Ben<br />
Gwynne, Andrew<br />
Hague, rh Mr William<br />
Halfon, Robert<br />
Hames, Duncan<br />
Hamilton, Mr David<br />
Hammond, rh Mr Philip<br />
Hammond, Stephen<br />
Hancock, Matthew<br />
Hands, Greg<br />
Hanson, rh Mr David<br />
Harman, rh Ms Harriet<br />
Harper, Mr Mark<br />
Harrington, Richard<br />
Harris, Rebecca<br />
Harris, Mr Tom<br />
Hart, Simon<br />
Haselhurst, rh Sir Alan<br />
Heald, Mr Oliver<br />
Healey, rh John<br />
Heath, Mr David<br />
Heaton-Harris, Chris<br />
Hemming, John<br />
Henderson, Gordon<br />
Hendrick, Mark<br />
Hendry, Charles<br />
Hepburn, Mr Stephen<br />
Herbert, rh Nick<br />
Hermon, Lady<br />
Heyes, David<br />
Hillier, Meg<br />
Hilling, Julie<br />
Hinds, Damian<br />
Hodge, rh Margaret<br />
Hodgson, Mrs Sharon<br />
Hollingbery, George<br />
Holloway, Mr Adam<br />
Hopkins, Kris<br />
Horwood, Martin<br />
Hosie, Stewart<br />
Howarth, Mr Gerald<br />
Howell, John<br />
Hughes, Simon<br />
Huhne, rh Chris<br />
Hunt, Tristram<br />
Huppert, Dr Julian<br />
Hurd, Mr Nick<br />
Illsley, Mr Eric<br />
Irranca-Davies, Huw<br />
Jackson, Mr Stewart<br />
James, Mrs Siân C.<br />
Jamieson, Cathy<br />
Johnson, rh Alan<br />
Johnson, Diana<br />
Johnson, Gareth<br />
Johnson, Joseph<br />
Jones, Andrew<br />
Jones, Mr David<br />
Jones, Graham<br />
Jones, Helen<br />
Jones, Mr Kevan<br />
Jones, Mr Marcus<br />
Jones, Susan Elan<br />
Jowell, rh Tessa<br />
Joyce, Eric<br />
Kaufman, rh Sir Gerald<br />
Kawczynski, Daniel<br />
Keeley, Barbara<br />
Keen, Alan<br />
Kelly, Chris<br />
Kendall, Liz<br />
Khan, rh Sadiq<br />
Knight, rh Mr Greg<br />
Kwarteng, Kwasi<br />
Laing, Mrs Eleanor<br />
Lamb, Norman<br />
Lammy, rh Mr David<br />
Lancaster, Mark<br />
Latham, Pauline<br />
Lavery, Ian<br />
Laws, rh Mr David<br />
Leadsom, Andrea<br />
Lee, Jessica<br />
Lee, Dr Phillip<br />
Leech, Mr John<br />
Lefroy, Jeremy<br />
Leigh, Mr Edward<br />
Leslie, Charlotte<br />
Leslie, Chris<br />
Lewis, Brandon<br />
Lewis, Mr Ivan<br />
Lilley, rh Mr Peter<br />
Lloyd, Stephen<br />
Lloyd, Tony<br />
Llwyd, Mr Elfyn<br />
Long, Naomi<br />
Lopresti, Jack<br />
Lord, Jonathan<br />
Loughton, Tim<br />
Love, Mr Andrew<br />
Lucas, Caroline<br />
Lucas, Ian<br />
Luff, Peter<br />
Lumley, Karen<br />
Macleod, Mary<br />
MacNeil, Mr Angus Brendan<br />
Mactaggart, Fiona<br />
Mahmood, Mr Khalid<br />
Mahmood, Shabana<br />
Main, Mrs Anne<br />
Mann, John<br />
Marsden, Mr Gordon<br />
May, rh Mrs T<strong>here</strong>sa<br />
Maynard, Paul<br />
McCabe, Steve<br />
McCarthy, Kerry<br />
McCartney, Jason<br />
McCartney, Karl<br />
McClymont, Gregg<br />
McDonagh, Siobhain<br />
McDonnell, Dr Alasdair<br />
McFadden, rh Mr Pat<br />
McGovern, Jim<br />
McGuire, rh Mrs Anne<br />
McKechin, Ann<br />
McKinnell, Catherine<br />
McPartland, Stephen<br />
McVey, Esther<br />
Mearns, Ian<br />
Menzies, Mark<br />
Metcalfe, Stephen<br />
Michael, rh Alun<br />
Miller, Andrew<br />
Miller, Maria<br />
Mills, Nigel<br />
Milton, Anne<br />
Mitchell, rh Mr Andrew<br />
Moon, Mrs Madeleine<br />
Mordaunt, Penny<br />
Morden, Jessica<br />
Morgan, Nicky<br />
Morrice, Graeme (Livingston)<br />
Morris, Anne Marie<br />
Morris, David<br />
Morris, Grahame M.<br />
(Easington)<br />
Morris, James<br />
Mosley, Stephen<br />
Mowat, David<br />
Mudie, Mr George<br />
Mulholland, Greg<br />
Mundell, rh David<br />
Munn, Meg<br />
Murphy, rh Paul<br />
Murray, Ian<br />
Murray, Sheryll<br />
Murrison, Dr Andrew<br />
Nandy, Lisa<br />
Neill, Robert<br />
Newmark, Mr Brooks<br />
Newton, Sarah<br />
Nokes, Caroline<br />
Norman, Jesse<br />
O’Brien, Mr Stephen<br />
O’Donnell, Fiona<br />
Offord, Mr Matthew<br />
Ollerenshaw, Eric<br />
Onwurah, Chi<br />
Opperman, Guy<br />
Ottaway, Richard<br />
Owen, Albert<br />
Paice, Mr James<br />
Paisley, Ian<br />
Patel, Priti<br />
Paterson, rh Mr Owen<br />
Pawsey, Mark<br />
Pearce, Teresa<br />
Penning, Mike<br />
Penrose, John<br />
Percy, Andrew<br />
Perkins, Toby<br />
Perry, Claire<br />
Pincher, Christopher<br />
Poulter, Dr Daniel<br />
Pound, Stephen<br />
Prisk, Mr Mark<br />
Pritchard, Mark<br />
Pugh, Dr John<br />
Qureshi, Yasmin<br />
Raab, Mr Dominic<br />
Randall, rh Mr John<br />
Raynsford, rh Mr Nick<br />
Reckless, Mark<br />
Redwood, rh Mr John<br />
Rees-Mogg, Jacob<br />
Reid, Mr Alan<br />
Reynolds, Emma<br />
Reynolds, Jonathan<br />
Rifkind, rh Sir Malcolm<br />
Robertson, John<br />
Robinson, Mr Geoffrey<br />
Rogerson, Dan<br />
Rotheram, Steve<br />
Roy, Mr Frank<br />
Roy, Lindsay<br />
Ruane, Chris<br />
Ruddock, rh Joan<br />
Ruffley, Mr David<br />
Russell, Bob<br />
Rutley, David<br />
Sanders, Mr Adrian<br />
Sandys, Laura<br />
Sarwar, Anas<br />
Scott, Mr Lee<br />
Seabeck, Alison<br />
Selous, Andrew<br />
Shannon, Jim<br />
Shapps, rh Grant<br />
Sharma, Alok<br />
Sharma, Mr Virendra<br />
Sheerman, Mr Barry<br />
Shelbrooke, Alec<br />
Sheridan, Jim<br />
Shuker, Gavin<br />
Simmonds, Mark<br />
Simpson, David<br />
Simpson, Mr Keith<br />
Singh, Mr Marsha<br />
Skidmore, Chris<br />
Skinner, Mr Dennis<br />
Slaughter, Mr Andy<br />
Smith, rh Mr Andrew<br />
Smith, Angela<br />
Smith, Miss Chloe<br />
Smith, Julian<br />
Smith, Nick<br />
Smith, Owen<br />
Smith, Sir Robert<br />
Soames, Nicholas<br />
Soubry, Anna<br />
Soulsby, Sir Peter<br />
Spellar, rh Mr John<br />
Spelman, rh Mrs Caroline<br />
Stanley, rh Sir John<br />
Stephenson, Andrew<br />
Stevenson, John<br />
Stewart, Bob<br />
Stewart, Iain<br />
Stewart, Rory<br />
Streeter, Mr Gary<br />
Stride, Mel<br />
Stringer, Graham<br />
Stuart, Ms Gisela<br />
Stuart, Mr Graham<br />
Stunell, Andrew<br />
Sturdy, Julian<br />
Sutcliffe, Mr Gerry<br />
Swales, Ian<br />
Swayne, Mr Desmond<br />
Swinson, Jo<br />
Swire, Mr Hugo<br />
Syms, Mr Robert<br />
Teather, Sarah<br />
Thomas, Mr Gareth<br />
Thornberry, Emily<br />
Thurso, John<br />
Timms, rh Stephen<br />
Timpson, Mr Edward<br />
Tomlinson, Justin<br />
Trickett, Jon<br />
Truss, Elizabeth<br />
Turner, Karl<br />
Twigg, Derek<br />
Twigg, Stephen<br />
Umunna, Mr Chuka<br />
Uppal, Paul<br />
Vaizey, Mr Edward<br />
Vara, Mr Shailesh<br />
Vaz, Valerie<br />
Vickers, Martin
839 Fixed-term <strong>Parliament</strong>s Bill 1 DECEMBER 2010 Fixed-term <strong>Parliament</strong>s Bill 840<br />
Walker, Mr Charles<br />
Walker, Mr Robin<br />
Wallace, Mr Ben<br />
Walley, Joan<br />
Watkinson, Angela<br />
Watson, Mr Tom<br />
Watts, Mr Dave<br />
Weatherley, Mike<br />
Webb, Steve<br />
Wheeler, Heather<br />
White, Chris<br />
Whiteford, Dr Eilidh<br />
Whitehead, Dr Alan<br />
Whittaker, Craig<br />
Whittingdale, Mr John<br />
Wiggin, Bill<br />
Willetts, rh Mr David<br />
Williams, Hywel<br />
Williams, Mr Mark<br />
Williams, Roger<br />
Question accordingly negatived.<br />
Williams, Stephen<br />
Williamson, Chris<br />
Williamson, Gavin<br />
Willott, Jenny<br />
Wilson, Phil<br />
Wilson, Mr Rob<br />
Wilson, Sammy<br />
Winnick, Mr David<br />
Winterton, rh Ms Rosie<br />
Wollaston, Dr Sarah<br />
Wright, David<br />
Wright, Mr Iain<br />
Wright, Simon<br />
Yeo, Mr Tim<br />
Young, rh Sir George<br />
Zahawi, Nadhim<br />
Tellers for the Noes:<br />
Mark Hunter and<br />
Jeremy Wright<br />
The Second Deputy Chairman: When, after voting,<br />
Members remain in the Lobby behind the Speaker’s<br />
Chair, they need to be quiet; otherwise it is impossible<br />
to hear the vote in the Chamber.<br />
Amendment proposed: 36, page 2, line 14, at end<br />
insert—<br />
‘(2A) In reckoning for the purposes of subsection 2(b), no<br />
account shall be taken of any time during which <strong>Parliament</strong> is<br />
prorogued or during which the House of Commons is adjourned<br />
for more than four days.’.—(Sir Peter Soulsby.)<br />
Question put, That the amendment be made.<br />
The Committee divided: Ayes 202, Noes 297.<br />
Division No. 137]<br />
[1.35 pm<br />
Abbott, Ms Diane<br />
Alexander, rh Mr Douglas<br />
Alexander, Heidi<br />
Ali, Rushanara<br />
Austin, Ian<br />
Bain, Mr William<br />
Banks, Gordon<br />
Barron, rh Mr Kevin<br />
Bayley, Hugh<br />
Bell, Sir Stuart<br />
Benn, rh Hilary<br />
Berger, Luciana<br />
Betts, Mr Clive<br />
Blackman-Woods, Roberta<br />
Blenkinsop, Tom<br />
Blomfield, Paul<br />
Blunkett, rh Mr David<br />
Bradshaw, rh Mr Ben<br />
Brennan, Kevin<br />
Brown, Lyn<br />
Brown, rh Mr Nicholas<br />
Brown, Mr Russell<br />
Bryant, Chris<br />
Buck, Ms Karen<br />
Burden, Richard<br />
Burnham, rh Andy<br />
Byrne, rh Mr Liam<br />
Cairns, David<br />
Campbell, Mr Alan<br />
Campbell, Mr Ronnie<br />
Caton, Martin<br />
AYES<br />
Chapman, Mrs Jenny<br />
Clark, Katy<br />
Clarke, rh Mr Tom<br />
Clwyd, rh Ann<br />
Coaker, Vernon<br />
Cooper, Rosie<br />
Crausby, Mr David<br />
Creagh, Mary<br />
Cruddas, Jon<br />
Cunningham, Alex<br />
Cunningham, Mr Jim<br />
Cunningham, Tony<br />
Curran, Margaret<br />
Dakin, Nic<br />
Danczuk, Simon<br />
Darling, rh Mr Alistair<br />
Davies, Geraint<br />
Davies, Philip<br />
De Piero, Gloria<br />
Donohoe, Mr Brian H.<br />
Doran, Mr Frank<br />
Doyle, Gemma<br />
Dromey, Jack<br />
Dugher, Michael<br />
Durkan, Mark<br />
Eagle, Ms Angela<br />
Eagle, Maria<br />
Efford, Clive<br />
Ellman, Mrs Louise<br />
Engel, Natascha<br />
Esterson, Bill<br />
Evans, Chris<br />
Fitzpatrick, Jim<br />
Flint, rh Caroline<br />
Fovargue, Yvonne<br />
Francis, Dr Hywel<br />
Gapes, Mike<br />
Gardiner, Barry<br />
Gilmore, Sheila<br />
Glass, Pat<br />
Goggins, rh Paul<br />
Goodman, Helen<br />
Greatrex, Tom<br />
Green, Kate<br />
Greenwood, Lilian<br />
Griffith, Nia<br />
Gwynne, Andrew<br />
Hanson, rh Mr David<br />
Harman, rh Ms Harriet<br />
Harris, Mr Tom<br />
Healey, rh John<br />
Hendrick, Mark<br />
Hepburn, Mr Stephen<br />
Hermon, Lady<br />
Heyes, David<br />
Hillier, Meg<br />
Hilling, Julie<br />
Hodge, rh Margaret<br />
Hodgson, Mrs Sharon<br />
Hollobone, Mr Philip<br />
Howarth, rh Mr George<br />
Hunt, Tristram<br />
Irranca-Davies, Huw<br />
James, Mrs Siân C.<br />
Jamieson, Cathy<br />
Jenkin, Mr Bernard<br />
Johnson, rh Alan<br />
Johnson, Diana<br />
Jones, Graham<br />
Jones, Helen<br />
Jones, Mr Kevan<br />
Jones, Susan Elan<br />
Jowell, rh Tessa<br />
Joyce, Eric<br />
Kaufman, rh Sir Gerald<br />
Keeley, Barbara<br />
Keen, Alan<br />
Kendall, Liz<br />
Khan, rh Sadiq<br />
Lammy, rh Mr David<br />
Lavery, Ian<br />
Leslie, Chris<br />
Lloyd, Tony<br />
Long, Naomi<br />
Love, Mr Andrew<br />
Lucas, Caroline<br />
Mactaggart, Fiona<br />
Mahmood, Mr Khalid<br />
Mahmood, Shabana<br />
Mann, John<br />
Marsden, Mr Gordon<br />
McCabe, Steve<br />
McCarthy, Kerry<br />
McClymont, Gregg<br />
McDonnell, Dr Alasdair<br />
McFadden, rh Mr Pat<br />
McGovern, Jim<br />
McGuire, rh Mrs Anne<br />
McKechin, Ann<br />
McKinnell, Catherine<br />
Meacher, rh Mr Michael<br />
Mearns, Ian<br />
Michael, rh Alun<br />
Miliband, rh Edward<br />
Miller, Andrew<br />
Moon, Mrs Madeleine<br />
Morden, Jessica<br />
Morrice, Graeme (Livingston)<br />
Morris, Grahame M.<br />
(Easington)<br />
Munn, Meg<br />
Murphy, rh Mr Jim<br />
Murphy, rh Paul<br />
Murray, Ian<br />
Nandy, Lisa<br />
Nash, Pamela<br />
Nuttall, Mr David<br />
O’Donnell, Fiona<br />
Onwurah, Chi<br />
Owen, Albert<br />
Pearce, Teresa<br />
Perkins, Toby<br />
Pound, Stephen<br />
Qureshi, Yasmin<br />
Raynsford, rh Mr Nick<br />
Reynolds, Emma<br />
Reynolds, Jonathan<br />
Robertson, John<br />
Robinson, Mr Geoffrey<br />
Rotheram, Steve<br />
Roy, Mr Frank<br />
Roy, Lindsay<br />
Ruane, Chris<br />
Ruddock, rh Joan<br />
Sarwar, Anas<br />
Seabeck, Alison<br />
Sharma, Mr Virendra<br />
Sheerman, Mr Barry<br />
Sheridan, Jim<br />
Shuker, Gavin<br />
Singh, Mr Marsha<br />
Skinner, Mr Dennis<br />
Slaughter, Mr Andy<br />
Smith, rh Mr Andrew<br />
Smith, Angela<br />
Smith, Nick<br />
Smith, Owen<br />
Soulsby, Sir Peter<br />
Spellar, rh Mr John<br />
Stringer, Graham<br />
Stuart, Ms Gisela<br />
Sutcliffe, Mr Gerry<br />
Thomas, Mr Gareth<br />
Thornberry, Emily<br />
Timms, rh Stephen<br />
Trickett, Jon<br />
Turner, Mr Andrew<br />
Turner, Karl<br />
Twigg, Derek<br />
Twigg, Stephen<br />
Umunna, Mr Chuka<br />
Vaz, rh Keith<br />
Vaz, Valerie<br />
Walley, Joan<br />
Watson, Mr Tom<br />
Watts, Mr Dave<br />
Whitehead, Dr Alan<br />
Williamson, Chris<br />
Winnick, Mr David<br />
Winterton, rh Ms Rosie<br />
Wright, David<br />
Wright, Mr Iain<br />
Tellers for the Ayes:<br />
Phil Wilson and<br />
Mr David Hamilton
841 Fixed-term <strong>Parliament</strong>s Bill 1 DECEMBER 2010 Fixed-term <strong>Parliament</strong>s Bill 842<br />
Adams, Nigel<br />
Afriyie, Adam<br />
Aldous, Peter<br />
Andrew, Stuart<br />
Arbuthnot, rh Mr James<br />
Bacon, Mr Richard<br />
Bagshawe, Ms Louise<br />
Baker, Norman<br />
Baker, Steve<br />
Baldry, Tony<br />
Baldwin, Harriett<br />
Barclay, Stephen<br />
Barker, Gregory<br />
Barwell, Gavin<br />
Bebb, Guto<br />
Beith, rh Sir Alan<br />
Benyon, Richard<br />
Beresford, Sir Paul<br />
Berry, Jake<br />
Bingham, Andrew<br />
Birtwistle, Gordon<br />
Blackman, Bob<br />
Blackwood, Nicola<br />
Blunt, Mr Crispin<br />
Boles, Nick<br />
Bottomley, Peter<br />
Bradley, Karen<br />
Brady, Mr Graham<br />
Brake, Tom<br />
Bray, Angie<br />
Brazier, Mr Julian<br />
Bridgen, Andrew<br />
Brokenshire, James<br />
Brooke, Annette<br />
Browne, Mr Jeremy<br />
Bruce, Fiona<br />
Buckland, Mr Robert<br />
Burley, Mr Aidan<br />
Burns, Conor<br />
Burrowes, Mr David<br />
Burstow, Paul<br />
Burt, Lorely<br />
Byles, Dan<br />
Cable, rh Vince<br />
Cairns, Alun<br />
Campbell, Mr Gregory<br />
Carmichael, Mr Alistair<br />
Carmichael, Neil<br />
Carswell, Mr Douglas<br />
Clappison, Mr James<br />
Clark, rh Greg<br />
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey<br />
Coffey, Dr Thérèse<br />
Collins, Damian<br />
Colvile, Oliver<br />
Cox, Mr Geoffrey<br />
Crabb, Stephen<br />
Crockart, Mike<br />
Crouch, Tracey<br />
Davey, Mr Edward<br />
Davies, David T. C.<br />
(Monmouth)<br />
Davies, Glyn<br />
Davis, rh Mr David<br />
de Bois, Nick<br />
Dinenage, Caroline<br />
Dodds, rh Mr Nigel<br />
Dorrell, rh Mr Stephen<br />
Dorries, Nadine<br />
Doyle-Price, Jackie<br />
Duddridge, James<br />
NOES<br />
Duncan Smith, rh Mr Iain<br />
Dunne, Mr Philip<br />
Ellis, Michael<br />
Ellison, Jane<br />
Ellwood, Mr Tobias<br />
Elphicke, Charlie<br />
Evans, Graham<br />
Evans, Jonathan<br />
Evennett, Mr David<br />
Fabricant, Michael<br />
Fallon, Michael<br />
Farron, Tim<br />
Featherstone, Lynne<br />
Foster, Mr Don<br />
Francois, rh Mr Mark<br />
Freeman, George<br />
Fullbrook, Lorraine<br />
Fuller, Richard<br />
Gale, Mr Roger<br />
Garnier, Mr Edward<br />
Garnier, Mark<br />
Gauke, Mr David<br />
George, Andrew<br />
Gibb, Mr Nick<br />
Glen, John<br />
Goldsmith, Zac<br />
Goodwill, Mr Robert<br />
Gove, rh Michael<br />
Graham, Richard<br />
Grant, Mrs Helen<br />
Gray, Mr James<br />
Grayling, rh Chris<br />
Green, Damian<br />
Greening, Justine<br />
Grieve, rh Mr Dominic<br />
Griffiths, Andrew<br />
Gummer, Ben<br />
Hague, rh Mr William<br />
Halfon, Robert<br />
Hames, Duncan<br />
Hammond, rh Mr Philip<br />
Hammond, Stephen<br />
Hands, Greg<br />
Harper, Mr Mark<br />
Harrington, Richard<br />
Harris, Rebecca<br />
Hart, Simon<br />
Haselhurst, rh Sir Alan<br />
Heald, Mr Oliver<br />
Heath, Mr David<br />
Heaton-Harris, Chris<br />
Hemming, John<br />
Henderson, Gordon<br />
Hendry, Charles<br />
Herbert, rh Nick<br />
Hinds, Damian<br />
Hollingbery, George<br />
Holloway, Mr Adam<br />
Hopkins, Kris<br />
Horwood, Martin<br />
Hosie, Stewart<br />
Howarth, Mr Gerald<br />
Howell, John<br />
Hughes, Simon<br />
Huhne, rh Chris<br />
Huppert, Dr Julian<br />
Hurd, Mr Nick<br />
Jackson, Mr Stewart<br />
Johnson, Gareth<br />
Johnson, Joseph<br />
Jones, Andrew<br />
Jones, Mr David<br />
Jones, Mr Marcus<br />
Kawczynski, Daniel<br />
Kelly, Chris<br />
Knight, rh Mr Greg<br />
Kwarteng, Kwasi<br />
Laing, Mrs Eleanor<br />
Lamb, Norman<br />
Lancaster, Mark<br />
Latham, Pauline<br />
Leadsom, Andrea<br />
Lee, Jessica<br />
Lee, Dr Phillip<br />
Leech, Mr John<br />
Lefroy, Jeremy<br />
Leigh, Mr Edward<br />
Leslie, Charlotte<br />
Lewis, Brandon<br />
Lilley, rh Mr Peter<br />
Lloyd, Stephen<br />
Llwyd, Mr Elfyn<br />
Lopresti, Jack<br />
Lord, Jonathan<br />
Luff, Peter<br />
Lumley, Karen<br />
Macleod, Mary<br />
MacNeil, Mr Angus Brendan<br />
Main, Mrs Anne<br />
May, rh Mrs T<strong>here</strong>sa<br />
Maynard, Paul<br />
McCartney, Jason<br />
McCartney, Karl<br />
McPartland, Stephen<br />
McVey, Esther<br />
Menzies, Mark<br />
Mercer, Patrick<br />
Metcalfe, Stephen<br />
Miller, Maria<br />
Mills, Nigel<br />
Milton, Anne<br />
Mitchell, rh Mr Andrew<br />
Mordaunt, Penny<br />
Morgan, Nicky<br />
Morris, Anne Marie<br />
Morris, David<br />
Morris, James<br />
Mosley, Stephen<br />
Mowat, David<br />
Mulholland, Greg<br />
Mundell, rh David<br />
Murray, Sheryll<br />
Murrison, Dr Andrew<br />
Neill, Robert<br />
Newmark, Mr Brooks<br />
Newton, Sarah<br />
Nokes, Caroline<br />
Norman, Jesse<br />
O’Brien, Mr Stephen<br />
Offord, Mr Matthew<br />
Ollerenshaw, Eric<br />
Opperman, Guy<br />
Ottaway, Richard<br />
Paice, Mr James<br />
Paisley, Ian<br />
Patel, Priti<br />
Paterson, rh Mr Owen<br />
Pawsey, Mark<br />
Penning, Mike<br />
Percy, Andrew<br />
Perry, Claire<br />
Pincher, Christopher<br />
Poulter, Dr Daniel<br />
Prisk, Mr Mark<br />
Pritchard, Mark<br />
Pugh, Dr John<br />
Raab, Mr Dominic<br />
Randall, rh Mr John<br />
Reckless, Mark<br />
Redwood, rh Mr John<br />
Rees-Mogg, Jacob<br />
Reid, Mr Alan<br />
Rifkind, rh Sir Malcolm<br />
Robertson, Mr Laurence<br />
Rogerson, Dan<br />
Ruffley, Mr David<br />
Russell, Bob<br />
Rutley, David<br />
Sanders, Mr Adrian<br />
Sandys, Laura<br />
Scott, Mr Lee<br />
Selous, Andrew<br />
Shannon, Jim<br />
Shapps, rh Grant<br />
Sharma, Alok<br />
Shelbrooke, Alec<br />
Simmonds, Mark<br />
Simpson, David<br />
Simpson, Mr Keith<br />
Skidmore, Chris<br />
Smith, Miss Chloe<br />
Smith, Julian<br />
Smith, Sir Robert<br />
Soames, Nicholas<br />
Spelman, rh Mrs Caroline<br />
Stanley, rh Sir John<br />
Stephenson, Andrew<br />
Stevenson, John<br />
Stewart, Bob<br />
Stewart, Iain<br />
Stewart, Rory<br />
Streeter, Mr Gary<br />
Stride, Mel<br />
Stuart, Mr Graham<br />
Stunell, Andrew<br />
Sturdy, Julian<br />
Swales, Ian<br />
Swayne, Mr Desmond<br />
Swinson, Jo<br />
Swire, Mr Hugo<br />
Syms, Mr Robert<br />
Teather, Sarah<br />
Thurso, John<br />
Timpson, Mr Edward<br />
Tomlinson, Justin<br />
Truss, Elizabeth<br />
Uppal, Paul<br />
Vaizey, Mr Edward<br />
Vickers, Martin<br />
Villiers, rh Mrs T<strong>here</strong>sa<br />
Walker, Mr Charles<br />
Walker, Mr Robin<br />
Wallace, Mr Ben<br />
Watkinson, Angela<br />
Weatherley, Mike<br />
Webb, Steve<br />
Wheeler, Heather<br />
White, Chris<br />
Whiteford, Dr Eilidh<br />
Whittaker, Craig<br />
Wiggin, Bill<br />
Willetts, rh Mr David<br />
Williams, Hywel<br />
Williams, Mr Mark<br />
Williams, Roger
843 Fixed-term <strong>Parliament</strong>s Bill 1 DECEMBER 2010 Fixed-term <strong>Parliament</strong>s Bill 844<br />
Williams, Stephen<br />
Williamson, Gavin<br />
Willott, Jenny<br />
Wilson, Mr Rob<br />
Wilson, Sammy<br />
Wollaston, Dr Sarah<br />
Wright, Jeremy<br />
Question accordingly negatived.<br />
Wright, Simon<br />
Yeo, Mr Tim<br />
Young, rh Sir George<br />
Zahawi, Nadhim<br />
Tellers for the Noes:<br />
Mark Hunter and<br />
Mr Shailesh Vara<br />
Mr Jenkin: I beg to move amendment 6, page 2, line<br />
15, leave out subsection (3) and insert—<br />
‘(3) Any certificate of the Speaker of the House of Commons<br />
given under this section shall be conclusive for all purposes and<br />
shall not be presented to or questioned in any court of law<br />
whatsoever.’.<br />
The Second Deputy Chairman: With this it will be<br />
convenient to discuss the following:<br />
Amendment 23, page 2, line 17, at end insert—<br />
‘(4A) The Speaker shall issue a certificate under subsection (1)<br />
or (2) within 24 hours of the relevant conditions being met under<br />
subsection (1) or (2).’.<br />
Mr Jenkin: Amendment 6 stands in the name of my<br />
hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), who, as I<br />
mentioned earlier, is abroad on other House business as<br />
Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee.<br />
We are at a curious juncture in the Bill and, indeed, in<br />
our constitutional history. The background to the<br />
amendment is the tension, since time immemorial, between<br />
this House’s ability to function immune from judicial<br />
interference, and the courts, which periodically have<br />
sought to limit the extent to which we can continue our<br />
business unimpeded by the courts. That was, of course<br />
settled—to a degree—in the Bill of Rights in 1789—<br />
Mr Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon)<br />
(Con): 1689.<br />
Mr Jenkin: Sorry, 1689. My hon. and learned Friend<br />
will keep me up to the mark, because he is much more<br />
of a lawyer than I am.<br />
In recent years, however, the tension between the<br />
courts and the independence of this House has been<br />
thrown into relief. I remind the Committee of cases<br />
such as the one brought by Lord Rees-Mogg for judicial<br />
review of the ratification of the Maastricht treaty after<br />
this House had passed an Act of <strong>Parliament</strong>.<br />
Jacob Rees-Mogg: I would like to clarify that the<br />
judicial review case brought by my noble kinsman was<br />
not in any way to challenge what had happened in this<br />
House. It was to challenge the use by Ministers of the<br />
royal prerogative, which is why the judicial review was<br />
allowed by the courts.<br />
Mr Jenkin: I stand corrected—again. I fear that that<br />
may occur rather often during my presentation. The<br />
case relating to the Hunting Act 2004 was certainly an<br />
attempt to impede the free functioning of <strong>Parliament</strong> in<br />
its judicial function. In addition, an attempt was made<br />
to judicially review the lack of a referendum on what<br />
was then the Lisbon treaty. T<strong>here</strong> are other examples of<br />
that tension, not least over the arrest of my hon. Friend<br />
the Member for Ashford (Damian Green), and I believe<br />
that only today, in connection with another matter, are<br />
the limits of the courts being resolved.<br />
The present situation begs for something that many<br />
have recommended for some time: that this <strong>Parliament</strong><br />
should have a privilege Act to delineate clearly the<br />
immunities of <strong>Parliament</strong> in relation to the functioning<br />
of the courts, but we are in an even more tense situation<br />
because we are arranging our constitution in other<br />
areas that question the very sovereignty of the House.<br />
We now have a Supreme Court and it is widely known<br />
that many jurists who serve at various levels of the<br />
judiciary take differing views of the notions of<br />
parliamentary sovereignty and parliamentary privilege.<br />
T<strong>here</strong> was recently a case concerning the possible effective<br />
expulsion of an hon. Member as a result of a judicial<br />
decision. I do not comment on its merits as it is still sub<br />
judice. I merely advert to the fact that it represents<br />
another testing of the boundaries between the courts<br />
and <strong>Parliament</strong>.<br />
We are told not to worry—the Bill’s provisions are<br />
immune from the courts, and nobody is going to interfere<br />
in what we decide is a Speaker’s certificate, certificating<br />
a vote of no confidence that satisfies the majority.<br />
When we are blandly and bluntly told that by the<br />
Government and at the same time told by the Clerk of<br />
the House who has bravely and independently—in his<br />
constitutional capacity as an independent guardian of<br />
our constitutional arrangements—issued a memorandum,<br />
to which I shall refer later, that flatly contradicts the<br />
Government’s view, we are obliged to take the matter<br />
very seriously.<br />
I cannot think of a precedent, other than the<br />
<strong>Parliament</strong>ary Standards Bill, w<strong>here</strong> a Government flatly<br />
refused to accept the advice of the Clerk of the House<br />
on a question of the potential justiciability of legislation<br />
before the House. The Bill before us is a major change<br />
to the constitutional settlement of this country, and it is<br />
backed by people in the Government who we know<br />
favour a written constitution—an entirely different<br />
constitutional settlement. That raises the question whether<br />
the Government have got it right when they say that the<br />
Clerk’s fears are to be disregarded.<br />
With the indulgence of the Committee, I shall quote<br />
rather extensively from the memorandum submitted by<br />
the Clerk as written evidence to the Political and<br />
Constitutional Reform Committee. He states that the<br />
Bill is<br />
“to make statutory provision for matters which fall within <strong>Parliament</strong>’s<br />
exclusive cognizance and which may affect the established privileges<br />
of the House of Commons as well as upsetting the essential<br />
comity which has been established over a long period between<br />
<strong>Parliament</strong> and the Courts.”<br />
Erskine May makes it clear that “cognizance” refers to<br />
the right of both Houses<br />
“to be the sole judge of their own proceedings, and to settle—or<br />
depart from—their own codes of procedure.”<br />
The Clerk is clear in a bald statement in paragraph 12<br />
of his memorandum:<br />
“The Bill brings the internal proceedings of the House into the<br />
ambit of the Courts, albeit indirectly by the route of Speaker’s<br />
certificates.”<br />
He goes on to explain how that occurs under clause 2(2),<br />
which we have already debated. In paragraph 16 he<br />
states:<br />
“The provisions of this subsection make the Speaker’s consideration<br />
of confidence motions and the House’s practices justiciable questions<br />
for determination by the ordinary courts.”
845 Fixed-term <strong>Parliament</strong>s Bill 1 DECEMBER 2010 Fixed-term <strong>Parliament</strong>s Bill 846<br />
That should be obvious. We know that Crown<br />
prerogative, as exercised by the Prime Minister, is subject<br />
to judicial review. We know that statute is subject to<br />
judicial review. We know that proceedings in the House<br />
and Standing Orders have not hitherto been subject to<br />
judicial review or judicial question. The Bill provides a<br />
connection between what happens in the House and in<br />
the rest of the world. We are providing a bridge of law<br />
that brings the courts into the House.<br />
Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab): Does<br />
the hon. Gentleman think, t<strong>here</strong>fore, that the amendment<br />
goes far enough? The solution, as the Clerk of the<br />
House sees it, is for the Speaker’s certificate to be<br />
provided for not in statute but under a Standing Order,<br />
which would prevent the courts from interfering in the<br />
proceedings of the House.<br />
Mr Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely<br />
important point, to which I shall return. The entire Bill<br />
could be dealt with through Standing Orders. The only<br />
reason we have a Bill is either that a Bill is favoured by<br />
those who want to move towards a written constitution—I<br />
do not remember that being in anybody’s manifesto—<br />
Chris Bryant: Ours.<br />
Mr Jenkin: T<strong>here</strong> we are. Perhaps that is why the<br />
Opposition support the Bill. We have just had a Division<br />
in which 400 right hon. and hon. Members were in the<br />
No Lobby and only a handful of us in the Aye Lobby.<br />
That underlines the curious consensus in favour of<br />
certain principles of the Bill. I do not think either of the<br />
elected parties in the coalition was in favour of a written<br />
constitution—[Interruption.] That is two parties, but<br />
the one that won the election certainly did not—<br />
Chris Bryant: To clarify, I think the Liberal Democrats<br />
were in favour of a written constitution, and we were in<br />
favour of looking at a written constitution.<br />
Mr Jenkin: I do not remember that being a great issue<br />
in the general election, but we are, in effect, creating one<br />
of the standard features of a written constitution, t<strong>here</strong>by<br />
tempting the courts to start interfering in the internal<br />
workings of the House.<br />
Mr Harper: For the avoidance of doubt, the<br />
Government’s position is that they are not in favour of<br />
moving to what is more accurately said to be a codified<br />
constitution. Many of our constitutional principles are,<br />
of course, written down, just not in one document. It is<br />
not the Government’s position to do so. I hope that<br />
cheers my hon. Friend up.<br />
Mr Jenkin: I am grateful for that assurance. The<br />
Minister, who in all these debates has shown impeccable<br />
manners and tact despite the pressure he is under,<br />
should be looking for an alternative way of delivering<br />
this part of the coalition agreement, to which the hon.<br />
Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt)<br />
alluded.<br />
The Speaker’s decisions will be taken under immense<br />
political pressure, as he decides what constitutes a confidence<br />
motion, what amendments might be tabled to amend a<br />
confidence motion, whether, if carried, that would invalidate<br />
the motion, whether the amendment could constitute a<br />
motion of confidence, and the consequences of<br />
amendments being carried or the motion being carried.<br />
I quote again from the Clerk’s memorandum:<br />
“As these would become justiciable questions, the courts could<br />
be drawn into matters of acute political controversy.”<br />
I respect the fact that many in the House think we<br />
should have a Supreme Court like the European Court<br />
of Justice in the European Union or the Supreme Court<br />
of the <strong>United</strong> States, which is essentially a political<br />
court, but that is a very big constitutional change. We<br />
ought to have a royal commission about it, t<strong>here</strong> ought<br />
to be debates on the Adjournment about it and the<br />
implications of drawing the courts into politics, if that<br />
is what we are going to do, ought to be properly<br />
explored. The way in which the Supreme Court is<br />
appointed to make it accountable for its political judgments<br />
is another important question.<br />
We are importing continental and American-style<br />
jurisprudence into our judicial decision making. Some<br />
judges are becoming more and more adventurous about<br />
how they interpret statute and w<strong>here</strong> they feel entitled<br />
to make judicial interpretations, and the Bill invites<br />
them to decide when t<strong>here</strong> might be a general election<br />
under particular circumstances.<br />
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire)<br />
(Con): Will my hon. Friend distinguish between two<br />
things: judicial activism, w<strong>here</strong> t<strong>here</strong> is extraordinarily<br />
little evidence that judges in this country are overreaching,<br />
although the same is not necessarily true in Europe and<br />
in the European Court, and impingement on the<br />
prerogatives of <strong>Parliament</strong>s, which is what the Bill<br />
covers? We should be focusing on the latter point.<br />
2pm<br />
Mr Jenkin: I am perfectly prepared to accept that<br />
point. I refer to judicial activism only because t<strong>here</strong> are<br />
champions of judicial activism who would like the<br />
courts to be more judicially activist. The Bill creates<br />
circumstances w<strong>here</strong>by we tempt judicial activism, which<br />
is contrary to our legal traditions. It increases the<br />
danger of the Government’s assurances simply not being<br />
delivered, or of their not being able to make these<br />
assurances with any confidence.<br />
The Clerk, in his memorandum, specifically says:<br />
“In the case of Clause 2(3) it would be for the court to<br />
determine whether a document issued by the Speaker was a<br />
‘certificate’ for the purposes of that clause. It is not impossible for<br />
a court to take the view that what appeared to be a certificate was<br />
not a ‘certificate’”.<br />
The memorandum has been considered by the Select<br />
Committee, which attempted, in the short time available,<br />
to conduct pre-legislative scrutiny. It reached two principal<br />
conclusions. Paragraph 8 states:<br />
“The Government needs to respond to the concerns expressed<br />
by the Clerk of the House of Commons about the potential<br />
impact of clause 2 of the Bill on parliamentary privilege.<br />
Paragraph 9 states:<br />
“The purpose of the Bill needs to be achieved without inviting<br />
the courts to question aspects of the House’s own procedures or<br />
the actions of the Speaker, except w<strong>here</strong> this is absolutely unavoidable<br />
and clearly justifiable.”<br />
The qualification reflects the fact that on the Committee<br />
t<strong>here</strong> was some disagreement about the seriousness of<br />
the threat and between those who are in favour of a<br />
written constitution and those who are in favour not of<br />
a written constitution but of the settlement that relies<br />
upon our immunity.
847 Fixed-term <strong>Parliament</strong>s Bill 1 DECEMBER 2010 Fixed-term <strong>Parliament</strong>s Bill 848<br />
[Mr Jenkin]<br />
On whether t<strong>here</strong> are alternative ways of achieving<br />
the Bill’s intentions without the risk of judicial interference,<br />
the Committee noted, in paragraph 38:<br />
“As the Committee has noted, setting out the requirement in<br />
Standing Orders would not be satisfactory because Standing<br />
Orders can be amended, suspended or revoked by a single simple<br />
majority vote of the House of Commons only.”<br />
That is not correct. I have taken further advice from the<br />
Clerks and I have a letter from the Clerk Assistant and<br />
Director General, Mr Robert Rogers, which, if the<br />
Committee will indulge me, I will quote. He explains<br />
that t<strong>here</strong> is a precedent of super-majorities in Standing<br />
Orders being used, for example, on closure motions in<br />
the 1880s. He says:<br />
“As to the practical issue of a “super-majority” SO being able<br />
to be amended or repealed only by a super-majority, I see no<br />
difficulty. The Speaker would be the arbiter of whether a<br />
motion…either was (a) orderly and (b) had been agreed to; he<br />
would be bound by the Standing Order (which should perhaps<br />
contain an explicit prohibition on “notwithstanding”-type Motions),<br />
and his decision would be beyond any external review.”<br />
That neatly and devastatingly removes the need for the<br />
entire Bill. We could be operating entirely through<br />
Standing Orders, which would be protected by the<br />
super-majority that the Government want to embed in<br />
legislation for general elections. It leaves the question of<br />
why the Government are resisting this advice.<br />
Amendment 6 is a more elaborate way of saying what<br />
the Government have already put in the Bill. I would be<br />
the first to accept that it may be regarded as a more<br />
elaborate bit of sticking plaster, because the clause will<br />
be subject to judicial interpretation. A certificate could<br />
not be presented to the courts—not even the Speaker<br />
could present one to a court for adjudication. The word<br />
“whatsoever” in the amendment means that we are<br />
referring not just to our own courts, but to the European<br />
Court of Human Rights, which is not just a figment of<br />
some Eurosceptic’s imagination. The Clerk himself has<br />
adverted to the fact that the ECHR, under article 10,<br />
could be adverted to as a cause for judicial review.<br />
If a Member of <strong>Parliament</strong> was prevented from<br />
voting in the motion of confidence, they could say that<br />
their vote should be taken into account for a valid<br />
certificate to be issued by the Speaker. They could<br />
t<strong>here</strong>fore mount a challenge saying that the certificate<br />
was not valid because they were prevented from voting.<br />
A question also arises if sick colleagues cannot get into<br />
the Lobby and are nodded through. Would that constitute<br />
a ground for challenging a vote of confidence?<br />
Jesse Norman: Was not t<strong>here</strong> an example in the 1970s<br />
of whether a Member had been able to vote? T<strong>here</strong> was<br />
a tied vote and Harold Lever, I think I am right in<br />
saying, felt that he had not been able to exercise his<br />
vote? He might have had grounds under this Bill, if the<br />
Clerk is right, to invoke the care and attention of the<br />
courts.<br />
Mr Jenkin: My hon. Friend adverts to an extremely<br />
relevant precedent. What would happen if a two-thirds<br />
majority was obtained, or not obtained, by just one<br />
vote, or the Speaker interpreted the result as a vote of<br />
confidence w<strong>here</strong> t<strong>here</strong> was one vote in it that was<br />
represented by somebody who was or was not present<br />
for whatever reason? These are very dangerous areas.<br />
I have two final points, and I am grateful for the<br />
indulgence of the Committee in allowing me to quote<br />
extensively from documents. The Bill is being driven by<br />
an extraordinary consensus on some issues and by the<br />
fact that it is so close to the survival of the coalition that<br />
it is difficult openly to debate it. The Prime Minister<br />
said before the election that Committee stages of Bills<br />
should not be whipped, so that what a Committee<br />
thought can be understood. The Whips are out in force<br />
today, and I do not think that we will really find out<br />
what Members think about it. However, that invites the<br />
other place to look at the privilege and immunities of<br />
the House, and to propose comprehensive amendments<br />
that protect <strong>Parliament</strong> from judicial review.<br />
Mark Durkan: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that<br />
either the Bill or amendment 6 would protect against<br />
judicial intervention on the ground of failure to issue a<br />
certificate—a controversy that could easily arise, particularly<br />
in the light of provisions in respect of a motion of no<br />
confidence? The certificate issues only after the 14-day<br />
period has been allowed—it does not issue at the time<br />
of the debate or just after the vote, but later on—and<br />
t<strong>here</strong> could be controversy about the failure to issue a<br />
certificate or about whether a certificate could be issued.<br />
Someone might try to bring that to the court.<br />
Mr Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right.<br />
The amendment, as drafted by my hon. Friend the<br />
Member for Stone, deals with only one aspect of the<br />
matter, and, given our limited time to scrutinise this<br />
enormously important Bill, I explicitly invite the other<br />
place to look carefully at all the aspects and the advice<br />
of the Clerk. One of its own Committees is considering<br />
the matter and might well come up with different<br />
conclusions from those of the Commons Political and<br />
Constitutional Reform Committee. The Lords sorted<br />
out the IPSA Bill, under which they kept our proceedings<br />
immune from the courts, and I very much hope that<br />
they will do the same with this Bill.<br />
My concluding point is a general one about the Bill<br />
but is relevant to the amendment. I do not think that I<br />
can recall a major constitutional measure that was so<br />
closely associated with the survival of one Administration.<br />
We have to pinch ourselves when we think of what we<br />
are doing in reality: we are completely changing our<br />
constitutional settlement at the behest of a coalition, so<br />
that it can remain in power for five years. I do not even<br />
think that that is ethical. <strong>Parliament</strong>’s immunity is<br />
basically being screwed up, and, although a Bill can at<br />
least be repealed, once the courts have been allowed<br />
into our proceedings, we will never get them out again<br />
without a major break in the constitution such as<br />
in 1689.<br />
All that can be forestalled if the Minister simply says,<br />
“These matters cannot be resolved today,” because they<br />
cannot be resolved on the basis of parliamentary counsel’s<br />
advice to Ministers about the drafting of Bills. We need<br />
the other place to give the highest and most independent<br />
legal advice to ensure that we do not inadvertently<br />
bring about what the Government themselves do not<br />
want to see.<br />
Chris Bryant: Many thanks are due to the hon. Member<br />
for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), who has<br />
done us a great favour by pointing out some of the
849 Fixed-term <strong>Parliament</strong>s Bill 1 DECEMBER 2010 Fixed-term <strong>Parliament</strong>s Bill 850<br />
problems in this small aspect of the legislation. He is<br />
absolutely right to say that large parts of the Bill exist<br />
only for the preservation of a single Administration. I<br />
do not know the appropriate Latin equivalent of ad<br />
hominem legislation, but this is “ad administrationem”<br />
legislation, which is why some provisions will not stand<br />
the test of time. The best that we can do is try to ensure<br />
that the elements of real peril are tidied up.<br />
The hon. Gentleman was right in several regards, but<br />
not in one. He talked about the IPSA Bill having been<br />
miraculously improved in the other place, but none of<br />
us really thinks that we ended up with a perfect situation<br />
or that nirvana arrived by virtue of that Bill. However,<br />
on the Bill before us—I suspect this would also apply to<br />
the other constitutional Bill that we recently scrutinised—he<br />
is right that if t<strong>here</strong> were a free vote, none of the<br />
legislation would go through at all.<br />
Mr Jenkin: If the <strong>Parliament</strong>ary Voting Systems and<br />
Constituencies Bill had been separate Bills, I do not<br />
think that either would have gone through.<br />
On the IPSA Bill, at one stage t<strong>here</strong> was a proposal to<br />
allow IPSA to adjudicate on and punish Members for<br />
breaching the rules. That would have driven a coach<br />
and horses through our traditional immunities under<br />
the Bill of Rights, but it was removed in the other place.<br />
Chris Bryant: Indeed. As the hon. Gentleman said<br />
earlier, a privileges Act will be needed at some point,<br />
and I hope that the Government turn to such legislation.<br />
I realise that t<strong>here</strong> are problems with any written or<br />
“codified”—to use the Minister’s term—constitution,<br />
because one risks making it justiciable and must then<br />
decide what will be the justice that oversees it. Will it be<br />
a supreme court or a constitutional court, such as many<br />
other countries have? That is a debate for another day,<br />
however.<br />
2.15 pm<br />
The issue of the Speaker’s certificate can be addressed<br />
only in relation to how it is operated in motions of no<br />
confidence, so I do not intend to stray far, Mrs Primarolo,<br />
from the specific issues involved. Nevertheless, in the<br />
previous debate the Minister said that all the amendments<br />
dealt with wildly hypothetical situations. Those were<br />
not his precise words, but broadly speaking that is what<br />
he meant, and he was right in a sense. When one starts<br />
writing bits of the constitution into statute, however,<br />
one has to provide for the hypothetical situation that<br />
suddenly arises when, for example, voters have cast<br />
their votes not so conveniently as to provide for a single<br />
majority party in government, or when a party—as has<br />
happened regularly over the past 200 years—has collapsed<br />
into two parties and is not able to sustain itself in<br />
power.<br />
It is important that we consider the unlikely outcomes<br />
that might transpire, because if they were to transpire<br />
they would provide us with an enormous constitutional<br />
headache, and we would have literally no means of<br />
sorting them out, because we would have no other court<br />
to appeal to in order to sort out the constitutional row.<br />
For instance, if the monarch decided to sack the Prime<br />
Minister—this point was raised earlier—other than<br />
revolution I know of no other means that we would<br />
have to enforce what we all understand to be the proper<br />
constitutional settlement.<br />
I presume that the Government have drawn up the<br />
provision on the Speaker’s certificate as they have done<br />
in an attempt to mirror provisions in the <strong>Parliament</strong><br />
Act 1911, as amended of course in 1949. In an attempt<br />
to ensure that in accordance with the Bill of Rights the<br />
courts did not interfere in parliamentary proceedings,<br />
that legislation tried to provide a cast-iron process<br />
w<strong>here</strong>by the Speaker could certificate that certain Bills<br />
were money Bills and did not, t<strong>here</strong>fore, have to go<br />
through the same process in the House of Lords as<br />
other Bills. It also provided that if a money Bill were<br />
amended or not passed by their Lordships within a<br />
certain period—I think it is a month—it would be<br />
automatically be sent to Her Majesty for Royal Assent.<br />
I also presume that the Government have used that<br />
legislation to draw up the legislation before us, because<br />
section 1(3) of the 1911 Act states that<br />
“the Speaker shall consult, if practicable, two members to be<br />
appointed from the Chairmen’s Panel at the beginning of each<br />
Session by the Committee of Selection.”<br />
That process still occurs, and Mr Speaker doubtless<br />
went through it before he recently certified several Bills<br />
as money Bills.<br />
T<strong>here</strong> is a difficulty, however, with transposing that<br />
provision directly into provisions for a situation in<br />
which the Government have lost a motion of no confidence,<br />
or into measures that provide the Speaker with a series<br />
of fairly significant powers. The Speaker will get to<br />
decide when to issue that certificate. As the hon. Member<br />
for Harwich and North Essex has already said, that<br />
means that the Speaker will decide whether nodding<br />
people through when Members are on the parliamentary<br />
estate and a Whip, by agreement between the Whips<br />
from both sides, nods them through at the end of a vote<br />
by saying, “And two more,” is allowed.<br />
The Speaker will decide also, for instance, whether<br />
14 days have passed since the no confidence motion has<br />
been carried. That is important, because past debates<br />
on a motion of no confidence might have started at<br />
3.30 in the afternoon, but they certainly did not finish<br />
by midnight; sometimes, they took up the whole of the<br />
next day’s business. In parliamentary terms, Members<br />
were still on the first day, so the question whether<br />
14 days had transpired would be a moot point.<br />
Further, the Speaker will decide what is a motion of<br />
no confidence. I t<strong>here</strong>fore presume that, similarly, he<br />
will decide what is a motion of confidence. The hon.<br />
Gentleman is absolutely right that many of those issues<br />
could be dealt with in Standing Orders. That would be<br />
very helpful to the House on the question of what<br />
counts as a motion of no confidence or of confidence,<br />
in particular, because this is a matter not of partisan<br />
advantage or ideological divide, but of trying to ensure<br />
that t<strong>here</strong> are practical measures to obviate a constitutional<br />
disaster should the moment arise.<br />
It would be helpful if the Minister were able to tell us<br />
whether he is minded to suggest to the Deputy Leader<br />
of the House that t<strong>here</strong> should be motions to change<br />
the Standing Orders of this House to make some of the<br />
conventions that currently exist part of Standing Orders.<br />
For instance, t<strong>here</strong> is the question whether we should<br />
have in Standing Orders the provision that when the<br />
Opposition demand a motion of no confidence it should<br />
usually be provided, say, within 24 or 48 hours, or<br />
provision concerning how the Speaker goes about the<br />
certification process.
851 Fixed-term <strong>Parliament</strong>s Bill 1 DECEMBER 2010 Fixed-term <strong>Parliament</strong>s Bill 852<br />
Mr Shepherd: I am a little puzzled as to why the hon.<br />
Gentleman comes to the conclusion that this needs to<br />
be codified in any way. Our history demonstrates quite<br />
openly that this House comes to such a resolution by<br />
the processes of the House. When Mr Chamberlain<br />
won the famous Norway debate, he recognised that<br />
t<strong>here</strong> was no confidence in him personally. These matters<br />
are eventually decided by the House and by the judgment<br />
of individuals. Surely that is the better way of doing it.<br />
Chris Bryant: In a sense, that is an argument against<br />
the whole Bill which I understand. I know that the hon.<br />
Gentleman is not saying that this is a conspiracy, but I<br />
think that the hon. Member for Harwich and North<br />
Essex feels that a bit of a cosy consensus has developed<br />
around the fact that t<strong>here</strong> should be a codification of<br />
fixed-term <strong>Parliament</strong>s. We agree with that codification.<br />
However, once one starts to codify one element, one has<br />
to codify rather a lot of them. That is why I have wanted<br />
to codify what counts as a motion of no confidence and<br />
what should be a motion of confidence. Perhaps we<br />
should have tried to codify it in a slightly different way<br />
so that, for instance, a motion to amend the Loyal<br />
Address could also be considered as such, as in 1924.<br />
Mr Jenkin: What the hon. Gentleman is suggesting<br />
might well be sensible in one respect, but I fear that it<br />
will not prevent the courts from having a go at this.<br />
Indeed, if what constitutes a motion of confidence is<br />
codified in our Standing Orders, the courts will then be<br />
interpreting whether our Standing Orders reflect what<br />
could be regarded as such. If he wants clarity and is<br />
seeking to provide a better definition, this has to be put<br />
into the legislation. Of course, that reflects the point<br />
that we are tempting the courts to interfere in the<br />
proceedings of this House.<br />
Chris Bryant: That is an interesting point. The Bill of<br />
Rights refers, I think in section 9, to the fact that<br />
proceedings in <strong>Parliament</strong> shall not be touched by any<br />
other court. The moot point then is what constitutes a<br />
proceeding in <strong>Parliament</strong>. T<strong>here</strong> have been many discussions<br />
about this over the past couple of years, not least in<br />
relation to the arrest of the hon. Member for Ashford<br />
(Damian Green). The hon. Member for Harwich and<br />
North Essex is right in one sense. However, I have<br />
presumed—this is the advice that I had when I sat on<br />
the Government Benches as Deputy Leader of the<br />
House—that parliamentary privilege covers proceedings<br />
in <strong>Parliament</strong> and the whole of the Standing Orders of<br />
this House, because that how this House chooses to<br />
proceed. I think that t<strong>here</strong> is greater security in the<br />
Standing Orders of the House.<br />
Another issue is how we ensure that the Speaker is<br />
not dragged into a partisan contest, particularly at a<br />
moment of great political drama. As I said in an earlier<br />
debate, my concern is that if it is left for the Speaker to<br />
have to determine all these elements, the Speaker’s<br />
impartiality is compromised.<br />
Another strange element of the Bill is the provision<br />
that says that before the Speaker issues his certificate, he<br />
shall consult the Deputy Speakers. That mirrors the<br />
provision in the 1911 Act w<strong>here</strong>by the Speaker, before<br />
issuing his certificate on a money Bill, has to consult<br />
two members of the Panel of Chairs. What happens if<br />
all the Deputy Speakers disagree with issuing the certificate?<br />
Why should the Speaker have to consult? One presumes<br />
that it is simply a matter of fact, although I suppose we<br />
all know that facts are rarely clearly delineated and are<br />
rather more subjective than most people would want to<br />
admit. The point is, however, that this puts the Speaker<br />
and potentially the House in peril, because people may<br />
want to contest any one of the various elements of the<br />
Speaker’s decision. One of the matters that would almost<br />
certainly arise if t<strong>here</strong> were any contest as to whether<br />
the certificate was being rightly issued is what the Deputy<br />
Speakers had said. That is an unfortunate direction for<br />
us to take.<br />
We have tabled an amendment, on which I hope to<br />
divide the Committee, on the timing of when the Speaker<br />
issues the certificate. At the moment, the Bill makes no<br />
provision whatsoever on when the Speaker’s certificate<br />
should be issued. One t<strong>here</strong>fore presumes that it could<br />
be a month, two months or several months after the<br />
passage of two weeks. Let us say, for instance, that after<br />
a motion of no confidence has been carried, the<br />
Government try to reform themselves with a different<br />
concatenation of political parties and do not manage to<br />
secure a new motion of confidence, but t<strong>here</strong> are still<br />
patently ongoing negotiations that are nearing their<br />
closing phase. Would it then be all right for the Speaker<br />
not to issue a certificate at that point but to wait until<br />
such time that another Government had been formed?<br />
The difficulty is that if the Speaker chose not to do so,<br />
who is to gainsay the Speaker? T<strong>here</strong> is no provision in<br />
the Bill for what would happen if the Speaker has not<br />
done what the Bill requires.<br />
For all those reasons, I believe that this element of<br />
the Bill is flawed. I also believe that certain elements<br />
should not be in statute but should be in Standing<br />
Orders in order to provide greater certainty for the<br />
House by taking them within the concept of proceedings<br />
of this House. Above all, I want to ensure that t<strong>here</strong> is<br />
no uncertainty about the specific provision as to when<br />
the Speaker has to act and when the Speaker may act.<br />
Jesse Norman: I wish to speak in favour of the<br />
amendment. First, may I congratulate my hon. Friend<br />
and neighbour the Minister on the very calm and effective<br />
way in which he has steered this legislation through the<br />
House?<br />
None the less, it seems to me that a basic issue with<br />
the legislation remains unresolved. It has been described<br />
in this House as a matter of parliamentary privilege,<br />
but in fact it concerns the fundamental principle of<br />
parliamentary sovereignty. One thinks of the magisterial<br />
words of A.V. Dicey:<br />
“The principle of <strong>Parliament</strong>ary sovereignty means neither<br />
more nor less than this, namely that <strong>Parliament</strong> thus defined”—<br />
by which he means the King or Queen in <strong>Parliament</strong>,<br />
rather than just <strong>Parliament</strong> itself—<br />
“has, under the English constitution, the right to make or unmake<br />
any law whatever: and, further, that no person or body is recognised<br />
by the law of England as having a right to override or set aside the<br />
legislation of <strong>Parliament</strong>.”<br />
That is the cardinal principle at issue today. It is worth<br />
saying that our parliamentary sovereignty remains intact<br />
in principle. It remains open to this House to repeal, if<br />
it so wished, the Act of Settlement 1701 by simple<br />
majority. The sovereignty of <strong>Parliament</strong> can thus be<br />
deliberately limited in its effects by this House—for
853 Fixed-term <strong>Parliament</strong>s Bill 1 DECEMBER 2010 Fixed-term <strong>Parliament</strong>s Bill 854<br />
example, by treaty—but it should not be limited by<br />
accident, by inadvertence or by over-confidence. T<strong>here</strong><br />
is a risk—a small risk—that this will happen under<br />
these provisions.<br />
The Clerk of the House has advised in writing and in<br />
testimony that to include parliamentary voting procedure<br />
in statute would risk judicial scrutiny of the proceedings<br />
of this House, and possible legal challenge. It is important<br />
to note that this is not merely the view of the Clerk of<br />
the House, but also the view of Speaker’s Counsel, and<br />
it has legal authority behind it. That is simply because<br />
the functions described under the clause are statutory<br />
functions, and it would t<strong>here</strong>fore be for the courts to<br />
determine whether those functions are lawfully exercised.<br />
That is, of course, advice rendered to the House, not to<br />
the Government.<br />
2.30 pm<br />
This issue was rightly taken up by the Political and<br />
Constitutional Reform Committee in its report on the<br />
Bill. In response, the Government relied on expert witnesses<br />
to show that the Bill would avoid unwarranted legal<br />
challenge. As has been discussed, the Clerk recommended<br />
a way past the problem, which was that the procedure<br />
should be written into Standing Orders, but that was<br />
rejected by the Government. In my judgment, it is<br />
perfectly legitimate for the Government, after due<br />
consideration and on legal advice, to insist on their<br />
preferred approach of including the relevant procedures<br />
in the legislation, rather than in Standing Orders.<br />
Nevertheless, we are discussing a separate issue—related,<br />
but separate.<br />
I believe that the Government would be well advised<br />
to accept the amendment for three reasons. First, as<br />
with all legal issues, this issue is not absolutely clear; it<br />
does not admit of certainty. The Government have<br />
relied on expert advice, but when Dawn Oliver and<br />
Anthony Bradley gave testimony to the Political and<br />
Constitutional Reform Committee, both experts<br />
acknowledged the small but clear risk of judicial challenge.<br />
They stated that precedent and statute are being relied<br />
on that may themselves require new legislative support.<br />
As has been noted today, that risk would be magnified<br />
by the heat and time pressure of an election.<br />
I would like to correct something that I said earlier to<br />
the Committee with reference to Harold Lever, by quoting<br />
from the evidence of the Clerk of the House before the<br />
Political and Constitutional Reform Committee:<br />
“I won’t bore the Committee with too many precedents, but I<br />
couldn’t resist this one. This is from 1974 and it’s to do with the<br />
passage of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Bill. I will read<br />
a very short extract from the Journal of that year. ‘Mr Harold<br />
Lever, Member for Manchester Central, acquainted the House,<br />
That in the Divisions on Amendments…to the Trade Union and<br />
Labour Relations Bill…he was recorded as having voted with the<br />
Noes, but he had to inform the House that he was not within the<br />
Precincts of the House at the time of those Divisions and that in<br />
consequence his vote ought not to have been so recorded.’”<br />
The Clerk continued:<br />
“In this case, when Mr Lever came to the House and acquainted<br />
the House about his absence, the whole procedure was declared<br />
null and void, including the Third Reading of the Bill. The Bill<br />
had to be called back from the House of Lords and the whole<br />
process had to happen again.”<br />
He concluded:<br />
“I don’t think I need labour the point of what this would mean<br />
in terms of a no confidence vote.”<br />
Secondly, I think that the Government should accept<br />
the amendment because t<strong>here</strong> is a clear trend of more<br />
public decisions falling under the scrutiny of the courts.<br />
I do not think that that is currently happening in<br />
domestic law, and in my view fears over judicial activism<br />
are misplaced. Nevertheless, we now have an independent<br />
Supreme Court that might not always exercise the restraint<br />
and care that has been shown by the present generation<br />
of judges in acknowledging and preserving the principle<br />
of parliamentary sovereignty.<br />
The European Courts are taking a greater interest in<br />
domestic matters. The European Court of Human Rights<br />
has heard at least one case that the British courts would<br />
not consider on the grounds that it fell under parliamentary<br />
jurisdiction. European judges have expressed concern<br />
over the lack of remedies against the exercise of<br />
parliamentary privilege.<br />
Mr Jenkin: My hon. Friend is making an extremely<br />
important point about the European Court of Human<br />
Rights. As soon as something gets into the Court, it<br />
respects no immunities whatsoever—nor does the European<br />
Court of Justice, but that is not adverted to in this case.<br />
Once a case is in that system, we do not know w<strong>here</strong> it<br />
will lead. The European Court of Human Rights certainly<br />
would not respect the limitations of the 1689 Act.<br />
Jesse Norman: I do not wish to comment on the<br />
procedure or intention of the European Courts, but I<br />
note merely that it is true historically that their scrutiny<br />
has extended itself over time. It is noted less than it<br />
should be that European judges have expressed concern<br />
about the exercise of parliamentary privilege and about<br />
the lack of remedies that people possess against its<br />
exercise.<br />
The final reason why the Government should look<br />
again at the amendment is that the consequences of a<br />
mistake could be momentous. In the short term, a<br />
dissolution of <strong>Parliament</strong> and t<strong>here</strong>by an election could<br />
hang on it. In the longer term, t<strong>here</strong> could be wider<br />
political and constitutional implications of judicial scrutiny<br />
of our power.<br />
The amendment is simply worded, it offers an additional<br />
layer of protection for <strong>Parliament</strong> against a serious<br />
threat, and it does so at little or no additional cost. I<br />
urge the Minister to give it serious consideration.<br />
Tristram Hunt: I, too, shall speak to amendment 6,<br />
which would take us some way in the direction in which<br />
we should be heading to protect this place from the<br />
actions of the courts.<br />
Every day, as the hon. Member for Harwich and<br />
North Essex (Mr Jenkin) said, we see growing evidence<br />
of interference by and elements of activism in the<br />
courts. We now have the Supreme Court in <strong>Parliament</strong><br />
square, and large buildings tend to have large consequences.<br />
The emeritus professor of public administration at<br />
University college London, Professor Gavin Drewry,<br />
has recorded a major shift towards cases of public law,<br />
with some high-profile cases having a constitutional air:<br />
“The establishment of the Supreme Court is an important<br />
constitutional landmark, and it would be surprising if the Court<br />
itself were to stand completely aside from the ongoing process of<br />
constitutional development.”<br />
T<strong>here</strong> is a strong sense of certainty that the Supreme<br />
Court will be involved.
855 Fixed-term <strong>Parliament</strong>s Bill 1 DECEMBER 2010 Fixed-term <strong>Parliament</strong>s Bill 856<br />
[Tristram Hunt]<br />
It is apposite to be discussing this Bill after this<br />
morning’s judgment in the case of three former Members<br />
of this House, Morley, Chaytor and Devine, and also a<br />
peer, against their claim of parliamentary privilege. In<br />
his summation, Lord Phillips noted that<br />
“extensive inroads have been made into areas that previously fell<br />
within the exclusive cognisance of <strong>Parliament</strong>.”<br />
His statement should be of major concern to<br />
parliamentarians when considering the Bill, and in<br />
particular to Ministers, who I hope have read and<br />
digested the judgment and are coming to sensible<br />
conclusions about it.<br />
If I may, I shall quote Lord Phillips at greater length:<br />
“W<strong>here</strong> a statute does not specifically address matters that are<br />
subject to privilege, it is in theory necessary as a matter of<br />
statutory interpretation to decide a number of overlapping questions.<br />
Does the statute apply within the precincts of the Palace of<br />
Westminster? If it does, does it apply in areas that were previously<br />
within the exclusive cognisance of <strong>Parliament</strong>? If so, does the<br />
statute override the privilege imposed by article 9? In practice<br />
t<strong>here</strong> are not many examples of these questions being considered,<br />
either within <strong>Parliament</strong> or by the courts. If <strong>Parliament</strong> accepts<br />
that a statute applies within an area that previously fell within its<br />
exclusive cognisance, then <strong>Parliament</strong> will, in effect, have waived<br />
any claim to privilege.”<br />
Those are damaging and dangerous comments, which<br />
have wide repercussions.<br />
Lord Phillips argues that the ultimate judgment of<br />
such matters rests with the courts. He quotes approvingly<br />
a letter written on 4 March 2010 by the Clerk of the<br />
<strong>Parliament</strong>s to the solicitor acting for Lord Hanningfield<br />
which had been approved by the Committee for Privileges:<br />
“Article 9 limits the application of parliamentary privilege to<br />
‘proceedings in <strong>Parliament</strong>.’ The decision as to what constitutes a<br />
‘proceeding in <strong>Parliament</strong>’, and t<strong>here</strong>fore what is or is not admissible<br />
as evidence, is ultimately a matter for the court, not the House.”<br />
We should consider that evidence and the actions of a<br />
growing number of judges in considering the Bill.<br />
Mr Jenkin: Bluntly, what the hon. Gentleman is<br />
averting to is a power struggle. The question is whether the<br />
House will stand up for its immunities or give them up.<br />
The Bill is an indication that we want to give them up.<br />
Tristram Hunt: I agree with the hon. Gentleman and<br />
with the fundamental basis of his analysis, which is that<br />
the constitutional reform programme is driven by the<br />
immediate necessities of the Government in the context<br />
of this <strong>Parliament</strong>. We are making major decisions that<br />
will have wide ramifications in the functioning of the<br />
constitution of the <strong>United</strong> <strong>Kingdom</strong>, based on a political<br />
programme and timetable. That is never the best way in<br />
which to develop deep consensus thinking about the<br />
constitution.<br />
I would finally raise a point that the Clerk of the<br />
House has also raised. As he put it in a note to the<br />
Committee in the other place,<br />
“given that a draft <strong>Parliament</strong>ary Privileges Bill has now been<br />
announced, why deal in advance and separately with a matter<br />
affecting the proceedings of the House of Commons in legislation”,<br />
if it is not for the specific political purposes of the<br />
current Government?<br />
Mr Shepherd: I am more and more puzzled about the<br />
Bill as we go on, but t<strong>here</strong> are two propositions in this<br />
group of amendments. I support amendment 6, in the<br />
name of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash),<br />
and I am grateful for the important contribution of my<br />
hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South<br />
Herefordshire (Jesse Norman). Indeed, I was elated at<br />
the time of the election to hear that Jessye Norman had<br />
been elected to the House. I spent six months seeking<br />
out that fantastic opera singer—I got the wrong individual,<br />
as you will appreciate, Ms Primarolo, and I am very<br />
grateful to have encountered my hon. Friend on the<br />
Floor of the Committee.<br />
Jesse Norman rose—<br />
Chris Bryant: He wants to sing. Sing for Britain.<br />
Jesse Norman: No. Hon. Members will be pleased to<br />
hear that I do not propose to sing, but I am pleased to<br />
report that I have managed to overcome the quadruple<br />
handicaps of being tall, white, English and male.<br />
Mr Shepherd: And formidable handicaps they often<br />
are.<br />
The endeavour of my hon. Friend the Member for<br />
Stone and those who support the amendment was to<br />
provide some form of belt-and-braces approach. None<br />
of us is confident that it can work, because the aspirations<br />
and ambitions of several of our lords justices have<br />
given one an uncertainty as to w<strong>here</strong> they are heading in<br />
the rewriting of the constitution. I am also mindful of<br />
the European Court of Human Rights. We have an<br />
inferior court that we call a Supreme Court and a<br />
superior court that we call a court of human rights, and<br />
on top of all that we have another court called the<br />
European Court of Justice. Somew<strong>here</strong> in t<strong>here</strong> I can<br />
see a demented Prime Minister making an application<br />
for unfair dismissal as a result of a vote to every one of<br />
those courts in turn, while we watch on, as though it<br />
were a Gilbert and Sullivan pantomime. I shall support<br />
the amendment.<br />
Similarly, I will support amendment 23. The matter<br />
has to be determined quickly and appropriately, so I<br />
shall not waste the House’s time having indicated the<br />
actions that I will take.<br />
Mark Durkan: Like the hon. Member for Aldridge-<br />
Brownhills (Mr Shepherd), I shall speak in support of<br />
amendments 6 and 23, which are both attempts to earth<br />
the Bill against some of the dangerous shocks that<br />
could be created for the House in the future. To make<br />
some of my points, I will have to refer to what the<br />
Minister said about the previous group of amendments.<br />
In the debate on the previous group, the Minister said<br />
that he could think of no circumstances in which a<br />
debate on a motion of no confidence would take place<br />
without the House knowing that it was a motion of no<br />
confidence, even though the Bill requires the Speaker to<br />
issue a certificate only after a period of 14 days has<br />
elapsed—it does not specify how long after. That creates<br />
a situation that we all have to consider before we even<br />
go into the danger of what will happen when the matter<br />
goes to the courts. Let us first look at the difficulties and<br />
controversies that will be created in this House.<br />
If a motion of no confidence can be played like a wild<br />
joker, and any motion can be converted into one, then<br />
whenever t<strong>here</strong> is a controversial issue or one involving<br />
Opposition or rebel tactics, the Speaker will be asked<br />
early in a debate, “Will you signal whether you would be
857 Fixed-term <strong>Parliament</strong>s Bill 1 DECEMBER 2010 Fixed-term <strong>Parliament</strong>s Bill 858<br />
minded to say that this debate is certifiable? Will you<br />
declare that we are going through a potentially certifiable<br />
chain of political and constitutional events?” Of course,<br />
the Speaker might wish to say, “You are trying to draw<br />
me into a matter of controversy”, because he might not<br />
be privy to what Whips are saying to Members about<br />
the significance of a particular motion.<br />
2.45 pm<br />
What would happen if the Speaker said that a motion<br />
was not certifiable, and the Prime Minister subsequently<br />
decided that the nature, colour and content of the<br />
debate meant that it had been a motion of no confidence<br />
in him rather than in the Government, as in the example<br />
of the 1940 debate mentioned by the hon. Member for<br />
Aldridge-Brownhills? Somebody could announce from<br />
the Dispatch Box, on either the Opposition or Government<br />
side of the House, that as far as they were concerned,<br />
t<strong>here</strong> had been a motion of no confidence. Would that<br />
mean that the Speaker’s ruling was somehow removed<br />
or overturned? If anybody wanted to contest in court<br />
either the issuing of a certificate or the failure to issue<br />
one, that sequence of events involving the Speaker and<br />
Front Benchers could become relevant. It could become<br />
a matter of contest and controversy being presented in<br />
court.<br />
Even short of the matter getting to the courts, we are<br />
already potentially compromising the Speaker. He will<br />
constantly be hostage to inquiries as to whether a<br />
particular motion could be treated as a motion of no<br />
confidence, and his ruling could at any time be upstaged<br />
from the Treasury Bench.<br />
Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con): My children<br />
once asked me, “What does a heffalump look like?” I<br />
said, “You’ll know one when you see one.” Has that<br />
not been the case with confidence motions throughout<br />
history? The House has known one when it has seen<br />
one, and we are in danger of over-complicating the<br />
process in the Bill.<br />
Mark Durkan: I have a lot of sympathy with what the<br />
hon. Gentleman says, and that was why I indicated my<br />
support for earlier amendments that would have narrowed<br />
the ambiguity and reduced the possibility of political<br />
and procedural chicanery, with which the Bill is riddled.<br />
Chris Bryant: Will my hon. Friend point out to the<br />
hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) that t<strong>here</strong> is<br />
a picture of the heffalump in several of A. A. Milne’s<br />
books?<br />
Mark Durkan: I accept that point fully.<br />
Mr Walker: I shall admonish my children for not<br />
being better read.<br />
Mark Durkan: I will acknowledge these interventions<br />
no further.<br />
To return to the matter at hand, let us be clear that<br />
the Bill’s provisions are open to all sorts of contests,<br />
questions and controversies. As I have said, I believe<br />
that the Minister was wrong to say that the House will<br />
know in all circumstances when something is a vote of<br />
confidence. If he wanted to make that incontrovertibly<br />
so, he would need to provide either in Standing Orders<br />
or in the Bill for a formal indication by the Speaker that<br />
a certificate could be issued prior to the period set out<br />
in the Bill, which starts 14 days after a motion. That, in<br />
turn, would bring the Speaker into areas of political<br />
controversy and intervention. Amendment 6 is clearly<br />
aimed at ensuring that those difficulties do not make<br />
the issuing of a certificate, or possibly the failure to<br />
issue one, a matter of controversy that can be brought<br />
to the courts.<br />
In discussing previous amendments, Members alluded<br />
to affairs currently in Oireachtas Éireann and in the<br />
Dail. Those affairs may be relevant this week, because<br />
an opposition party t<strong>here</strong> has indicated that it might<br />
take to the courts the question whether, under the<br />
constitution, the agreement that the Irish Government<br />
have entered into has to be subject to a vote of the Dail.<br />
Let us not rule out circumstances in which a party <strong>here</strong>,<br />
possibly a party of Opposition, could feel that the<br />
Speaker had wrongly declined to issue a certificate, or<br />
that the Government were using all sorts of procedural<br />
chicanery to prevent certificates being issued and to<br />
reset the clock. That party might then feel obliged to<br />
take the matter to court if it felt that it faced dead ends<br />
and chicanery in <strong>Parliament</strong>. That is exactly the situation<br />
that was threatened in Dublin this week given what the<br />
Irish Labour party justice spokesman said. Let us not<br />
join the Minister in completely dismissing all such<br />
possibilities.<br />
I do not want to move from Dublin to Northern<br />
Ireland affairs, but I have some experience of what<br />
happens in practice. I was involved in negotiating and<br />
implementing the Good Friday agreement, including as<br />
a Minister and Deputy First Minister. Ministers told<br />
this House that procedures would follow their own<br />
course and that political matters would not end up in<br />
the courts, but then I found that my election as Deputy<br />
First Minister was taken to court—when I was jointly<br />
elected with David Trimble—because all sorts of rules<br />
were bent and twisted and the clock was reset by<br />
Secretaries of State and others.<br />
The Northern Ireland Act 1998 set a clear six-week<br />
period, but Secretaries of State discovered that if they<br />
suspended things for 24 hours, t<strong>here</strong> would be a new<br />
six-week period. Whenever t<strong>here</strong> is a facility to contrive<br />
a completely new situation and dispose of a statutory<br />
deadline, it is used—whenever Ministers are told that in<br />
case of emergency they can smash the glass, they do so.<br />
Completely contrary to the assurances and explanations<br />
given to the House when we debated the 1998 Act, a<br />
number of Secretaries of State found themselves doing<br />
that. In addition, Assembly Members redesignated to<br />
pass particular votes, even though they said that they<br />
would not, and so on.<br />
In the context of the Bill, people have said that a<br />
Government would never put themselves in the<br />
embarrassing position of activating a vote of no confidence<br />
in themselves or cutting corners, ignoring rules or resetting<br />
clocks so that they can bypass dates and deadlines, but<br />
the Northern Ireland experience shows that that is not<br />
so. The exigencies of the moment, and the demands for<br />
stability and good governance, can be used as circumstantial<br />
excuses. Let us not pretend otherwise. If we are trying<br />
to provide for fixed-term <strong>Parliament</strong>s with clear, fixed<br />
and guaranteed arrangements, we must go further than<br />
the Bill does. It leaves too much power in the hands of<br />
the Prime Minister and the Executive when t<strong>here</strong> has<br />
been a motion of no confidence, and in respect of their<br />
influence over the decision of whether a motion is one<br />
of no confidence or otherwise.
859 Fixed-term <strong>Parliament</strong>s Bill 1 DECEMBER 2010 Fixed-term <strong>Parliament</strong>s Bill 860<br />
[Mark Durkan]<br />
I t<strong>here</strong>fore ask the Minister to acknowledge that<br />
t<strong>here</strong> are shortcomings in the Bill. Some of the amendments<br />
have their own shortcomings, but they do not diminish<br />
the serious problems with the Bill. If he will not accept<br />
amendments 6 and 23, will he agree to work in another<br />
place and in the House at another time to make his own<br />
amendments, so that the Bill does not create those<br />
difficulties and controversies?<br />
Under the Bill, the Speaker could be the subject of<br />
controversy. What if t<strong>here</strong> are differences between the<br />
Speaker and Deputy Speakers on the question whether<br />
to indicate in advance that a motion is certifiable? More<br />
importantly, as the hon. Member for Harwich and<br />
North Essex (Mr Jenkin) said, I believe that such matters<br />
could find themselves before a court, not only because<br />
somebody might want to contest the fact or content of<br />
a certificate, but more importantly because people might<br />
want to contest the failure to issue a certificate or the<br />
fairly questionable proceedings in advance of it. We do<br />
not want the Speaker of the House of Commons to be<br />
caught in the same position as Scottish football referees.<br />
They have been accused of taking and changing decisions<br />
in relation to subsequent arguments and events. Let us<br />
protect the office of the Speaker and this House.<br />
Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con): I rise to<br />
make a brief contribution. I have listened with great<br />
interest to the debate and I await with even greater<br />
interest the Minister’s response to the very well advocated<br />
position on amendment 6, with which I have great<br />
sympathy.<br />
It seems blindingly simple to me. Clause 2(3) stops at<br />
the words, “for all purposes.” The comparison with<br />
section 3 of the <strong>Parliament</strong> Act 1911 has been made, so<br />
why not include the extra words,<br />
“and shall not be questioned in any court of law”?<br />
The amendment proposes the use of the word “whatsoever”,<br />
which was no doubt an attempt by my hon. Friend the.<br />
Member for Stone (Mr Cash) to deal with the European<br />
question—that is perfectly legitimate and I understand<br />
entirely the reason for his wording—but the point is the<br />
same: if such a provision was good in 1911, why is it not<br />
good now? If anything, the balance between <strong>Parliament</strong><br />
and the courts has deteriorated, as the hon. Member for<br />
Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) eloquently outlined.<br />
The balance is now extremely fine, and it is in danger of<br />
being overturned in favour of judicial activism.<br />
It may well be that reliance will be placed upon the<br />
residual powers of article 9 of the Bill of Rights, but as<br />
an Act of <strong>Parliament</strong>, that too is subject to judicial<br />
interpretation. Over the years, it has been interpreted in<br />
a variety of ways by the courts. Notably, it has been<br />
impliedly waived or restricted by this House. Section 13<br />
of the Defamation Act 1996 is a good example of<br />
<strong>Parliament</strong> deciding, in effect, to allow its privilege to<br />
be qualified. I have strong views on the wisdom of that<br />
legislation—it was foolish and has led to unintended<br />
consequences, which are at the heart of this debate.<br />
No Member of <strong>Parliament</strong> wants a diminution of its<br />
authority or power. This is an elected Chamber and we<br />
represent the people of this country. Sovereignty means<br />
just that. It is right that all hon. Members worry—even<br />
if it is sounds like lawyers’ caution—about any further<br />
unintended diminution of our authority. That is why I<br />
support amendment 6. Why not change clause 2(3) to<br />
put things as far beyond doubt as possible, mirroring<br />
what legislators did in 1911, to ensure that the spectre of<br />
the judiciary questioning and second-guessing the<br />
proceedings of the House does not become a reality?<br />
Mr Cox: I had not intended to speak, and I shall be<br />
extremely brief. Most of my remarks will be addressed<br />
to the Minister in the hope that he can provide the<br />
clarification in substance to the questions asked by my<br />
hon. Friends and Opposition Members, which I should<br />
like to reinforce.<br />
My first question is precisely that which my hon.<br />
Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland)<br />
just asked. Why not add the proposed words? If clause 2(3)<br />
is intended to be an instruction to the courts that a<br />
certificate shall not be challenged, on the face of it t<strong>here</strong><br />
could be no real reason, unless the Minister has thought<br />
of something that others have not thought of or been<br />
advised otherwise, why the injunction of my hon. Friend<br />
the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), which is more expressive,<br />
explicit and detailed, should not be added. Will the<br />
Minister elucidate the purpose of stopping short at the<br />
word “purposes” and not going on to be as explicit as<br />
possible?<br />
I ask that because historically, ouster clauses in<br />
administrative law have not been conspicuously successful.<br />
The courts have not paid very much attention to interpreting<br />
their duty to examine such issues, and often even w<strong>here</strong><br />
the ouster clause has been passed. [Interruption.] I see<br />
from the sedentary reaction of my hon. Friend the<br />
Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath)—the<br />
Deputy Leader of the House—that the reason may be<br />
that such provisions are so pointless that t<strong>here</strong> is no<br />
point in going any further. If that is the reason, it would<br />
be helpful if the Government made that clear, so that<br />
Members could consider that. I have to tell him that I<br />
do not consider the provision to be pointless—I would<br />
not imagine that the Government would do anything<br />
that was pointless in drafting the legislation.<br />
The <strong>Parliament</strong>ary Secretary, Office of the Leader of<br />
the House of Commons (Mr David Heath) indicated<br />
assent.<br />
Mr Cox: I see my hon. Friend nodding sagely. That<br />
provision t<strong>here</strong>fore must have a function. If that function<br />
can be increased in its effect and efficacy by adding the<br />
proposed words, why not incorporate them?<br />
3pm<br />
That brings me to my second point. If it is necessary<br />
under clause 3(3) to try to instruct the courts that the<br />
certificate should not be justiciable—that it should not<br />
be considered—that must imply, as does my hon. Friend’s<br />
reaction from the Front Bench, that the Government<br />
are aware that the courts may well, even in remote and<br />
possibly extreme circumstances, become ensnared in the<br />
examination of these issues. One can see considerable<br />
skill and intelligence at work in the drafting of the Bill.<br />
One sees that it is intended not to be tempting to the<br />
courts. If we codify too much in statute, the danger is<br />
that the courts would be drawn into examining whether<br />
the preconditions for a motion of confidence had been<br />
met, whether the definitions were properly complied<br />
with and so on. What the legislation seems to be doing—if
861 Fixed-term <strong>Parliament</strong>s Bill 1 DECEMBER 2010 Fixed-term <strong>Parliament</strong>s Bill 862<br />
this is the intention, it is a laudable one—is enacting, in<br />
broad outline, so as to make it clear to the courts, that<br />
the critical questions of definition and discretion are<br />
still for the House and the proper authorities of the<br />
House. It is a statute that is intended to preserve a<br />
certain flexibility and suppleness so that the courts are<br />
not drawn into examining such issues, w<strong>here</strong>as they<br />
would be if we laid down too precise a definition of the<br />
concepts that they involve.<br />
I appreciate that, and I see the point of it. It no doubt<br />
forms part of the Government’s confidence that the<br />
courts will not ordinarily enter into that territory. However,<br />
the mere presence of that ouster clause suggests that the<br />
Government are aware that in some circumstances they<br />
might. As the Government have indicated—albeit via a<br />
sedentary reaction—they are plainly aware that ouster<br />
clauses do not always work. That suggests to me that<br />
the Government are content—or at least have made a<br />
strategic decision—that in certain circumstances the<br />
judicial authorities may come to interpret and consider<br />
this legislation. I accept that that is highly unlikely in<br />
the ordinary case, given the amount of discretion, the<br />
amount of territory left to the Speaker and the ill-defined<br />
nature of many of the concepts. It would be a bold<br />
court indeed that entered into a discussion of such<br />
issues and allowed them to become the subject of a<br />
judicial review.<br />
Mr Jenkin: We all know that we are talking about<br />
heated and potentially controversial circumstances. If<br />
t<strong>here</strong> was a raging controversy about alleged malpractice<br />
in our proceedings or surrounding them, and if public<br />
opinion was strongly supportive of one view or the<br />
other, t<strong>here</strong> would be intense pressure on a court to<br />
intervene. Does my hon. and learned Friend not think it<br />
would be difficult for a court not to intervene under<br />
such circumstances?<br />
Mr Cox: No, I do not think that. Intense pressure is<br />
precisely what an independent judiciary is set up to<br />
resist. One would expect and hope for that from a senior<br />
judge. We are fortunate in the judiciary we have in this<br />
country. I hope that hon. Members will reflect carefully<br />
on some of the language that we have used in this<br />
debate today. It is not the case that the judiciary have an<br />
appetite to assume the powers of this House. Indeed, in<br />
my experience the preponderance in the judiciary is to<br />
be careful and scrupulous in the way they observe the<br />
parameters of judicial power.<br />
The problem is—if I can extend this parenthesis as<br />
briefly as I may—that we have invited the judiciary into<br />
the territory time after time, since the European<br />
Communities Act 1972, which fundamentally altered<br />
the constitutional arrangements in this country. It essentially<br />
meant that t<strong>here</strong> was a higher constitutional court,<br />
namely the European Court of Justice—we already<br />
have it—which presupposes and believes it is capable of<br />
trumping domestic law. That ultimately led to a decision<br />
in a case called Factortame, in which an Act of <strong>Parliament</strong><br />
was set aside by the House of Lords, on the basis of the<br />
seniority—or superiority—of the European Union’s law.<br />
Then we had the Human Rights Act 1998, which<br />
preserves—or attempts to preserve—a careful balance.<br />
Nevertheless, it invites the courts into consideration of<br />
the policies and legislative objectives—almost on the<br />
basis of their merits—that this House has always considered<br />
to be its prerogative and to fall within its exclusive<br />
sp<strong>here</strong>. The courts are careful, but they themselves<br />
acknowledge that the Human Rights Act has invited<br />
them further into that territory.<br />
Chris Bryant: The hon. and learned Gentleman is<br />
making an important contribution, and he is right<br />
about the reluctance of the courts, for the most part, to<br />
intervene and tread on our toes, as it were. However, the<br />
truth is that those elements of parliamentary privilege<br />
that attach because of not wishing to interfere with<br />
proceedings in <strong>Parliament</strong> get very fuzzy at the edges.<br />
Indeed, t<strong>here</strong> are areas w<strong>here</strong> others want the courts to<br />
express a view. My anxiety is not that t<strong>here</strong> would be a<br />
challenge when the Speaker had issued a certificate, but<br />
that a challenge would be far more likely when the<br />
Speaker had decided not to do so.<br />
Mr Cox: I have heard that observation made, and I<br />
hope that the Minister will be able to address it. I do not<br />
feel quite as concerned as hon. Members who have<br />
expressed their views on that point, and I will say why.<br />
A court would very soon see through an argument that<br />
went: “The Speaker has not issued a certificate in<br />
circumstances w<strong>here</strong> we”—the party bringing the<br />
application to the court—“think he should have done.”<br />
The reason is that if a certificate is conclusive for all<br />
purposes, so must the absence of a certificate be. I do<br />
not believe for a moment that a court would see the<br />
matter any other way when the Speaker had chosen not<br />
to make a certificate. Otherwise, we would have to have<br />
a provision in the Bill saying that if the Speaker chooses<br />
not to certify, that should not be challenged either. It<br />
must be implied that if a Speaker made a deliberate and<br />
conscious choice not to certify, the absence of the<br />
certificate—that choice—must equally be conclusive,<br />
and I think that most courts would see it that way. One<br />
could argue that that should be explicit in the Bill, but<br />
for my purposes, I would not have thought a court<br />
would find impressive an argument that said that a<br />
Speaker who decided not to certify could be judicially<br />
reviewed, w<strong>here</strong>as if he had certified—let us say, in the<br />
negative—he could not be. That would be pointless.<br />
Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab): The issuing<br />
or non-issuing of a certificate is a slightly false comparison.<br />
The issuing of a certificate would result in action—providing<br />
that it was not challenged successfully in a court—w<strong>here</strong>as<br />
the non-issuing of a certificate would, I presume, simply<br />
preserve the status quo.<br />
Mr Cox: What is the point of a certificate? It is not<br />
going to be challenged in a court, because the Government<br />
and this House will instruct the courts not to look at it.<br />
The point of the certificate is merely to express in<br />
writing the Speaker’s view that something had been a<br />
motion of confidence. If he does not issue a certificate,<br />
it is plainly the case that he has reached the view that it<br />
is not a motion of confidence. However, it is highly<br />
unlikely that the mere fact that a Speaker had produced<br />
that view but not committed it to a piece of paper<br />
would induce the courts to enter that territory and issue<br />
what used to be called a writ of mandamus—it is now<br />
called a mandatory order—to force him to do so. I find<br />
that improbable and implausible. I hope that the Minister<br />
will draw some comfort from that, but he should not<br />
draw complete comfort from it, because the mere fact
863 Fixed-term <strong>Parliament</strong>s Bill 1 DECEMBER 2010 Fixed-term <strong>Parliament</strong>s Bill 864<br />
[Mr Cox]<br />
that we are considering whether the courts would or<br />
would not be able to enter this territory will induce<br />
litigants, lobby groups and political groups to bring<br />
these very applications before the courts to test out the<br />
territory. It will not be long before the courts start to<br />
consider the extent to which the Bill allows them in, and<br />
the extent to which it does not. That is w<strong>here</strong> the hon.<br />
Gentleman of whose constituency I am shamefully<br />
ignorant—<br />
Chris Bryant: Stoke-on-Trent.<br />
Mr Cox: The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central<br />
(Tristram Hunt) quoted the recent judgment of Lord<br />
Phillips, and that is important because Lord Phillips<br />
made it plain that the courts will reserve the power to<br />
define the parameters of parliamentary prerogative and<br />
privilege. If the Bill remains enacted in the law of this<br />
country for a long period, which I rather doubt, t<strong>here</strong><br />
will inevitably be a point at which the courts are invited<br />
in and at which they will start to examine the extent to<br />
which they can and cannot become involved. Their view<br />
might not entirely coincide with that of the Government.<br />
For example, the question of whether a certificate is<br />
valid might arise. The Bill states:<br />
“A certificate under this section is conclusive for all purposes.”<br />
A court might well feel entitled to consider whether, as a<br />
matter of law, it is in fact a certificate. In the past, that is<br />
the way in which ouster clauses have been outflanked.<br />
I am asking the Minister to consider this matter, and<br />
I am asking from the heart. I have noticed that, from<br />
time to time, he has found many of the interventions by<br />
Members not altogether to his taste. Perhaps the smile<br />
of the Cheshire cat is always seated on his face during<br />
these debates simply because of his serene command of<br />
his brief and his sublime confidence in the merits of this<br />
legislation. However, I ask him to address the consciences<br />
of many of the Members on his own side who have deep<br />
and sincere concerns. My hon. Friend the Member for<br />
Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr Shepherd) is among them,<br />
and when he rises to speak on matters of the constitution,<br />
he must always be listened to with respect. He may not<br />
be a lawyer but, by Jove, his instincts on the constitution<br />
are proud and honoured by a long tradition in this<br />
House. I pay tribute to him for standing up with such<br />
integrity and for such a long time for the traditional<br />
view of the constitution in this House. It is not a bad<br />
thing to stand up for tradition. It is not wrong to<br />
honour the way in which our forefathers constructed<br />
the constitution, the wisdom of it and the value that it<br />
has conveyed down the ages to the inhabitants of this<br />
country.<br />
Will the Minister address this matter? I hope that I<br />
have expressed myself modestly by saying that I do not<br />
endorse or adopt many of the more exaggerated flights<br />
of fantasy that have occasionally been bandied about<br />
the Floor of the House. However, it surely cannot be<br />
denied that t<strong>here</strong> is some risk and some legitimate cause<br />
for concern, when this matter seems to prey on the<br />
minds and the consciences of so many Members of this<br />
House who are motivated by entirely sincere reasons,<br />
rather than merely by the need to hear the sound of<br />
their own voice. I ask the Minister to address those<br />
concerns with the sincerity with which they have been<br />
expressed.<br />
Mr Harper: I am grateful for those kind words from<br />
my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge<br />
and West Devon (Mr Cox).<br />
When Mr Hoyle was in the Chair last week, he made<br />
it clear that he did not intend to have a stand part<br />
debate on this clause as we will have touched on all<br />
parts of it when debating the amendments. Before I<br />
move on to considering the amendments, it is worth<br />
putting into context the parts of the clause about which<br />
Members are concerned.<br />
I think I am right in saying that the concerns expressed<br />
about privilege and about whether the courts should<br />
intervene have almost exclusively related to clause 2(2),<br />
which deals with motions of confidence. Interestingly,<br />
the Clerk of the House, in his evidence and in conversations<br />
with me, was not concerned about subsection (2), given<br />
that it uses a perfectly well-precedented certification<br />
procedure. His concern—I think I explain it accurately—was<br />
with subsection (1), which covers the certification of an<br />
early general election, rather than with the certification<br />
procedure in principle. His concern was with the nature<br />
of the procedure that had to take place before the<br />
Speaker certified. In other words, not only would the<br />
House have had to pass a motion on a Division, but a<br />
particular number of Members would have had to vote.<br />
3.15 pm<br />
Members expressed concern about motions of no<br />
confidence and the extent to which courts would want<br />
to interfere in them, but the Clerk of the House was<br />
exclusively concerned about clause 2(1), which deals<br />
with the House voting on a motion for an early general<br />
election, because of the two-thirds majority.<br />
Mr Jenkin: At the risk of repeating what I have<br />
already read out from the Speaker’s memorandum, I<br />
want to ensure that we are not speaking at cross-purposes.<br />
In paragraph 16 of the Committee’s report, the Clerk<br />
makes it very clear, in discussing clause 2(2), that<br />
“The provisions of this subsection make the Speaker’s consideration<br />
of confidence motions and the House’s practices justiciable questions<br />
for determination by the ordinary courts.”<br />
I do not think that the Clerk could have been clearer: it<br />
is subsection (2) that he is concerned about.<br />
Mr Harper: I had a conversation with the Clerk<br />
about the certification, with the majority being specified.<br />
The Government decided to place the provisions on the<br />
early general election in statute rather than relying on<br />
Standing Orders because, as I stated in the memorandum<br />
I placed in the Library on 13 September, we cannot<br />
achieve the policy objective by relying on Standing<br />
Orders, which can be changed by a simple majority—<br />
Mr Jenkin: That is not true.<br />
Mr Harper: Let me just finish this point, then I will<br />
take an intervention from my hon. Friend.<br />
Standing Orders can be changed by a simple majority.<br />
The Government’s view was that, if that was the case,<br />
the power to dissolve <strong>Parliament</strong> early would effectively<br />
be left with the Prime Minister.<br />
Mr Jenkin: I beg to suggest that, if the Minister had<br />
listened carefully to what I said earlier, he would have<br />
heard me reading from a letter I had received from
865 Fixed-term <strong>Parliament</strong>s Bill 1 DECEMBER 2010 Fixed-term <strong>Parliament</strong>s Bill 866<br />
Mr Robert Rogers, who made it absolutely clear that it<br />
is possible to entrench a Standing Order of this House<br />
with its own super-majority. I am astonished that the<br />
Government do not understand that, and that the whole<br />
basis of this Bill seems to rest once more on the denial<br />
of advice given by the Clerks of the House.<br />
Mr Harper: My hon. Friend cited in the letter from<br />
Robert Rogers a reference to existing Standing Orders,<br />
which require a particular majority for an event to take<br />
place. I think he mentioned the requirement for<br />
100 Members to vote for a closure motion. T<strong>here</strong> is no<br />
precedent for a Standing Order, passed by a simple<br />
majority, to entrench itself and require that it cannot be<br />
changed, other than by a vote of this House on a<br />
different majority. The Government know of no precedent<br />
for that, and no Member has given an example of one.<br />
If a Standing Order provided that an early general<br />
election could be held only after a vote with the specified<br />
majority, and if that Standing Order could be changed<br />
by a simple majority vote in the House, it would be<br />
open to the governing party, at the behest of the Prime<br />
Minister, to change the Standing Order and to trigger<br />
an early election based on the whim of the Executive.<br />
That is exactly what we are trying to remove under the<br />
Bill. The Government believe that if the policy objective<br />
is to be achieved, the procedure must be specified in<br />
statute.<br />
Mr Shepherd: If that is so—and I accept it as such—why<br />
does it not apply to the statute itself?<br />
Mr Harper: I think we have touched on that before.<br />
Once the Bill becomes an Act of <strong>Parliament</strong>, it cannot<br />
be changed purely by a majority vote in the House of<br />
Commons. The decision would have to be made by<br />
<strong>Parliament</strong>, which would also engage the other place, in<br />
which the Government do not have a majority. Even<br />
after—[Interruption.] I anticipated that reaction. Even<br />
after the appointment of the new list of working peers,<br />
the governing parties together will have only 40% of the<br />
peers in the upper House; 60% will be Labour peers,<br />
Cross Benchers or Lords Spiritual. The fact that this<br />
will be an Act of <strong>Parliament</strong> makes it impossible for a<br />
majority vote of a governing party to bring about an<br />
early general election, which is our policy objective.<br />
Chris Bryant: The Minister is right in saying that the<br />
main difference is that the matter would have to be dealt<br />
with in the second Chamber. As I understand it, however,<br />
the coalition agreement states clearly that the Government’s<br />
aspiration is to create enough peers to meet the proportions<br />
formed by each of the parties in the general election.<br />
That would provide a majority of 56%—quite apart<br />
from the fact that, as far as I can see, virtually every<br />
remaining Liberal Democrat Member in the country<br />
will be a member of the Second Chamber.<br />
Mr Harper: I will not dwell on this issue at length,<br />
Mr Evans, because if I did so you would rule me out of<br />
order, but the coalition agreement does not say that. It<br />
says that we want to make the upper House more<br />
representative of the result in the general election, not<br />
exactly in line with it. The hon. Gentleman simply is not<br />
right.<br />
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram<br />
Hunt) quoted from a judgment. I will not be drawn into<br />
the specifics of the Chaytor case—although the Supreme<br />
Court has given its judgment, t<strong>here</strong> are ongoing criminal<br />
trials—but the flaw in the hon. Gentleman’s argument<br />
lies in the fact that the case concerns the administration<br />
of the expenses scheme. The House of Commons has<br />
never asserted exclusive cognisance of the expenses<br />
scheme. It has never said that the scheme, its administration<br />
and the matters that flow from it are parliamentary<br />
proceedings, which is why that is not a good example.<br />
Moreover, the Supreme Court’s judgment recognises<br />
the exclusive right of each House of <strong>Parliament</strong> to<br />
manage its own affairs without interference from the<br />
other, or from outside <strong>Parliament</strong>.<br />
My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North<br />
Essex quoted the views of the Clerk of the House. If the<br />
Government were alone in their view and the Clerk’s<br />
views were shared by everyone else, my hon. Friend<br />
would have a stronger case. The Political and Constitutional<br />
Reform Committee and the Lords Constitution Committee<br />
have taken a great deal of evidence, and the weight of<br />
independent expert evidence has supported the<br />
Government’s view. For example, Professor Robert<br />
Blackburn of King’s college London said—and I think<br />
that this is in line with the comments of my hon. and<br />
learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West<br />
Devon (Mr Cox)—<br />
“In my view, the government’s Fixed-Term <strong>Parliament</strong>s Bill<br />
has been technically well-drafted by the Cabinet Office’s parliamentary<br />
counsel, particularly in avoiding judicial review of its provisions<br />
on early elections by way of Speaker’s certificates”.<br />
The hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen),<br />
the Chairman of the Political and Constitutional Reform<br />
Committee, said:<br />
“In the very limited time that we had to look at this matter, the<br />
Clerk was the only person to raise this question, and the academics<br />
who have been referred to—Professor Hazell, Professor Blackburn<br />
and others—completely disagreed with the view put forward by<br />
the Clerk.”—[Official Report, 13 September 2010; Vol. 515, c. 632-3.]<br />
Tristram Hunt: The point was that we did not have<br />
enough time to hear other voices that might have agreed<br />
with the Clerk of the House, owing to our having to<br />
rush our consideration of the Bill and to the speed with<br />
which the Government are pushing it through.<br />
Mr Harper: That was also the experience of the<br />
Lords Constitution Committee—and, in fact, we have<br />
not been rushing the consideration of this Bill. We<br />
published it in July, Second Reading was in September,<br />
and this is the third day of the Committee stage, in<br />
December. We are hardly rushing forward at an enormously<br />
swift pace. Months have elapsed. I feel sure that if<br />
hundreds of constitutional lawyers and academics agreed<br />
with the Clerk and disagreed with the Government, we<br />
would have heard from them.<br />
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con): Does my<br />
hon. Friend understand that the Committee had to rush<br />
through its work on this Bill and the <strong>Parliament</strong>ary<br />
Voting System and Constituencies Bill at the same time?<br />
Mr Harper: I am prepared to accept that consideration<br />
of the <strong>Parliament</strong>ary Voting System and Constituencies<br />
Bill has been proceeding faster than consideration of<br />
this Bill, but I cannot accept that this Bill is being<br />
considered at a great pace. It was published five months<br />
ago, we have reached only the third day of the Committee<br />
stage, and the Report stage is still to come. I believe that
867 Fixed-term <strong>Parliament</strong>s Bill 1 DECEMBER 2010 Fixed-term <strong>Parliament</strong>s Bill 868<br />
[Mr Harper]<br />
we have been proceeding at a sensible pace. Indeed,<br />
today’s proceedings were added when the Government<br />
realised that Members wished to engage in the debate at<br />
greater length.<br />
Chris Bryant: The Minister seems to suggest that all<br />
the evidence apart from that of the Clerk of the House<br />
falls into the other camp. The Committee listened to the<br />
various witnesses and reached a rather different<br />
conclusion—that the purpose of the Bill needed to be<br />
achieved without the courts being invited to question<br />
aspects of the House’s own procedures or the actions of<br />
the Speaker—and urged us to move in a rather different<br />
direction from the one advocated by the Government.<br />
Mr Harper: The Committee was quite right. I agree<br />
that we need to ensure that the courts do not question<br />
those matters. In a moment I will deal with the amendments<br />
and the Government’s reason for believing that the<br />
language we have used about the well-precedented use<br />
of Speaker’s certificates prevents the courts from questioning<br />
the Act.<br />
My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North<br />
Essex observed that judges were not more interventionist.<br />
I believe t<strong>here</strong> is evidence that t<strong>here</strong> has been more<br />
judicial activism in judicial reviews of Executive decisions,<br />
but as far as I am aware t<strong>here</strong> is no evidence that the<br />
courts have become more interventionist in challenging<br />
parliamentary proceedings. Executive decisions and<br />
decisions of <strong>Parliament</strong> are quite different from each<br />
other. Although the Supreme Court has a new name, it<br />
has no greater powers than the judicial Committee of<br />
the House of Lords that it replaced. I do not think that<br />
my hon. Friend’s concerns are well judged.<br />
My hon. Friend also referred to the European Court<br />
of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights.<br />
The European Court of Justice can deal with matters<br />
related to European Union law; nothing in the Bill<br />
would engage it. Similarly, the functions of the Speaker<br />
under the Bill do not engage any of the rights conferred<br />
by the European Court of Human Rights. I think it was<br />
only last week that the Joint Committee on Human<br />
Rights agreed with that when it said that the Bill’s<br />
provisions did not need to be brought to the attention<br />
of either House on human rights grounds.<br />
My hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South<br />
Herefordshire (Jesse Norman)—who is not in the Chamber,<br />
as he has had to fulfil a long-standing and important<br />
engagement to attend a meeting elsew<strong>here</strong> in the House—<br />
expressed concern about the European Court of Human<br />
Rights. In fact, it has shown the utmost respect for<br />
parliamentary privilege. In a 2003 case, A. v. <strong>United</strong><br />
<strong>Kingdom</strong>, it was specifically held that article 9 of the<br />
Bill of Rights did not violate the convention by preventing<br />
an applicant from taking defamation proceedings against<br />
an MP for words said in parliamentary proceedings.<br />
The European Court of Human Rights strongly supported<br />
the contention that courts would not become involved<br />
in these matters.<br />
I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member<br />
for Torridge and West Devon, who said that owing to<br />
the very nature of these events—the fact that they<br />
would be politically highly charged—judges would not<br />
be keen to rush in and engage in questions that are<br />
rightly to be resolved by political rather than legal<br />
means. I have heard no evidence, apart from assertion,<br />
that courts would do anything different.<br />
Mark Durkan: I gave the example from 2001 when,<br />
on the third attempt, David Trimble and I were jointly<br />
elected as First and Deputy First Minister by the Northern<br />
Ireland Assembly. That was taken to the courts. Yes, the<br />
courts did not touch on issues connected with<br />
the Assembly’s standing orders, but they did entertain<br />
the suggestion that the Secretary of State had failed to<br />
use the power and duty, given to him under law, to set a<br />
date for an election if no First and Deputy First Minister<br />
have been elected after six weeks. The Secretary of State<br />
did not do so, claiming that because he had notice of<br />
the potential to elect us, which had been issued by the<br />
end day of the six-week period, he could interpret<br />
the deadline differently. The court did not throw out the<br />
case and the judges—competent, serious, senior judges—<br />
divided on the issue. In the light of that precedent, the<br />
assurance of the hon. and learned Member for Torridge<br />
and West Devon (Mr Cox) does not stand.<br />
3.30 pm<br />
Mr Harper: The hon. Gentleman makes my point for<br />
me. He accurately sets out the fact that at issue was not<br />
a proceeding in <strong>Parliament</strong>—a decision of this House—but<br />
an executive decision by the Secretary of State. As I<br />
have said, t<strong>here</strong> is lots of evidence that courts will<br />
challenge Ministers’ decisions, and one can argue about<br />
whether they will be right to do so; Ministers would<br />
probably argue they are not, but everyone else would<br />
probably argue that they are. The case the hon. Gentleman<br />
raises involved an executive decision; it was not a decision<br />
of this House or a proceeding in <strong>Parliament</strong>, and it is<br />
not protected under article 9.<br />
Mark Durkan: But what we are talking about is<br />
related to the closest equivalent in the Northern Ireland<br />
Act 1998 of the certificate powers being given to the<br />
Secretary of State. Sections 31 and 32 of the 1998 Act<br />
provide for the early Dissolution of the Assembly and<br />
early elections. They are the exact same powers, except<br />
that in Northern Ireland the Secretary of State has the<br />
powers of an “over-Speaker”, rather than their being<br />
vested in the Presiding Officer. They are the equivalent<br />
powers, however.<br />
Mr Harper: No, I think t<strong>here</strong> is a rather crucial<br />
difference. The powers in that Act are given to a Minister—<br />
they are not proceedings in <strong>Parliament</strong>. That leads me<br />
nicely on to amendment 6—<br />
Chris Bryant rose—<br />
Mr Harper: But the hon. Gentleman is keen to get in.<br />
Chris Bryant: Sorry, but the Minister is using the<br />
phrase “proceedings in <strong>Parliament</strong>” as though it were a<br />
self-evidently clear concept, but a great deal of legislation<br />
and case law has analysed various different aspects of it<br />
and it is now<strong>here</strong> near as clear as he might presume.<br />
Mr Harper: No, and that leads to w<strong>here</strong> I was going,<br />
which was to turn to amendment 6 and to explain why<br />
we are using the language of the device of a Speaker’s
869 Fixed-term <strong>Parliament</strong>s Bill 1 DECEMBER 2010 Fixed-term <strong>Parliament</strong>s Bill 870<br />
certificate. T<strong>here</strong> are precedents that have stood the test<br />
of time, which is why Professor Blackburn expressed<br />
the feeling in the quotation I read that parliamentary<br />
counsel had drafted the Bill well.<br />
My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash)<br />
tabled amendment 6 and my hon. Friend the Member<br />
for Harwich and North Essex spoke to it. I can see why<br />
they would want to use the wording in the <strong>Parliament</strong><br />
Act 1911, but the Bill says the Speaker’s certificate is<br />
“conclusive for all purposes” and the Government do<br />
not think inserting the words<br />
“shall not be…questioned in any court of law”<br />
adds anything. The 1911 wording has, indeed, stood the<br />
test of time, but it used the language of the early-20th<br />
century. Later legislation used different wording. The<br />
House of Lords Act 1999 used exactly the wording we<br />
have used, which provides that certificates of the Clerk<br />
of the <strong>Parliament</strong>s on questions of whether an <strong>here</strong>ditary<br />
peer is one of the excepted 92 <strong>here</strong>ditary peers are<br />
conclusive. The provisions have worked well in practice,<br />
w<strong>here</strong>as wording consistent with the <strong>Parliament</strong> Act 1911<br />
could bring into question whether protections in more<br />
recent Acts were meant to be an inferior sort of protection.<br />
We think that would be undesirable.<br />
Provided certificates are conclusive for all purposes, it<br />
is perfectly adequate to show that it is for the Speaker to<br />
decide whether the conditions for an early election have<br />
been satisfied, not for the courts or the Executive. The<br />
effect and the intention of the drafting are perfectly<br />
clear. Although the additional words in amendment 6<br />
might appear attractive, they would not add anything to<br />
the protection in the Bill. T<strong>here</strong> is no evidence or reason<br />
to think the courts would want to trespass on what<br />
would effectively be highly politicised issues or that they<br />
would not continue to regard matters relating to the<br />
internal operation of the House as “proceedings in<br />
<strong>Parliament</strong>”.<br />
I should also like to deal with the wording in<br />
amendment 6 that seeks to prevent a Speaker’s certificate<br />
issued under clause 2 from being “presented” to a court.<br />
I can see why my hon. Friend the Member for Stone is<br />
trying to do that, but it seems to me that that takes a<br />
step backwards. Being able to present the certificate to<br />
the court is the simplest and easiest way of informing<br />
the court that the conditions for an early election exist<br />
and the Speaker has made the decision. That stops the<br />
court being tempted to dwell on proceedings in <strong>Parliament</strong>;<br />
it has a clear piece of paper that explains that the<br />
Speaker has made that determination and the court<br />
need go no further.<br />
Mr Cox: Let us suppose that the Speaker issued a<br />
certificate that omitted one of the matters that the<br />
statute required him to certify. Would it not be open to a<br />
petitioner to argue in court that t<strong>here</strong> had been a failure<br />
to comply with the conditions that made a certificate<br />
valid and that the court was entitled to examine whether<br />
it was a certificate before obeying the ouster that prevents<br />
it from challenging the certificate?<br />
Mr Harper: My hon. and learned Friend makes a<br />
point that relates to the use of certificates, but what he<br />
describes would be perfectly true of the certificate that<br />
the Speaker issues on money Bills and the certification<br />
that he issues under the <strong>Parliament</strong> Act. Those are well<br />
precedented and have stood the test of time. The courts<br />
have been content to hold that the fact that the certificate<br />
has been issued by the Speaker is indeed conclusive for<br />
all purposes and they have not sought to challenge it.<br />
Mr Cox: We are dealing with a fundamentally different<br />
sp<strong>here</strong> <strong>here</strong>. Whether or not a Bill is a money Bill is the<br />
kind of decision that is suitable only for a legislative<br />
Assembly, but on this matter the courts would regard<br />
themselves as guarding the right to an election, which is<br />
a fundamental right of the population of this country.<br />
If <strong>Parliament</strong> had prescribed that an election should<br />
take place and a certificate was defective because it did<br />
not stipulate one of the requisite terms, the courts may<br />
regard that as an area into which they ought to go to<br />
safeguard the right to an election.<br />
Mr Harper: If a certificate was issued by the Speaker,<br />
we would be having an election, not stopping one<br />
taking place. I do not think that my hon. and learned<br />
Friend’s concern that the courts would hold that the<br />
population were being deprived of an election would<br />
apply. The language used in the Bill was chosen for<br />
exactly the reasons I have suggested. We have used<br />
well-precedented, tried and tested language; it has stood<br />
the test of time. It is perfectly true to say that people can<br />
make groundless applications to courts on all sorts of<br />
things, but courts quickly dismiss them and prevent<br />
them from proceeding further. We are confident that<br />
these proposals are robust and will not have the effect<br />
that hon. Members suggest.<br />
In the few minutes remaining, I wish to discuss<br />
amendment 23, because the hon. Member for Rhondda<br />
(Chris Bryant) suggested that he wanted to ask you,<br />
Mr Evans, whether he could press it to a Division. The<br />
amendment proposes a 24-hour time limit for the issuing<br />
of the Speaker’s certificate. I can superficially see why<br />
that might be attractive, but it sets some conditions that<br />
might introduce elements casting doubt on the validity<br />
of the certificate if it were delayed, even if it were by<br />
only a few minutes, or if it were issued close to the time<br />
limit. Thus, the amendment would enable people to<br />
question the certificate. We should t<strong>here</strong>fore rely on the<br />
standard practice, w<strong>here</strong>by the Speaker’s certificate is<br />
the conclusive provision.<br />
Given what I have said, I hope that hon. Members<br />
will not seek to press their amendments to a Division<br />
and that we are able to proceed with the debate.<br />
Mr Jenkin: I am most grateful, Mr Evans, for the<br />
opportunity to reply to the debate.<br />
I regret that I feel compelled to press this matter to a<br />
vote, but I feel that the Minister’s response has been<br />
wholly unconvincing. We are faced with adamant and<br />
clear advice from the Clerk of the House that the<br />
Minister has chosen to dismiss as irrelevant. Let me<br />
remind the House what the Clerk said:<br />
“The provisions of this subsection make the Speaker’s consideration<br />
of confidence motions and the House’s practices justiciable questions<br />
for determination by the ordinary courts.”<br />
That includes<br />
“what constitutes a confidence motion, the selection of amendments<br />
to such Motions and the consequences of their being carried”.<br />
He goes on to say:<br />
“As these would become justiciable questions, the courts could<br />
be drawn into matters of acute political controversy.”<br />
The Minister has not responded with anything substantive<br />
to defeat that advice.
871 Fixed-term <strong>Parliament</strong>s Bill 1 DECEMBER 2010 Fixed-term <strong>Parliament</strong>s Bill 872<br />
[Mr Jenkin]<br />
Moreover, the Minister has rested his justification for<br />
the Bill on the assertion that it would not be possible to<br />
write these provisions into the Standing Orders, which<br />
would be automatically immune. Let me read from the<br />
Clerk’s memorandum again. He said that<br />
“a Standing Order regulating the matters in the Bill could provide<br />
for its staying in effect unless repealed by a specified majority”,<br />
meaning that it could be entrenched,<br />
“for example by…equal to or greater than two thirds of the<br />
number of seats in the House. Not only is the principle of<br />
specifying majorities already written into the Standing Orders of<br />
the House, but in the past the House has also required a relative<br />
majority for reaching decision.”<br />
My hon. Friend the Minister also dismissed the<br />
comments that I read from Mr Robert Rogers, the Clerk<br />
Assistant and Director General, who made it clear that<br />
we can not only write into our Standing Orders provisions<br />
requiring super-majorities, but entrench a—[Interruption.]<br />
I am rather distressed that the Minister is not even<br />
listening to what I am saying. We can entrench a Standing<br />
Order with its own super-majority so that it could be<br />
removed only by a super-majority, if that is what the<br />
House chose to do. The whole basis of the Government’s<br />
advice remains contested by the Clerks. The basis of the<br />
Bill—that this has to be done through statute—also<br />
remains contested by the Clerks.<br />
I doubt that we will win the vote in the Committee<br />
this afternoon, but the Minister has failed to give a full<br />
response or to acknowledge any of the points that have<br />
been made. His subsection refers to a Speaker’s “certificate<br />
under this section”, which is very unspecific. At least<br />
the amendment states<br />
“Any certificate of the Speaker of the House of Commons<br />
given under this section shall be conclusive for all purposes”.<br />
That word “any” and the reference to the Speaker make<br />
it clear that whatever the Speaker issues is uncontested,<br />
rather than leave it open to the courts to determine<br />
whether the certificate presented by the Speaker complies<br />
with the legislation. I am afraid that the Minister has<br />
not satisfied me and I do not think that he has satisfied<br />
a great many of my colleagues on the Government<br />
Benches or in the official Opposition. I want to press<br />
the amendment to a vote.<br />
Question put, That the amendment be made.<br />
The Committee proceeded to a Division.<br />
Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD): On a point of order, Mr Evans.<br />
At lunchtime today I was sitting in the Terrace cafeteria<br />
and, for the second time in a fortnight, I was unable to<br />
hear the Division bells at all. T<strong>here</strong> was nothing to<br />
indicate that a vote was taking place. Can you facilitate<br />
Members’ ability to vote if they are sitting in that area,<br />
perhaps by asking the Badge Messengers to inform<br />
them that a vote is taking place while the problem is<br />
sorted out?<br />
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel<br />
Evans): Thank you for that point of order. I must say<br />
that I have taken a number of points of order in a<br />
similar vein since taking the Chair on 8 June, and this is<br />
clearly worrying for Members as well as irritating for<br />
the Chair. I will instruct that the matter be fully investigated,<br />
not just in the area that the hon. Lady has spoken<br />
about, but throughout the parliamentary estate. Clearly,<br />
it could affect the outcome of a vote. In the short term,<br />
I ask that, every time t<strong>here</strong> is a Division today, a<br />
messenger goes particularly to that part of the House to<br />
ensure that Members are made aware that a Division is<br />
taking place.<br />
The Committee having divided: Ayes 231, Noes 295.<br />
Division No. 138]<br />
[3.42 pm<br />
Abbott, Ms Diane<br />
Ainsworth, rh Mr Bob<br />
Alexander, rh Mr Douglas<br />
Alexander, Heidi<br />
Ali, Rushanara<br />
Austin, Ian<br />
Bain, Mr William<br />
Balls, rh Ed<br />
Banks, Gordon<br />
Barron, rh Mr Kevin<br />
Bayley, Hugh<br />
Bell, Sir Stuart<br />
Benn, rh Hilary<br />
Berger, Luciana<br />
Betts, Mr Clive<br />
Blackman-Woods,<br />
Roberta<br />
Blears, rh Hazel<br />
Blenkinsop, Tom<br />
Blomfield, Paul<br />
Blunkett, rh Mr David<br />
Bradshaw, rh Mr Ben<br />
Brennan, Kevin<br />
Brown, Lyn<br />
Brown, rh Mr Nicholas<br />
Brown, Mr Russell<br />
Bryant, Chris<br />
Buck, Ms Karen<br />
Buckland, Mr Robert<br />
Burden, Richard<br />
Burnham, rh Andy<br />
Byrne, rh Mr Liam<br />
Cairns, David<br />
Campbell, Mr Alan<br />
Campbell, Mr Ronnie<br />
Caton, Martin<br />
Chapman, Mrs Jenny<br />
Clark, Katy<br />
Clarke, rh Mr Tom<br />
Clwyd, rh Ann<br />
Coaker, Vernon<br />
Coffey, Ann<br />
Cooper, Rosie<br />
Corbyn, Jeremy<br />
Crausby, Mr David<br />
Creagh, Mary<br />
Creasy, Stella<br />
Cruddas, Jon<br />
Cunningham, Alex<br />
Cunningham, Mr Jim<br />
Cunningham, Tony<br />
Curran, Margaret<br />
Dakin, Nic<br />
Danczuk, Simon<br />
Darling, rh Mr Alistair<br />
Davidson, Mr Ian<br />
Davies, Geraint<br />
Dobson, rh Frank<br />
Dodds, rh Mr Nigel<br />
Donohoe, Mr Brian H.<br />
Doran, Mr Frank<br />
AYES<br />
Doyle, Gemma<br />
Dromey, Jack<br />
Dugher, Michael<br />
Durkan, Mark<br />
Eagle, Ms Angela<br />
Eagle, Maria<br />
Edwards, Jonathan<br />
Efford, Clive<br />
Ellman, Mrs Louise<br />
Engel, Natascha<br />
Esterson, Bill<br />
Evans, Chris<br />
Field, rh Mr Frank<br />
Fitzpatrick, Jim<br />
Flint, rh Caroline<br />
Fovargue, Yvonne<br />
Francis, Dr Hywel<br />
Gapes, Mike<br />
Gardiner, Barry<br />
Gilmore, Sheila<br />
Glass, Pat<br />
Godsiff, Mr Roger<br />
Goggins, rh Paul<br />
Goodman, Helen<br />
Greatrex, Tom<br />
Green, Kate<br />
Greenwood, Lilian<br />
Griffith, Nia<br />
Gwynne, Andrew<br />
Hain, rh Mr Peter<br />
Hanson, rh Mr David<br />
Harman, rh Ms Harriet<br />
Harris, Mr Tom<br />
Havard, Mr Dai<br />
Healey, rh John<br />
Hendrick, Mark<br />
Hepburn, Mr Stephen<br />
Heyes, David<br />
Hillier, Meg<br />
Hilling, Julie<br />
Hodge, rh Margaret<br />
Hodgson, Mrs Sharon<br />
Hollobone, Mr Philip<br />
Hosie, Stewart<br />
Howarth, rh Mr George<br />
Hunt, Tristram<br />
Irranca-Davies, Huw<br />
James, Mrs Siân C.<br />
Jamieson, Cathy<br />
Johnson, rh Alan<br />
Johnson, Diana<br />
Jones, Graham<br />
Jones, Helen<br />
Jones, Mr Kevan<br />
Jones, Susan Elan<br />
Jowell, rh Tessa<br />
Joyce, Eric<br />
Kaufman, rh Sir Gerald<br />
Keeley, Barbara<br />
Keen, Alan<br />
Kendall, Liz
873 Fixed-term <strong>Parliament</strong>s Bill 1 DECEMBER 2010 Fixed-term <strong>Parliament</strong>s Bill 874<br />
Khan, rh Sadiq<br />
Lammy, rh Mr David<br />
Lavery, Ian<br />
Leslie, Chris<br />
Lloyd, Tony<br />
Llwyd, Mr Elfyn<br />
Love, Mr Andrew<br />
Lucas, Caroline<br />
Lucas, Ian<br />
MacNeil, Mr Angus<br />
Brendan<br />
Mactaggart, Fiona<br />
Mahmood, Mr Khalid<br />
Mahmood, Shabana<br />
Main, Mrs Anne<br />
Mann, John<br />
Marsden, Mr Gordon<br />
McCann, Mr Michael<br />
McCarthy, Kerry<br />
McClymont, Gregg<br />
McDonagh, Siobhain<br />
McFadden, rh Mr Pat<br />
McGovern, Jim<br />
McGuire, rh Mrs Anne<br />
McKechin, Ann<br />
McKinnell, Catherine<br />
Meacher, rh Mr Michael<br />
Mearns, Ian<br />
Michael, rh Alun<br />
Miliband, rh David<br />
Miller, Andrew<br />
Moon, Mrs Madeleine<br />
Morden, Jessica<br />
Morrice, Graeme (Livingston)<br />
Morris, Grahame M.<br />
(Easington)<br />
Mudie, Mr George<br />
Munn, Meg<br />
Murphy, rh Mr Jim<br />
Murphy, rh Paul<br />
Murray, Ian<br />
Nandy, Lisa<br />
Nash, Pamela<br />
Nuttall, Mr David<br />
O’Donnell, Fiona<br />
Onwurah, Chi<br />
Owen, Albert<br />
Paisley, Ian<br />
Pearce, Teresa<br />
Perkins, Toby<br />
Pound, Stephen<br />
Qureshi, Yasmin<br />
Raynsford, rh Mr<br />
Nick<br />
Rees-Mogg, Jacob<br />
Reynolds, Emma<br />
Reynolds, Jonathan<br />
Riordan, Mrs Linda<br />
Robertson, Angus<br />
Adams, Nigel<br />
Aldous, Peter<br />
Alexander, rh Danny<br />
Andrew, Stuart<br />
Arbuthnot, rh Mr James<br />
Bacon, Mr Richard<br />
Bagshawe, Ms Louise<br />
Baker, Norman<br />
Baker, Steve<br />
Baldry, Tony<br />
NOES<br />
Robertson, John<br />
Robinson, Mr Geoffrey<br />
Rotheram, Steve<br />
Roy, Mr Frank<br />
Roy, Lindsay<br />
Ruane, Chris<br />
Ruddock, rh Joan<br />
Sarwar, Anas<br />
Seabeck, Alison<br />
Shannon, Jim<br />
Sharma, Mr Virendra<br />
Sheerman, Mr Barry<br />
Shepherd, Mr Richard<br />
Sheridan, Jim<br />
Shuker, Gavin<br />
Simpson, David<br />
Singh, Mr Marsha<br />
Skinner, Mr Dennis<br />
Slaughter, Mr Andy<br />
Smith, Angela<br />
Smith, Nick<br />
Smith, Owen<br />
Soulsby, Sir Peter<br />
Spellar, rh Mr John<br />
Stringer, Graham<br />
Stuart, Ms Gisela<br />
Sutcliffe, Mr Gerry<br />
Thomas, Mr Gareth<br />
Thornberry, Emily<br />
Timms, rh Stephen<br />
Trickett, Jon<br />
Turner, Mr Andrew<br />
Turner, Karl<br />
Twigg, Derek<br />
Twigg, Stephen<br />
Umunna, Mr Chuka<br />
Vaz, rh Keith<br />
Vaz, Valerie<br />
Walker, Mr Charles<br />
Walley, Joan<br />
Watson, Mr Tom<br />
Watts, Mr Dave<br />
Whiteford, Dr Eilidh<br />
Whitehead, Dr Alan<br />
Williams, Hywel<br />
Williamson, Chris<br />
Wilson, Phil<br />
Wilson, Sammy<br />
Winterton, rh Ms Rosie<br />
Wishart, Pete<br />
Woodcock, John<br />
Woodward, rh Mr Shaun<br />
Wright, David<br />
Wright, Mr Iain<br />
Tellers for the Ayes:<br />
Mr David Hamilton and<br />
Mr Bernard Jenkin<br />
Baldwin, Harriett<br />
Barclay, Stephen<br />
Barker, Gregory<br />
Barwell, Gavin<br />
Bebb, Guto<br />
Beith, rh Sir Alan<br />
Benyon, Richard<br />
Beresford, Sir Paul<br />
Berry, Jake<br />
Bingham, Andrew<br />
Birtwistle, Gordon<br />
Blackman, Bob<br />
Blackwood, Nicola<br />
Blunt, Mr Crispin<br />
Boles, Nick<br />
Bottomley, Peter<br />
Bradley, Karen<br />
Brake, Tom<br />
Bray, Angie<br />
Brazier, Mr Julian<br />
Bridgen, Andrew<br />
Brokenshire, James<br />
Brooke, Annette<br />
Browne, Mr Jeremy<br />
Bruce, Fiona<br />
Bruce, rh Malcolm<br />
Burley, Mr Aidan<br />
Burns, Conor<br />
Burrowes, Mr David<br />
Burstow, Paul<br />
Burt, Lorely<br />
Byles, Dan<br />
Cable, rh Vince<br />
Cairns, Alun<br />
Campbell, rh Sir Menzies<br />
Carmichael, Mr Alistair<br />
Carmichael, Neil<br />
Clappison, Mr James<br />
Clark, rh Greg<br />
Clarke, rh Mr Kenneth<br />
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey<br />
Coffey, Dr Thérèse<br />
Collins, Damian<br />
Colvile, Oliver<br />
Crabb, Stephen<br />
Crockart, Mike<br />
Crouch, Tracey<br />
Davey, Mr Edward<br />
Davies, David T. C.<br />
(Monmouth)<br />
Davies, Glyn<br />
Davis, rh Mr David<br />
de Bois, Nick<br />
Dinenage, Caroline<br />
Djanogly, Mr Jonathan<br />
Dorrell, rh Mr Stephen<br />
Dorries, Nadine<br />
Doyle-Price, Jackie<br />
Duddridge, James<br />
Duncan Smith, rh Mr<br />
Iain<br />
Dunne, Mr Philip<br />
Ellis, Michael<br />
Ellison, Jane<br />
Ellwood, Mr Tobias<br />
Elphicke, Charlie<br />
Evans, Graham<br />
Evans, Jonathan<br />
Evennett, Mr David<br />
Fabricant, Michael<br />
Fallon, Michael<br />
Farron, Tim<br />
Featherstone, Lynne<br />
Field, Mr Mark<br />
Foster, Mr Don<br />
Fox,rhDrLiam<br />
Francois, rh Mr Mark<br />
Freeman, George<br />
Fullbrook, Lorraine<br />
Fuller, Richard<br />
Gale, Mr Roger<br />
Garnier, Mr Edward<br />
Garnier, Mark<br />
Gauke, Mr David<br />
George, Andrew<br />
Gibb, Mr Nick<br />
Gilbert, Stephen<br />
Gillan, rh Mrs Cheryl<br />
Goodwill, Mr Robert<br />
Gove, rh Michael<br />
Graham, Richard<br />
Grant, Mrs Helen<br />
Gray, Mr James<br />
Grayling, rh Chris<br />
Green, Damian<br />
Greening, Justine<br />
Grieve, rh Mr Dominic<br />
Griffiths, Andrew<br />
Gummer, Ben<br />
Halfon, Robert<br />
Hames, Duncan<br />
Hammond, Stephen<br />
Hancock, Matthew<br />
Hands, Greg<br />
Harper, Mr Mark<br />
Harrington, Richard<br />
Harris, Rebecca<br />
Hart, Simon<br />
Harvey, Nick<br />
Haselhurst, rh Sir Alan<br />
Heald, Mr Oliver<br />
Heath, Mr David<br />
Heaton-Harris, Chris<br />
Hemming, John<br />
Henderson, Gordon<br />
Hendry, Charles<br />
Herbert, rh Nick<br />
Hermon, Lady<br />
Hinds, Damian<br />
Hollingbery, George<br />
Holloway, Mr Adam<br />
Hopkins, Kris<br />
Horwood, Martin<br />
Howarth, Mr Gerald<br />
Howell, John<br />
Hughes, Simon<br />
Huhne, rh Chris<br />
Hunter, Mark<br />
Huppert, Dr Julian<br />
Hurd, Mr Nick<br />
Jackson, Mr Stewart<br />
Johnson, Gareth<br />
Johnson, Joseph<br />
Jones, Andrew<br />
Jones, Mr David<br />
Jones, Mr Marcus<br />
Kawczynski, Daniel<br />
Kelly, Chris<br />
Knight, rh Mr Greg<br />
Kwarteng, Kwasi<br />
Laing, Mrs Eleanor<br />
Lamb, Norman<br />
Lancaster, Mark<br />
Latham, Pauline<br />
Laws, rh Mr David<br />
Leadsom, Andrea<br />
Lee, Jessica<br />
Lee, Dr Phillip<br />
Leech, Mr John<br />
Lefroy, Jeremy<br />
Leigh, Mr Edward<br />
Leslie, Charlotte<br />
Lewis, Brandon<br />
Lilley, rh Mr Peter
875 Fixed-term <strong>Parliament</strong>s Bill 1 DECEMBER 2010 Fixed-term <strong>Parliament</strong>s Bill 876<br />
Lloyd, Stephen<br />
Long, Naomi<br />
Lopresti, Jack<br />
Lord, Jonathan<br />
Loughton, Tim<br />
Luff, Peter<br />
Lumley, Karen<br />
Macleod, Mary<br />
Maynard, Paul<br />
McCartney, Jason<br />
McCartney, Karl<br />
McLoughlin, rh Mr<br />
Patrick<br />
McPartland, Stephen<br />
McVey, Esther<br />
Menzies, Mark<br />
Mercer, Patrick<br />
Metcalfe, Stephen<br />
Miller, Maria<br />
Mills, Nigel<br />
Milton, Anne<br />
Mitchell, rh Mr Andrew<br />
Moore, rh Michael<br />
Mordaunt, Penny<br />
Morgan, Nicky<br />
Morris, Anne Marie<br />
Morris, David<br />
Morris, James<br />
Mosley, Stephen<br />
Mowat, David<br />
Mulholland, Greg<br />
Mundell, rh David<br />
Munt, Tessa<br />
Murray, Sheryll<br />
Murrison, Dr Andrew<br />
Neill, Robert<br />
Newmark, Mr Brooks<br />
Newton, Sarah<br />
Nokes, Caroline<br />
O’Brien, Mr Stephen<br />
Offord, Mr Matthew<br />
Ollerenshaw, Eric<br />
Opperman, Guy<br />
Ottaway, Richard<br />
Paice, Mr James<br />
Patel, Priti<br />
Paterson, rh Mr<br />
Owen<br />
Pawsey, Mark<br />
Penning, Mike<br />
Penrose, John<br />
Percy, Andrew<br />
Perry, Claire<br />
Pincher, Christopher<br />
Poulter, Dr Daniel<br />
Prisk, Mr Mark<br />
Pritchard, Mark<br />
Pugh, Dr John<br />
Raab, Mr Dominic<br />
Randall, rh Mr John<br />
Reckless, Mark<br />
Redwood, rh Mr John<br />
Reid, Mr Alan<br />
Rifkind, rh Sir Malcolm<br />
Robathan, Mr Andrew<br />
Robertson, Mr Laurence<br />
Rogerson, Dan<br />
Rosindell, Andrew<br />
Ruffley, Mr David<br />
Russell, Bob<br />
Question accordingly negatived.<br />
Rutley, David<br />
Sanders, Mr Adrian<br />
Sandys, Laura<br />
Scott, Mr Lee<br />
Selous, Andrew<br />
Shapps, rh Grant<br />
Sharma, Alok<br />
Shelbrooke, Alec<br />
Simmonds, Mark<br />
Simpson, Mr Keith<br />
Skidmore, Chris<br />
Smith, Miss Chloe<br />
Smith, Julian<br />
Soames, Nicholas<br />
Soubry, Anna<br />
Spelman, rh Mrs<br />
Caroline<br />
Stanley, rh Sir John<br />
Stephenson, Andrew<br />
Stevenson, John<br />
Stewart, Bob<br />
Stewart, Iain<br />
Stewart, Rory<br />
Streeter, Mr Gary<br />
Stride, Mel<br />
Stuart, Mr Graham<br />
Stunell, Andrew<br />
Sturdy, Julian<br />
Swales, Ian<br />
Swayne, Mr Desmond<br />
Swinson, Jo<br />
Swire, Mr Hugo<br />
Syms, Mr Robert<br />
Teather, Sarah<br />
Thurso, John<br />
Timpson, Mr Edward<br />
Tomlinson, Justin<br />
Tredinnick, David<br />
Truss, Elizabeth<br />
Tyrie, Mr Andrew<br />
Uppal, Paul<br />
Vaizey, Mr Edward<br />
Vickers, Martin<br />
Villiers, rh Mrs T<strong>here</strong>sa<br />
Walker, Mr Robin<br />
Wallace, Mr Ben<br />
Watkinson, Angela<br />
Weatherley, Mike<br />
Webb, Steve<br />
Wharton, James<br />
Wheeler, Heather<br />
White, Chris<br />
Whittaker, Craig<br />
Wiggin, Bill<br />
Willetts, rh Mr David<br />
Williams, Mr Mark<br />
Williams, Roger<br />
Williams, Stephen<br />
Williamson, Gavin<br />
Willott, Jenny<br />
Wilson, Mr Rob<br />
Wollaston, Dr Sarah<br />
Wright, Simon<br />
Yeo, Mr Tim<br />
Young, rh Sir George<br />
Zahawi, Nadhim<br />
Tellers for the Noes:<br />
Jeremy Wright and<br />
Mr Shailesh Vara<br />
More than three hours having elapsed since the<br />
commencement of proceedings, the proceedings were<br />
interrupted (Programme Orders, 13 September and<br />
24 November).<br />
The Chair put forthwith the Questions necessary for<br />
the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time<br />
(Standing Order No. 83D).<br />
Amendment proposed: 23, in clause 2, page 2, line 17, at<br />
end insert—<br />
‘(4A) The Speaker shall issue a certificate under subsection (1)<br />
or (2) within 24 hours of the relevant conditions being met under<br />
subsection (1) or (2).’.—(Chris Bryant.)<br />
Question put, That the amendment be made.<br />
The Committee divided: Ayes 229, Noes 302.<br />
Division No. 139]<br />
[3.56 pm<br />
Abbott, Ms Diane<br />
Ainsworth, rh Mr Bob<br />
Alexander, rh Mr Douglas<br />
Alexander, Heidi<br />
Ali, Rushanara<br />
Austin, Ian<br />
Bain, Mr William<br />
Balls, rh Ed<br />
Banks, Gordon<br />
Barron, rh Mr Kevin<br />
Bayley, Hugh<br />
Bell, Sir Stuart<br />
Benn, rh Hilary<br />
Berger, Luciana<br />
Betts, Mr Clive<br />
Blackman-Woods, Roberta<br />
Blears, rh Hazel<br />
Blenkinsop, Tom<br />
Blomfield, Paul<br />
Blunkett, rh Mr David<br />
Bradshaw, rh Mr Ben<br />
Brennan, Kevin<br />
Brown, Lyn<br />
Brown, rh Mr Nicholas<br />
Brown, Mr Russell<br />
Bryant, Chris<br />
Buck, Ms Karen<br />
Burden, Richard<br />
Burnham, rh Andy<br />
Byrne, rh Mr Liam<br />
Cairns, David<br />
Campbell, Mr Alan<br />
Campbell, Mr Ronnie<br />
Caton, Martin<br />
Chapman, Mrs Jenny<br />
Clark, Katy<br />
Clarke, rh Mr Tom<br />
Clwyd, rh Ann<br />
Coaker, Vernon<br />
Coffey, Ann<br />
Cooper, Rosie<br />
Corbyn, Jeremy<br />
Crausby, Mr David<br />
Creagh, Mary<br />
Creasy, Stella<br />
Cunningham, Alex<br />
Cunningham, Mr Jim<br />
Cunningham, Tony<br />
Curran, Margaret<br />
Dakin, Nic<br />
Danczuk, Simon<br />
Darling, rh Mr Alistair<br />
AYES<br />
Davidson, Mr Ian<br />
Davies, Geraint<br />
De Piero, Gloria<br />
Dobson, rh Frank<br />
Dodds, rh Mr Nigel<br />
Donohoe, Mr Brian H.<br />
Doran, Mr Frank<br />
Doyle, Gemma<br />
Dromey, Jack<br />
Dugher, Michael<br />
Eagle, Ms Angela<br />
Eagle, Maria<br />
Edwards, Jonathan<br />
Efford, Clive<br />
Ellman, Mrs Louise<br />
Engel, Natascha<br />
Esterson, Bill<br />
Evans, Chris<br />
Farrelly, Paul<br />
Field, rh Mr Frank<br />
Fitzpatrick, Jim<br />
Flint, rh Caroline<br />
Fovargue, Yvonne<br />
Francis, Dr Hywel<br />
Gapes, Mike<br />
Gardiner, Barry<br />
Gilmore, Sheila<br />
Glass, Pat<br />
Godsiff, Mr Roger<br />
Goggins, rh Paul<br />
Goodman, Helen<br />
Greatrex, Tom<br />
Green, Kate<br />
Greenwood, Lilian<br />
Griffith, Nia<br />
Gwynne, Andrew<br />
Hain, rh Mr Peter<br />
Hanson, rh Mr David<br />
Harman, rh Ms Harriet<br />
Harris, Mr Tom<br />
Havard, Mr Dai<br />
Healey, rh John<br />
Hepburn, Mr Stephen<br />
Hermon, Lady<br />
Heyes, David<br />
Hillier, Meg<br />
Hilling, Julie<br />
Hodge, rh Margaret<br />
Hodgson, Mrs Sharon<br />
Hollobone, Mr Philip<br />
Hosie, Stewart<br />
Howarth, rh Mr George
877 Fixed-term <strong>Parliament</strong>s Bill 1 DECEMBER 2010 Fixed-term <strong>Parliament</strong>s Bill 878<br />
Hunt, Tristram<br />
Irranca-Davies, Huw<br />
James, Mrs Siân C.<br />
Jamieson, Cathy<br />
Johnson, rh Alan<br />
Johnson, Diana<br />
Jones, Graham<br />
Jones, Helen<br />
Jones, Mr Kevan<br />
Jones, Susan Elan<br />
Jowell, rh Tessa<br />
Joyce, Eric<br />
Kaufman, rh Sir Gerald<br />
Keeley, Barbara<br />
Keen, Alan<br />
Kendall, Liz<br />
Khan, rh Sadiq<br />
Lammy, rh Mr David<br />
Lavery, Ian<br />
Lazarowicz, Mark<br />
Leslie, Chris<br />
Lewis, Mr Ivan<br />
Lloyd, Tony<br />
Llwyd, Mr Elfyn<br />
Love, Mr Andrew<br />
Lucas, Caroline<br />
Lucas, Ian<br />
MacNeil, Mr Angus Brendan<br />
Mactaggart, Fiona<br />
Mahmood, Mr Khalid<br />
Mahmood, Shabana<br />
Mann, John<br />
Marsden, Mr Gordon<br />
McCann, Mr Michael<br />
McCarthy, Kerry<br />
McClymont, Gregg<br />
McDonagh, Siobhain<br />
McFadden, rh Mr Pat<br />
McGovern, Jim<br />
McGuire, rh Mrs Anne<br />
McKechin, Ann<br />
McKinnell, Catherine<br />
Meacher, rh Mr Michael<br />
Mearns, Ian<br />
Michael, rh Alun<br />
Miliband, rh David<br />
Miller, Andrew<br />
Moon, Mrs Madeleine<br />
Morden, Jessica<br />
Morrice, Graeme (Livingston)<br />
Morris, Grahame M.<br />
(Easington)<br />
Mudie, Mr George<br />
Munn, Meg<br />
Murphy, rh Paul<br />
Murray, Ian<br />
Nandy, Lisa<br />
Nash, Pamela<br />
Nuttall, Mr David<br />
O’Donnell, Fiona<br />
Onwurah, Chi<br />
Owen, Albert<br />
Paisley, Ian<br />
Pearce, Teresa<br />
Perkins, Toby<br />
Adams, Nigel<br />
Afriyie, Adam<br />
Aldous, Peter<br />
Alexander, rh Danny<br />
NOES<br />
Pound, Stephen<br />
Qureshi, Yasmin<br />
Raynsford, rh Mr Nick<br />
Reynolds, Emma<br />
Reynolds, Jonathan<br />
Riordan, Mrs Linda<br />
Robertson, Angus<br />
Robertson, John<br />
Robinson, Mr Geoffrey<br />
Rotheram, Steve<br />
Roy, Mr Frank<br />
Roy, Lindsay<br />
Ruane, Chris<br />
Ruddock, rh Joan<br />
Sarwar, Anas<br />
Seabeck, Alison<br />
Shannon, Jim<br />
Sharma, Mr Virendra<br />
Sheerman, Mr Barry<br />
Shepherd, Mr Richard<br />
Sheridan, Jim<br />
Shuker, Gavin<br />
Simpson, David<br />
Singh, Mr Marsha<br />
Skinner, Mr Dennis<br />
Slaughter, Mr Andy<br />
Smith, Angela<br />
Smith, Nick<br />
Smith, Owen<br />
Soulsby, Sir Peter<br />
Spellar, rh Mr John<br />
Stringer, Graham<br />
Stuart, Ms Gisela<br />
Sutcliffe, Mr Gerry<br />
Thomas, Mr Gareth<br />
Thornberry, Emily<br />
Timms, rh Stephen<br />
Trickett, Jon<br />
Turner, Mr Andrew<br />
Turner, Karl<br />
Twigg, Derek<br />
Twigg, Stephen<br />
Umunna, Mr Chuka<br />
Vaz, rh Keith<br />
Vaz, Valerie<br />
Walley, Joan<br />
Watson, Mr Tom<br />
Watts, Mr Dave<br />
Whiteford, Dr Eilidh<br />
Whitehead, Dr Alan<br />
Williams, Hywel<br />
Williamson, Chris<br />
Wilson, Phil<br />
Wilson, Sammy<br />
Winnick, Mr David<br />
Winterton, rh Ms Rosie<br />
Wishart, Pete<br />
Woodcock, John<br />
Woodward, rh Mr Shaun<br />
Wright, David<br />
Wright, Mr Iain<br />
Tellers for the Ayes:<br />
Mark Hendrick and<br />
Mr David Hamilton<br />
Andrew, Stuart<br />
Arbuthnot, rh Mr James<br />
Bacon, Mr Richard<br />
Bagshawe, Ms Louise<br />
Baker, Norman<br />
Baker, Steve<br />
Baldry, Tony<br />
Baldwin, Harriett<br />
Barclay, Stephen<br />
Barker, Gregory<br />
Barwell, Gavin<br />
Bebb, Guto<br />
Benyon, Richard<br />
Beresford, Sir Paul<br />
Berry, Jake<br />
Bingham, Andrew<br />
Birtwistle, Gordon<br />
Blackman, Bob<br />
Blackwood, Nicola<br />
Blunt, Mr Crispin<br />
Boles, Nick<br />
Bottomley, Peter<br />
Bradley, Karen<br />
Brady, Mr Graham<br />
Brake, Tom<br />
Bray, Angie<br />
Brazier, Mr Julian<br />
Bridgen, Andrew<br />
Brokenshire, James<br />
Brooke, Annette<br />
Browne, Mr Jeremy<br />
Bruce, Fiona<br />
Bruce, rh Malcolm<br />
Buckland, Mr Robert<br />
Burley, Mr Aidan<br />
Burns, Conor<br />
Burrowes, Mr David<br />
Burstow, Paul<br />
Burt, Lorely<br />
Byles, Dan<br />
Cable, rh Vince<br />
Cairns, Alun<br />
Campbell, rh Sir Menzies<br />
Carmichael, Mr Alistair<br />
Carmichael, Neil<br />
Clappison, Mr James<br />
Clark, rh Greg<br />
Clarke, rh Mr Kenneth<br />
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey<br />
Coffey, Dr Thérèse<br />
Collins, Damian<br />
Colvile, Oliver<br />
Cox, Mr Geoffrey<br />
Crabb, Stephen<br />
Crockart, Mike<br />
Crouch, Tracey<br />
Davey, Mr Edward<br />
Davies, David T. C.<br />
(Monmouth)<br />
Davies, Glyn<br />
Davis, rh Mr David<br />
de Bois, Nick<br />
Dinenage, Caroline<br />
Djanogly, Mr Jonathan<br />
Dorrell, rh Mr Stephen<br />
Dorries, Nadine<br />
Doyle-Price, Jackie<br />
Duddridge, James<br />
Duncan Smith, rh Mr<br />
Iain<br />
Dunne, Mr Philip<br />
Ellis, Michael<br />
Ellison, Jane<br />
Ellwood, Mr Tobias<br />
Elphicke, Charlie<br />
Evans, Graham<br />
Evans, Jonathan<br />
Evennett, Mr David<br />
Fabricant, Michael<br />
Fallon, Michael<br />
Farron, Tim<br />
Featherstone, Lynne<br />
Field, Mr Mark<br />
Foster, Mr Don<br />
Francois, rh Mr Mark<br />
Freeman, George<br />
Fullbrook, Lorraine<br />
Fuller, Richard<br />
Gale, Mr Roger<br />
Garnier, Mr Edward<br />
Garnier, Mark<br />
Gauke, Mr David<br />
George, Andrew<br />
Gibb, Mr Nick<br />
Gilbert, Stephen<br />
Gillan, rh Mrs Cheryl<br />
Glen, John<br />
Goodwill, Mr Robert<br />
Gove, rh Michael<br />
Graham, Richard<br />
Grant, Mrs Helen<br />
Gray, Mr James<br />
Grayling, rh Chris<br />
Green, Damian<br />
Greening, Justine<br />
Grieve, rh Mr Dominic<br />
Griffiths, Andrew<br />
Gummer, Ben<br />
Halfon, Robert<br />
Hames, Duncan<br />
Hammond, Stephen<br />
Hancock, Matthew<br />
Hands, Greg<br />
Harper, Mr Mark<br />
Harrington, Richard<br />
Harris, Rebecca<br />
Hart, Simon<br />
Harvey, Nick<br />
Haselhurst, rh Sir<br />
Alan<br />
Heald, Mr Oliver<br />
Heath, Mr David<br />
Heaton-Harris, Chris<br />
Hemming, John<br />
Henderson, Gordon<br />
Hendry, Charles<br />
Herbert, rh Nick<br />
Hinds, Damian<br />
Hollingbery, George<br />
Holloway, Mr Adam<br />
Hopkins, Kris<br />
Horwood, Martin<br />
Howarth, Mr Gerald<br />
Howell, John<br />
Hughes, Simon<br />
Huhne, rh Chris<br />
Huppert, Dr Julian<br />
Hurd, Mr Nick<br />
Jackson, Mr Stewart<br />
Johnson, Gareth<br />
Johnson, Joseph<br />
Jones, Andrew<br />
Jones, Mr David<br />
Jones, Mr Marcus<br />
Kawczynski, Daniel<br />
Kelly, Chris<br />
Knight, rh Mr Greg<br />
Kwarteng, Kwasi
879 Fixed-term <strong>Parliament</strong>s Bill 1 DECEMBER 2010 Fixed-term <strong>Parliament</strong>s Bill 880<br />
Laing, Mrs Eleanor<br />
Lamb, Norman<br />
Lancaster, Mark<br />
Latham, Pauline<br />
Laws, rh Mr David<br />
Lee, Jessica<br />
Lee, Dr Phillip<br />
Leech, Mr John<br />
Lefroy, Jeremy<br />
Leigh, Mr Edward<br />
Leslie, Charlotte<br />
Lewis, Brandon<br />
Lilley, rh Mr Peter<br />
Lloyd, Stephen<br />
Long, Naomi<br />
Lopresti, Jack<br />
Lord, Jonathan<br />
Loughton, Tim<br />
Luff, Peter<br />
Lumley, Karen<br />
Macleod, Mary<br />
Main, Mrs Anne<br />
Maynard, Paul<br />
McCartney, Jason<br />
McCartney, Karl<br />
McLoughlin, rh Mr<br />
Patrick<br />
McPartland, Stephen<br />
McVey, Esther<br />
Menzies, Mark<br />
Mercer, Patrick<br />
Metcalfe, Stephen<br />
Miller, Maria<br />
Mills, Nigel<br />
Milton, Anne<br />
Mitchell, rh Mr Andrew<br />
Moore, rh Michael<br />
Mordaunt, Penny<br />
Morgan, Nicky<br />
Morris, Anne Marie<br />
Morris, David<br />
Morris, James<br />
Mosley, Stephen<br />
Mowat, David<br />
Mulholland, Greg<br />
Mundell, rh David<br />
Munt, Tessa<br />
Murray, Sheryll<br />
Murrison, Dr Andrew<br />
Neill, Robert<br />
Newmark, Mr Brooks<br />
Newton, Sarah<br />
Nokes, Caroline<br />
Norman, Jesse<br />
O’Brien, Mr Stephen<br />
Offord, Mr Matthew<br />
Ollerenshaw, Eric<br />
Opperman, Guy<br />
Ottaway, Richard<br />
Paice, Mr James<br />
Patel, Priti<br />
Paterson, rh Mr Owen<br />
Pawsey, Mark<br />
Penning, Mike<br />
Penrose, John<br />
Percy, Andrew<br />
Perry, Claire<br />
Pincher, Christopher<br />
Poulter, Dr Daniel<br />
Prisk, Mr Mark<br />
Pritchard, Mark<br />
Pugh, Dr John<br />
Raab, Mr Dominic<br />
Randall, rh Mr John<br />
Reckless, Mark<br />
Redwood, rh Mr John<br />
Rees-Mogg, Jacob<br />
Reevell, Simon<br />
Reid, Mr Alan<br />
Rifkind, rh Sir Malcolm<br />
Robathan, Mr Andrew<br />
Robertson, Mr Laurence<br />
Rogerson, Dan<br />
Rosindell, Andrew<br />
Ruffley, Mr David<br />
Russell, Bob<br />
Rutley, David<br />
Sanders, Mr Adrian<br />
Scott, Mr Lee<br />
Selous, Andrew<br />
Shapps, rh Grant<br />
Sharma, Alok<br />
Shelbrooke, Alec<br />
Simmonds, Mark<br />
Simpson, Mr Keith<br />
Skidmore, Chris<br />
Smith, Miss Chloe<br />
Smith, Julian<br />
Smith, Sir Robert<br />
Soames, Nicholas<br />
Soubry, Anna<br />
Spelman, rh Mrs<br />
Caroline<br />
Stanley, rh Sir John<br />
Stephenson, Andrew<br />
Stevenson, John<br />
Stewart, Bob<br />
Stewart, Iain<br />
Stewart, Rory<br />
Streeter, Mr Gary<br />
Stride, Mel<br />
Stuart, Mr Graham<br />
Stunell, Andrew<br />
Sturdy, Julian<br />
Swales, Ian<br />
Swayne, Mr Desmond<br />
Swinson, Jo<br />
Swire, Mr Hugo<br />
Syms, Mr Robert<br />
Teather, Sarah<br />
Thurso, John<br />
Timpson, Mr Edward<br />
Tomlinson, Justin<br />
Tredinnick, David<br />
Truss, Elizabeth<br />
Tyrie, Mr Andrew<br />
Uppal, Paul<br />
Vaizey, Mr Edward<br />
Vickers, Martin<br />
Villiers, rh Mrs T<strong>here</strong>sa<br />
Walker, Mr Charles<br />
Walker, Mr Robin<br />
Wallace, Mr Ben<br />
Watkinson, Angela<br />
Weatherley, Mike<br />
Webb, Steve<br />
Wharton, James<br />
Wheeler, Heather<br />
White, Chris<br />
Whittaker, Craig<br />
Whittingdale, Mr John<br />
Wiggin, Bill<br />
Willetts, rh Mr David<br />
Williams, Mr Mark<br />
Williams, Roger<br />
Williams, Stephen<br />
Williamson, Gavin<br />
Willott, Jenny<br />
Wilson, Mr Rob<br />
Wollaston, Dr Sarah<br />
Wright, Jeremy<br />
Wright, Simon<br />
Yeo, Mr Tim<br />
Young, rh Sir George<br />
Zahawi, Nadhim<br />
Tellers for the Noes:<br />
Mark Hunter and<br />
Mr Shailesh Vara<br />
Question accordingly negatived.<br />
Amendment proposed: 25, in page 2, line 24, at end<br />
add—<br />
‘(6A) In this section a “motion of no confidence in Her<br />
Majesty’s Government” shall be—<br />
(a) in the terms “This House has no confidence in Her<br />
Majesty’s Government” or<br />
(b) in the terms “This House has no confidence in the<br />
Prime Minister”.’.—(Chris Bryant.)<br />
Question put, That the amendment be made.<br />
The Committee divided: Ayes 229, Noes 298.<br />
Division No. 140]<br />
[4.08 pm<br />
Abbott, Ms Diane<br />
Ainsworth, rh Mr Bob<br />
Alexander, rh Mr Douglas<br />
Alexander, Heidi<br />
Ali, Rushanara<br />
Austin, Ian<br />
Bain, Mr William<br />
Banks, Gordon<br />
Barron, rh Mr Kevin<br />
Bayley, Hugh<br />
Bell, Sir Stuart<br />
Benn, rh Hilary<br />
Berger, Luciana<br />
Betts, Mr Clive<br />
Blackman-Woods,<br />
Roberta<br />
Blears, rh Hazel<br />
Blenkinsop, Tom<br />
Blomfield, Paul<br />
Blunkett, rh Mr David<br />
Bradshaw, rh Mr Ben<br />
Brennan, Kevin<br />
Brown, Lyn<br />
Brown, rh Mr Nicholas<br />
Brown, Mr Russell<br />
Bryant, Chris<br />
Buck, Ms Karen<br />
Burden, Richard<br />
Burnham, rh Andy<br />
Byrne, rh Mr Liam<br />
Cairns, David<br />
Campbell, Mr Alan<br />
Campbell, Mr Ronnie<br />
Caton, Martin<br />
Chapman, Mrs Jenny<br />
Clark, Katy<br />
Clarke, rh Mr Tom<br />
Clwyd, rh Ann<br />
Coaker, Vernon<br />
Coffey, Ann<br />
Cooper, Rosie<br />
Corbyn, Jeremy<br />
Crausby, Mr David<br />
Creagh, Mary<br />
Creasy, Stella<br />
Cruddas, Jon<br />
Cunningham, Alex<br />
AYES<br />
Cunningham, Mr Jim<br />
Cunningham, Tony<br />
Curran, Margaret<br />
Dakin, Nic<br />
Danczuk, Simon<br />
Darling, rh Mr Alistair<br />
Davidson, Mr Ian<br />
Davies, Geraint<br />
De Piero, Gloria<br />
Dobson, rh Frank<br />
Dodds, rh Mr Nigel<br />
Donohoe, Mr Brian<br />
H.<br />
Doran, Mr Frank<br />
Doyle, Gemma<br />
Dromey, Jack<br />
Dugher, Michael<br />
Eagle, Ms Angela<br />
Eagle, Maria<br />
Edwards, Jonathan<br />
Efford, Clive<br />
Ellman, Mrs Louise<br />
Engel, Natascha<br />
Esterson, Bill<br />
Evans, Chris<br />
Farrelly, Paul<br />
Field, rh Mr Frank<br />
Fitzpatrick, Jim<br />
Flint, rh Caroline<br />
Fovargue, Yvonne<br />
Francis, Dr Hywel<br />
Gapes, Mike<br />
Gardiner, Barry<br />
Gilmore, Sheila<br />
Glass, Pat<br />
Godsiff, Mr Roger<br />
Goggins, rh Paul<br />
Goodman, Helen<br />
Greatrex, Tom<br />
Green, Kate<br />
Greenwood, Lilian<br />
Griffith, Nia<br />
Gwynne, Andrew<br />
Hain, rh Mr Peter<br />
Hanson, rh Mr David<br />
Harman, rh Ms Harriet<br />
Harris, Mr Tom
881 Fixed-term <strong>Parliament</strong>s Bill 1 DECEMBER 2010 Fixed-term <strong>Parliament</strong>s Bill 882<br />
Havard, Mr Dai<br />
Healey, rh John<br />
Hepburn, Mr Stephen<br />
Hermon, Lady<br />
Heyes, David<br />
Hillier, Meg<br />
Hilling, Julie<br />
Hodge, rh Margaret<br />
Hodgson, Mrs Sharon<br />
Hollobone, Mr Philip<br />
Hosie, Stewart<br />
Howarth, rh Mr George<br />
Hunt, Tristram<br />
Irranca-Davies, Huw<br />
James, Mrs Siân C.<br />
Jamieson, Cathy<br />
Johnson, rh Alan<br />
Johnson, Diana<br />
Jones, Graham<br />
Jones, Helen<br />
Jones, Mr Kevan<br />
Jones, Susan Elan<br />
Jowell, rh Tessa<br />
Joyce, Eric<br />
Kaufman, rh Sir Gerald<br />
Keeley, Barbara<br />
Keen, Alan<br />
Kendall, Liz<br />
Khan, rh Sadiq<br />
Lammy, rh Mr David<br />
Lavery, Ian<br />
Lazarowicz, Mark<br />
Leslie, Chris<br />
Lewis, Mr Ivan<br />
Lloyd, Tony<br />
Llwyd, Mr Elfyn<br />
Long, Naomi<br />
Love, Mr Andrew<br />
Lucas, Caroline<br />
Lucas, Ian<br />
MacNeil, Mr Angus<br />
Brendan<br />
Mactaggart, Fiona<br />
Mahmood, Mr Khalid<br />
Mahmood, Shabana<br />
Mann, John<br />
Marsden, Mr Gordon<br />
McCann, Mr Michael<br />
McCarthy, Kerry<br />
McClymont, Gregg<br />
McDonagh, Siobhain<br />
McFadden, rh Mr Pat<br />
McGovern, Jim<br />
McGuire, rh Mrs Anne<br />
McKechin, Ann<br />
McKinnell, Catherine<br />
Meacher, rh Mr Michael<br />
Mearns, Ian<br />
Michael, rh Alun<br />
Miliband, rh David<br />
Miller, Andrew<br />
Moon, Mrs Madeleine<br />
Morden, Jessica<br />
Morrice, Graeme (Livingston)<br />
Morris, Grahame M.<br />
(Easington)<br />
Mudie, Mr George<br />
Munn, Meg<br />
Murphy, rh Paul<br />
Murray, Ian<br />
Nandy, Lisa<br />
Nash, Pamela<br />
Nuttall, Mr David<br />
O’Donnell, Fiona<br />
Onwurah, Chi<br />
Owen, Albert<br />
Paisley, Ian<br />
Pearce, Teresa<br />
Perkins, Toby<br />
Pound, Stephen<br />
Qureshi, Yasmin<br />
Raynsford, rh Mr Nick<br />
Reynolds, Emma<br />
Reynolds, Jonathan<br />
Riordan, Mrs Linda<br />
Robertson, Angus<br />
Robertson, John<br />
Robinson, Mr Geoffrey<br />
Rotheram, Steve<br />
Roy, Mr Frank<br />
Roy, Lindsay<br />
Ruane, Chris<br />
Ruddock, rh Joan<br />
Sarwar, Anas<br />
Seabeck, Alison<br />
Shannon, Jim<br />
Sharma, Mr Virendra<br />
Sheerman, Mr Barry<br />
Sheridan, Jim<br />
Shuker, Gavin<br />
Simpson, David<br />
Singh, Mr Marsha<br />
Skinner, Mr Dennis<br />
Slaughter, Mr Andy<br />
Smith, Angela<br />
Smith, Nick<br />
Smith, Owen<br />
Soulsby, Sir Peter<br />
Spellar, rh Mr John<br />
Stringer, Graham<br />
Stuart, Ms Gisela<br />
Sutcliffe, Mr Gerry<br />
Thomas, Mr Gareth<br />
Thornberry, Emily<br />
Timms, rh Stephen<br />
Trickett, Jon<br />
Turner, Mr Andrew<br />
Turner, Karl<br />
Twigg, Derek<br />
Twigg, Stephen<br />
Umunna, Mr Chuka<br />
Vaz, rh Keith<br />
Vaz, Valerie<br />
Walley, Joan<br />
Watson, Mr Tom<br />
Watts, Mr Dave<br />
Whiteford, Dr Eilidh<br />
Whitehead, Dr Alan<br />
Williams, Hywel<br />
Williamson, Chris<br />
Wilson, Phil<br />
Wilson, Sammy<br />
Winnick, Mr David<br />
Winterton, rh Ms Rosie<br />
Wishart, Pete<br />
Woodcock, John<br />
Woodward, rh Mr Shaun<br />
Wright, David<br />
Wright, Mr Iain<br />
Tellers for the Ayes:<br />
Mr David Hamilton and<br />
Mark Hendrick<br />
Adams, Nigel<br />
Afriyie, Adam<br />
Aldous, Peter<br />
Alexander, rh Danny<br />
Andrew, Stuart<br />
Arbuthnot, rh Mr James<br />
Bacon, Mr Richard<br />
Bagshawe, Ms Louise<br />
Baker, Norman<br />
Baker, Steve<br />
Baldry, Tony<br />
Baldwin, Harriett<br />
Barclay, Stephen<br />
Barker, Gregory<br />
Barwell, Gavin<br />
Bebb, Guto<br />
Benyon, Richard<br />
Beresford, Sir Paul<br />
Berry, Jake<br />
Bingham, Andrew<br />
Birtwistle, Gordon<br />
Blackman, Bob<br />
Blackwood, Nicola<br />
Blunt, Mr Crispin<br />
Boles, Nick<br />
Bottomley, Peter<br />
Bradley, Karen<br />
Brady, Mr Graham<br />
Brake, Tom<br />
Bray, Angie<br />
Brazier, Mr Julian<br />
Bridgen, Andrew<br />
Brokenshire, James<br />
Brooke, Annette<br />
Browne, Mr Jeremy<br />
Bruce, Fiona<br />
Bruce, rh Malcolm<br />
Buckland, Mr Robert<br />
Burley, Mr Aidan<br />
Burns, Conor<br />
Burrowes, Mr David<br />
Burstow, Paul<br />
Burt, Lorely<br />
Byles, Dan<br />
Cable, rh Vince<br />
Cairns, Alun<br />
Campbell, rh Sir Menzies<br />
Carmichael, Mr Alistair<br />
Carmichael, Neil<br />
Carswell, Mr Douglas<br />
Clark, rh Greg<br />
Clarke, rh Mr Kenneth<br />
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey<br />
Coffey, Dr Thérèse<br />
Collins, Damian<br />
Colvile, Oliver<br />
Cox, Mr Geoffrey<br />
Crabb, Stephen<br />
Crockart, Mike<br />
Crouch, Tracey<br />
Davies, David T. C.<br />
(Monmouth)<br />
Davies, Glyn<br />
Davis, rh Mr David<br />
de Bois, Nick<br />
Dinenage, Caroline<br />
Djanogly, Mr Jonathan<br />
Dorrell, rh Mr Stephen<br />
Dorries, Nadine<br />
Doyle-Price, Jackie<br />
Duddridge, James<br />
NOES<br />
Duncan Smith, rh Mr Iain<br />
Dunne, Mr Philip<br />
Ellis, Michael<br />
Ellison, Jane<br />
Ellwood, Mr Tobias<br />
Elphicke, Charlie<br />
Evans, Graham<br />
Evans, Jonathan<br />
Evennett, Mr David<br />
Fabricant, Michael<br />
Fallon, Michael<br />
Farron, Tim<br />
Featherstone, Lynne<br />
Field, Mr Mark<br />
Foster, Mr Don<br />
Francois, rh Mr Mark<br />
Freeman, George<br />
Fullbrook, Lorraine<br />
Fuller, Richard<br />
Gale, Mr Roger<br />
Garnier, Mr Edward<br />
Garnier, Mark<br />
Gauke, Mr David<br />
George, Andrew<br />
Gibb, Mr Nick<br />
Gilbert, Stephen<br />
Gillan, rh Mrs Cheryl<br />
Glen, John<br />
Goodwill, Mr Robert<br />
Graham, Richard<br />
Grant, Mrs Helen<br />
Gray, Mr James<br />
Grayling, rh Chris<br />
Green, Damian<br />
Greening, Justine<br />
Grieve, rh Mr Dominic<br />
Griffiths, Andrew<br />
Gummer, Ben<br />
Halfon, Robert<br />
Hames, Duncan<br />
Hammond, Stephen<br />
Hancock, Matthew<br />
Hands, Greg<br />
Harper, Mr Mark<br />
Harrington, Richard<br />
Harris, Rebecca<br />
Hart, Simon<br />
Harvey, Nick<br />
Haselhurst, rh Sir Alan<br />
Heald, Mr Oliver<br />
Heath, Mr David<br />
Heaton-Harris, Chris<br />
Hemming, John<br />
Henderson, Gordon<br />
Hendry, Charles<br />
Herbert, rh Nick<br />
Hinds, Damian<br />
Hollingbery, George<br />
Holloway, Mr Adam<br />
Hopkins, Kris<br />
Horwood, Martin<br />
Howarth, Mr Gerald<br />
Howell, John<br />
Hughes, Simon<br />
Huhne, rh Chris<br />
Hunter, Mark<br />
Huppert, Dr Julian<br />
Hurd, Mr Nick<br />
Jackson, Mr Stewart<br />
Johnson, Gareth<br />
Johnson, Joseph
883 Fixed-term <strong>Parliament</strong>s Bill 1 DECEMBER 2010 Fixed-term <strong>Parliament</strong>s Bill 884<br />
Jones, Andrew<br />
Jones, Mr David<br />
Jones, Mr Marcus<br />
Kawczynski, Daniel<br />
Kelly, Chris<br />
Knight, rh Mr Greg<br />
Kwarteng, Kwasi<br />
Laing, Mrs Eleanor<br />
Lamb, Norman<br />
Lancaster, Mark<br />
Latham, Pauline<br />
Laws, rh Mr David<br />
Lee, Jessica<br />
Lee, Dr Phillip<br />
Lefroy, Jeremy<br />
Leigh, Mr Edward<br />
Leslie, Charlotte<br />
Lewis, Brandon<br />
Lilley, rh Mr Peter<br />
Lloyd, Stephen<br />
Lopresti, Jack<br />
Lord, Jonathan<br />
Loughton, Tim<br />
Luff, Peter<br />
Lumley, Karen<br />
Macleod, Mary<br />
Main, Mrs Anne<br />
Maynard, Paul<br />
McCartney, Jason<br />
McCartney, Karl<br />
McLoughlin, rh Mr<br />
Patrick<br />
McPartland, Stephen<br />
McVey, Esther<br />
Menzies, Mark<br />
Mercer, Patrick<br />
Metcalfe, Stephen<br />
Miller, Maria<br />
Mills, Nigel<br />
Milton, Anne<br />
Mitchell, rh Mr Andrew<br />
Moore, rh Michael<br />
Mordaunt, Penny<br />
Morgan, Nicky<br />
Morris, Anne Marie<br />
Morris, David<br />
Morris, James<br />
Mosley, Stephen<br />
Mowat, David<br />
Mulholland, Greg<br />
Mundell, rh David<br />
Munt, Tessa<br />
Murray, Sheryll<br />
Murrison, Dr Andrew<br />
Neill, Robert<br />
Newmark, Mr Brooks<br />
Newton, Sarah<br />
Nokes, Caroline<br />
Norman, Jesse<br />
O’Brien, Mr Stephen<br />
Offord, Mr Matthew<br />
Ollerenshaw, Eric<br />
Opperman, Guy<br />
Ottaway, Richard<br />
Paice, Mr James<br />
Patel, Priti<br />
Paterson, rh Mr Owen<br />
Pawsey, Mark<br />
Penning, Mike<br />
Penrose, John<br />
Percy, Andrew<br />
Perry, Claire<br />
Pincher, Christopher<br />
Poulter, Dr Daniel<br />
Prisk, Mr Mark<br />
Pritchard, Mark<br />
Pugh, Dr John<br />
Raab, Mr Dominic<br />
Randall, rh Mr John<br />
Reckless, Mark<br />
Redwood, rh Mr John<br />
Rees-Mogg, Jacob<br />
Reevell, Simon<br />
Reid, Mr Alan<br />
Rifkind, rh Sir Malcolm<br />
Robathan, Mr Andrew<br />
Robertson, Mr Laurence<br />
Rogerson, Dan<br />
Rosindell, Andrew<br />
Ruffley, Mr David<br />
Russell, Bob<br />
Rutley, David<br />
Sanders, Mr Adrian<br />
Sandys, Laura<br />
Scott, Mr Lee<br />
Selous, Andrew<br />
Shapps, rh Grant<br />
Sharma, Alok<br />
Shelbrooke, Alec<br />
Simmonds, Mark<br />
Simpson, Mr Keith<br />
Skidmore, Chris<br />
Smith, Julian<br />
Smith, Sir Robert<br />
Soames, Nicholas<br />
Soubry, Anna<br />
Spelman, rh Mrs Caroline<br />
Stanley, rh Sir John<br />
Stephenson, Andrew<br />
Stevenson, John<br />
Stewart, Bob<br />
Stewart, Iain<br />
Stewart, Rory<br />
Streeter, Mr Gary<br />
Stride, Mel<br />
Stunell, Andrew<br />
Sturdy, Julian<br />
Swales, Ian<br />
Swayne, Mr Desmond<br />
Swinson, Jo<br />
Swire, Mr Hugo<br />
Syms, Mr Robert<br />
Teather, Sarah<br />
Thurso, John<br />
Timpson, Mr Edward<br />
Tomlinson, Justin<br />
Tredinnick, David<br />
Truss, Elizabeth<br />
Tyrie, Mr Andrew<br />
Uppal, Paul<br />
Vaizey, Mr Edward<br />
Vara, Mr Shailesh<br />
Vickers, Martin<br />
Villiers, rh Mrs T<strong>here</strong>sa<br />
Walker, Mr Charles<br />
Walker, Mr Robin<br />
Wallace, Mr Ben<br />
Watkinson, Angela<br />
Weatherley, Mike<br />
Webb, Steve<br />
Wharton, James<br />
Wheeler, Heather<br />
White, Chris<br />
Whittaker, Craig<br />
Whittingdale, Mr John<br />
Wiggin, Bill<br />
Willetts, rh Mr David<br />
Williams, Mr Mark<br />
Williams, Roger<br />
Williams, Stephen<br />
Williamson, Gavin<br />
Willott, Jenny<br />
Wilson, Mr Rob<br />
Wollaston, Dr Sarah<br />
Wright, Simon<br />
Yeo, Mr Tim<br />
Young, rh Sir George<br />
Zahawi, Nadhim<br />
Tellers for the Noes:<br />
Miss Chloe Smith and<br />
Jeremy Wright<br />
Question accordingly negatived.<br />
Question put (single Question on successive provisions<br />
of the Bill), That clauses 2 to 4 stand part of the Bill.<br />
The Committee divided: Ayes 306, Noes 218.<br />
Division No. 141]<br />
[4.21 pm<br />
Adams, Nigel<br />
Aldous, Peter<br />
Alexander, rh Danny<br />
Andrew, Stuart<br />
Arbuthnot, rh Mr James<br />
Bacon, Mr Richard<br />
Baker, Norman<br />
Baker, Steve<br />
Baldry, Tony<br />
Baldwin, Harriett<br />
Barclay, Stephen<br />
Barker, Gregory<br />
Barwell, Gavin<br />
Bebb, Guto<br />
Beith, rh Sir Alan<br />
Benyon, Richard<br />
Beresford, Sir Paul<br />
Berry, Jake<br />
Bingham, Andrew<br />
Birtwistle, Gordon<br />
Blackman, Bob<br />
Blackwood, Nicola<br />
Blunt, Mr Crispin<br />
Boles, Nick<br />
Bottomley, Peter<br />
Bradley, Karen<br />
Brady, Mr Graham<br />
Brake, Tom<br />
Bray, Angie<br />
Brazier, Mr Julian<br />
Bridgen, Andrew<br />
Brokenshire, James<br />
Brooke, Annette<br />
Browne, Mr Jeremy<br />
Bruce, Fiona<br />
Bruce, rh Malcolm<br />
Buckland, Mr Robert<br />
Burley, Mr Aidan<br />
Burns, Conor<br />
Burrowes, Mr David<br />
Burstow, Paul<br />
Burt, Lorely<br />
Byles, Dan<br />
Cairns, Alun<br />
Campbell, rh Sir Menzies<br />
Carmichael, Mr Alistair<br />
Carmichael, Neil<br />
Carswell, Mr Douglas<br />
Clark, rh Greg<br />
Clarke, rh Mr Kenneth<br />
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey<br />
Coffey, Dr Thérèse<br />
Collins, Damian<br />
AYES<br />
Colvile, Oliver<br />
Cox, Mr Geoffrey<br />
Crabb, Stephen<br />
Crockart, Mike<br />
Crouch, Tracey<br />
Davey, Mr Edward<br />
Davies, David T. C.<br />
(Monmouth)<br />
Davies, Glyn<br />
Davis, rh Mr David<br />
de Bois, Nick<br />
Dinenage, Caroline<br />
Djanogly, Mr Jonathan<br />
Dodds, rh Mr Nigel<br />
Dorrell, rh Mr Stephen<br />
Dorries, Nadine<br />
Doyle-Price, Jackie<br />
Duddridge, James<br />
Duncan Smith, rh Mr<br />
Iain<br />
Dunne, Mr Philip<br />
Ellis, Michael<br />
Ellison, Jane<br />
Ellwood, Mr Tobias<br />
Elphicke, Charlie<br />
Evans, Graham<br />
Evans, Jonathan<br />
Evennett, Mr David<br />
Fabricant, Michael<br />
Fallon, Michael<br />
Farron, Tim<br />
Featherstone, Lynne<br />
Field, Mr Mark<br />
Foster, Mr Don<br />
Francois, rh Mr Mark<br />
Freeman, George<br />
Fullbrook, Lorraine<br />
Fuller, Richard<br />
Gale, Mr Roger<br />
Garnier, Mr Edward<br />
Garnier, Mark<br />
Gauke, Mr David<br />
George, Andrew<br />
Gibb, Mr Nick<br />
Gilbert, Stephen<br />
Gillan, rh Mrs Cheryl<br />
Glen, John<br />
Goodwill, Mr Robert<br />
Gove, rh Michael<br />
Graham, Richard<br />
Grant, Mrs Helen<br />
Gray, Mr James<br />
Grayling, rh Chris
885 Fixed-term <strong>Parliament</strong>s Bill 1 DECEMBER 2010 Fixed-term <strong>Parliament</strong>s Bill 886<br />
Green, Damian<br />
Greening, Justine<br />
Grieve, rh Mr Dominic<br />
Griffiths, Andrew<br />
Gummer, Ben<br />
Halfon, Robert<br />
Hames, Duncan<br />
Hammond, Stephen<br />
Hancock, Matthew<br />
Hands, Greg<br />
Harper, Mr Mark<br />
Harrington, Richard<br />
Harris, Rebecca<br />
Hart, Simon<br />
Harvey, Nick<br />
Haselhurst, rh Sir Alan<br />
Heald, Mr Oliver<br />
Heath, Mr David<br />
Heaton-Harris, Chris<br />
Hemming, John<br />
Henderson, Gordon<br />
Hendry, Charles<br />
Herbert, rh Nick<br />
Hermon, Lady<br />
Hinds, Damian<br />
Hollingbery, George<br />
Holloway, Mr Adam<br />
Hopkins, Kris<br />
Horwood, Martin<br />
Howarth, Mr Gerald<br />
Howell, John<br />
Hughes, Simon<br />
Huhne, rh Chris<br />
Hunter, Mark<br />
Huppert, Dr Julian<br />
Hurd, Mr Nick<br />
Jackson, Mr Stewart<br />
Johnson, Gareth<br />
Johnson, Joseph<br />
Jones, Andrew<br />
Jones, Mr David<br />
Jones, Mr Marcus<br />
Kawczynski, Daniel<br />
Kelly, Chris<br />
Knight, rh Mr Greg<br />
Kwarteng, Kwasi<br />
Laing, Mrs Eleanor<br />
Lamb, Norman<br />
Lancaster, Mark<br />
Latham, Pauline<br />
Laws, rh Mr David<br />
Lee, Jessica<br />
Lee, Dr Phillip<br />
Leech, Mr John<br />
Lefroy, Jeremy<br />
Leigh, Mr Edward<br />
Leslie, Charlotte<br />
Lewis, Brandon<br />
Lilley, rh Mr Peter<br />
Lloyd, Stephen<br />
Long, Naomi<br />
Lopresti, Jack<br />
Lord, Jonathan<br />
Loughton, Tim<br />
Luff, Peter<br />
Lumley, Karen<br />
Macleod, Mary<br />
Main, Mrs Anne<br />
Maynard, Paul<br />
McCartney, Jason<br />
McCartney, Karl<br />
McLoughlin, rh Mr Patrick<br />
McPartland, Stephen<br />
McVey, Esther<br />
Menzies, Mark<br />
Mercer, Patrick<br />
Metcalfe, Stephen<br />
Miller, Maria<br />
Mills, Nigel<br />
Milton, Anne<br />
Mitchell, rh Mr<br />
Andrew<br />
Moore, rh Michael<br />
Mordaunt, Penny<br />
Morgan, Nicky<br />
Morris, Anne Marie<br />
Morris, David<br />
Morris, James<br />
Mosley, Stephen<br />
Mowat, David<br />
Mulholland, Greg<br />
Mundell, rh David<br />
Munt, Tessa<br />
Murray, Sheryll<br />
Murrison, Dr Andrew<br />
Neill, Robert<br />
Newmark, Mr Brooks<br />
Newton, Sarah<br />
Nokes, Caroline<br />
Norman, Jesse<br />
O’Brien, Mr Stephen<br />
Offord, Mr Matthew<br />
Ollerenshaw, Eric<br />
Opperman, Guy<br />
Ottaway, Richard<br />
Paice, Mr James<br />
Paisley, Ian<br />
Patel, Priti<br />
Paterson, rh Mr<br />
Owen<br />
Pawsey, Mark<br />
Penning, Mike<br />
Penrose, John<br />
Percy, Andrew<br />
Perry, Claire<br />
Pincher, Christopher<br />
Poulter, Dr Daniel<br />
Prisk, Mr Mark<br />
Pritchard, Mark<br />
Pugh, Dr John<br />
Raab, Mr Dominic<br />
Randall, rh Mr John<br />
Reckless, Mark<br />
Redwood, rh Mr John<br />
Rees-Mogg, Jacob<br />
Reevell, Simon<br />
Reid, Mr Alan<br />
Rifkind, rh Sir Malcolm<br />
Robathan, Mr Andrew<br />
Rogerson, Dan<br />
Rosindell, Andrew<br />
Ruffley, Mr David<br />
Russell, Bob<br />
Rutley, David<br />
Sanders, Mr Adrian<br />
Sandys, Laura<br />
Scott, Mr Lee<br />
Selous, Andrew<br />
Shannon, Jim<br />
Shapps, rh Grant<br />
Sharma, Alok<br />
Shelbrooke, Alec<br />
Simmonds, Mark<br />
Simpson, David<br />
Simpson, Mr Keith<br />
Skidmore, Chris<br />
Smith, Julian<br />
Smith, Sir Robert<br />
Soames, Nicholas<br />
Soubry, Anna<br />
Spelman, rh Mrs Caroline<br />
Stanley, rh Sir John<br />
Stephenson, Andrew<br />
Stevenson, John<br />
Stewart, Bob<br />
Stewart, Iain<br />
Stewart, Rory<br />
Streeter, Mr Gary<br />
Stride, Mel<br />
Stuart, Mr Graham<br />
Stunell, Andrew<br />
Sturdy, Julian<br />
Swales, Ian<br />
Swayne, Mr Desmond<br />
Swinson, Jo<br />
Swire, Mr Hugo<br />
Syms, Mr Robert<br />
Teather, Sarah<br />
Thurso, John<br />
Timpson, Mr Edward<br />
Tomlinson, Justin<br />
Tredinnick, David<br />
Truss, Elizabeth<br />
Tyrie, Mr Andrew<br />
Uppal, Paul<br />
Vaizey, Mr Edward<br />
Abbott, Ms Diane<br />
Ainsworth, rh Mr Bob<br />
Alexander, rh Mr Douglas<br />
Alexander, Heidi<br />
Ali, Rushanara<br />
Austin, Ian<br />
Bain, Mr William<br />
Banks, Gordon<br />
Barron, rh Mr Kevin<br />
Bayley, Hugh<br />
Bell, Sir Stuart<br />
Benn, rh Hilary<br />
Berger, Luciana<br />
Betts, Mr Clive<br />
Blackman-Woods,<br />
Roberta<br />
Blears, rh Hazel<br />
Blenkinsop, Tom<br />
Blomfield, Paul<br />
Blunkett, rh Mr David<br />
Bradshaw, rh Mr Ben<br />
Brennan, Kevin<br />
Brown, Lyn<br />
Brown, rh Mr Nicholas<br />
Brown, Mr Russell<br />
Bryant, Chris<br />
Buck, Ms Karen<br />
Burden, Richard<br />
Burnham, rh Andy<br />
Byrne, rh Mr Liam<br />
Cairns, David<br />
Campbell, Mr Alan<br />
Campbell, Mr Ronnie<br />
Caton, Martin<br />
Chapman, Mrs Jenny<br />
Clark, Katy<br />
Clarke, rh Mr Tom<br />
NOES<br />
Vara, Mr Shailesh<br />
Vickers, Martin<br />
Villiers, rh Mrs T<strong>here</strong>sa<br />
Walker, Mr Charles<br />
Walker, Mr Robin<br />
Wallace, Mr Ben<br />
Watkinson, Angela<br />
Weatherley, Mike<br />
Webb, Steve<br />
Wharton, James<br />
Wheeler, Heather<br />
White, Chris<br />
Whittaker, Craig<br />
Whittingdale, Mr<br />
John<br />
Wiggin, Bill<br />
Willetts, rh Mr David<br />
Williams, Mr Mark<br />
Williams, Roger<br />
Williams, Stephen<br />
Williamson, Gavin<br />
Willott, Jenny<br />
Wilson, Mr Rob<br />
Wilson, Sammy<br />
Wollaston, Dr Sarah<br />
Wright, Simon<br />
Yeo, Mr Tim<br />
Young, rh Sir George<br />
Zahawi, Nadhim<br />
Tellers for the Ayes:<br />
Miss Chloe Smith and<br />
Jeremy Wright<br />
Clwyd, rh Ann<br />
Coaker, Vernon<br />
Coffey, Ann<br />
Cooper, Rosie<br />
Corbyn, Jeremy<br />
Crausby, Mr David<br />
Creagh, Mary<br />
Creasy, Stella<br />
Cruddas, Jon<br />
Cunningham, Alex<br />
Cunningham, Mr Jim<br />
Cunningham, Tony<br />
Curran, Margaret<br />
Dakin, Nic<br />
Danczuk, Simon<br />
Darling, rh Mr Alistair<br />
Davidson, Mr Ian<br />
Davies, Geraint<br />
De Piero, Gloria<br />
Dobson, rh Frank<br />
Donohoe, Mr Brian<br />
H.<br />
Doran, Mr Frank<br />
Doyle, Gemma<br />
Dromey, Jack<br />
Dugher, Michael<br />
Eagle, Ms Angela<br />
Eagle, Maria<br />
Edwards, Jonathan<br />
Efford, Clive<br />
Ellman, Mrs Louise<br />
Engel, Natascha<br />
Esterson, Bill<br />
Evans, Chris<br />
Farrelly, Paul<br />
Field, rh Mr Frank<br />
Fitzpatrick, Jim
887 Fixed-term <strong>Parliament</strong>s Bill 1 DECEMBER 2010 Fixed-term <strong>Parliament</strong>s Bill 888<br />
Flint, rh Caroline<br />
Fovargue, Yvonne<br />
Francis, Dr Hywel<br />
Gapes, Mike<br />
Gardiner, Barry<br />
Gilmore, Sheila<br />
Glass, Pat<br />
Godsiff, Mr Roger<br />
Goggins, rh Paul<br />
Goodman, Helen<br />
Greatrex, Tom<br />
Green, Kate<br />
Greenwood, Lilian<br />
Griffith, Nia<br />
Gwynne, Andrew<br />
Hain, rh Mr Peter<br />
Hanson, rh Mr David<br />
Harman, rh Ms Harriet<br />
Harris, Mr Tom<br />
Havard, Mr Dai<br />
Healey, rh John<br />
Hepburn, Mr Stephen<br />
Heyes, David<br />
Hillier, Meg<br />
Hilling, Julie<br />
Hodge, rh Margaret<br />
Hodgson, Mrs Sharon<br />
Hollobone, Mr Philip<br />
Hosie, Stewart<br />
Howarth, rh Mr George<br />
Hunt, Tristram<br />
Irranca-Davies, Huw<br />
James, Mrs Siân C.<br />
Jamieson, Cathy<br />
Johnson, Diana<br />
Jones, Graham<br />
Jones, Helen<br />
Jones, Mr Kevan<br />
Jones, Susan Elan<br />
Jowell, rh Tessa<br />
Joyce, Eric<br />
Kaufman, rh Sir Gerald<br />
Keeley, Barbara<br />
Keen, Alan<br />
Kendall, Liz<br />
Khan, rh Sadiq<br />
Lavery, Ian<br />
Lazarowicz, Mark<br />
Leslie, Chris<br />
Lewis, Mr Ivan<br />
Lloyd, Tony<br />
Llwyd, Mr Elfyn<br />
Love, Mr Andrew<br />
Lucas, Caroline<br />
Lucas, Ian<br />
MacNeil, Mr Angus Brendan<br />
Mactaggart, Fiona<br />
Mahmood, Mr Khalid<br />
Mahmood, Shabana<br />
Mann, John<br />
Marsden, Mr Gordon<br />
McCann, Mr Michael<br />
McCarthy, Kerry<br />
McClymont, Gregg<br />
McDonagh, Siobhain<br />
McFadden, rh Mr Pat<br />
McGovern, Jim<br />
McGuire, rh Mrs Anne<br />
McKechin, Ann<br />
McKinnell, Catherine<br />
Meacher, rh Mr Michael<br />
Mearns, Ian<br />
Michael, rh Alun<br />
Miliband, rh David<br />
Miller, Andrew<br />
Moon, Mrs Madeleine<br />
Morden, Jessica<br />
Morrice, Graeme (Livingston)<br />
Morris, Grahame M.<br />
(Easington)<br />
Mudie, Mr George<br />
Munn, Meg<br />
Murphy, rh Mr Jim<br />
Murphy, rh Paul<br />
Murray, Ian<br />
Nandy, Lisa<br />
Nash, Pamela<br />
Nuttall, Mr David<br />
O’Donnell, Fiona<br />
Onwurah, Chi<br />
Owen, Albert<br />
Pearce, Teresa<br />
Perkins, Toby<br />
Pound, Stephen<br />
Qureshi, Yasmin<br />
Raynsford, rh Mr Nick<br />
Reynolds, Emma<br />
Reynolds, Jonathan<br />
Riordan, Mrs Linda<br />
Robertson, Angus<br />
Robertson, John<br />
Robinson, Mr Geoffrey<br />
Rotheram, Steve<br />
Roy, Mr Frank<br />
Roy, Lindsay<br />
Ruddock, rh Joan<br />
Sarwar, Anas<br />
Seabeck, Alison<br />
Sharma, Mr Virendra<br />
Sheerman, Mr Barry<br />
Sheridan, Jim<br />
Shuker, Gavin<br />
Singh, Mr Marsha<br />
Skinner, Mr Dennis<br />
Slaughter, Mr Andy<br />
Smith, Angela<br />
Smith, Nick<br />
Smith, Owen<br />
Soulsby, Sir Peter<br />
Spellar, rh Mr John<br />
Stringer, Graham<br />
Stuart, Ms Gisela<br />
Sutcliffe, Mr Gerry<br />
Thomas, Mr Gareth<br />
Thornberry, Emily<br />
Trickett, Jon<br />
Turner, Karl<br />
Twigg, Derek<br />
Twigg, Stephen<br />
Umunna, Mr Chuka<br />
Vaz, rh Keith<br />
Vaz, Valerie<br />
Walley, Joan<br />
Watson, Mr Tom<br />
Watts, Mr Dave<br />
Whiteford, Dr Eilidh<br />
Whitehead, Dr Alan<br />
Williams, Hywel<br />
Williamson, Chris<br />
Wilson, Phil<br />
Winnick, Mr David<br />
Winterton, rh Ms Rosie<br />
Wishart, Pete<br />
Woodcock, John<br />
Woodward, rh Mr Shaun<br />
Wright, David<br />
Wright, Mr Iain<br />
Tellers for the Noes:<br />
Mr David Hamilton and<br />
Mark Hendrick<br />
Question accordingly agreed to.<br />
Clauses 2 to 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.<br />
Schedule<br />
CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS ETC<br />
Amendments made: Government amendment 14, page 4,<br />
line 9, at end insert—<br />
‘<strong>Parliament</strong> Act 1911 (c. 13)<br />
3A In the <strong>Parliament</strong> Act 1911 omit section 7.’.<br />
Government amendment 15, page 4, line 16, at end<br />
insert—<br />
‘7A In section 119(2) after “mourning” insert “(but, in relation to<br />
a parliamentary general election, excluding any day to which<br />
rule 2 of the parliamentary elections rules does not apply by<br />
virtue of rule 2(2A))”.’.<br />
Government amendment 16, page 5, line 9, at end<br />
insert—<br />
‘(3A) Omit paragraph (2)(ii) and the “and” before it.’.<br />
Government amendment 17, page 5, line 18, at end<br />
insert—<br />
‘But, in relation to any proceedings commenced afresh by<br />
reason of a candidate’s death, this paragraph is to be ignored.”.’.<br />
Government amendment 18, page 5, line 18, at end<br />
insert—<br />
‘9A In rule 6A(4) in Schedule 1 after “rule 2(1)” insert “(subject<br />
to rule 2(2A))”.’.<br />
Government amendment 19, page 7, line 10, at end<br />
insert—<br />
‘15A In section 22(2A) after “1983” insert “(subject to<br />
rule 2(2A))”.’.—(Mr Harper.)<br />
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.<br />
The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.<br />
Bill, as amended, reported.<br />
Bill to be considered tomorrow<br />
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans): I now have to<br />
announce the results of the Division deferred from a<br />
previous day. In the Division on the Question relating<br />
to the Scottish <strong>Parliament</strong>, the Ayes were 317 and the<br />
Noes were 212, so the Ayes have it.<br />
[The Division list is published at the end of today’s<br />
debates.]
889 1 DECEMBER 2010 National Policy Statements 890<br />
National Policy Statements<br />
[Relevant documents: The Third Report from the Energy<br />
and Climate Change Committee, Session 2009-10, on<br />
The proposals for national policy statements on energy,<br />
HC 231, and the Government’s response t<strong>here</strong>to, and the<br />
Minutes of Evidence taken before the Energy and Climate<br />
Change Committee on 30 November, HC 648-i.]<br />
4.35 pm<br />
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and<br />
Climate Change (Charles Hendry): I beg to move,<br />
That this House has considered the matter of the draft Energy<br />
National Policy Statements.<br />
The revised draft national policy statements for energy<br />
set out national policy, which must be considered in<br />
determining whether consent should be granted to<br />
infrastructure projects that are examined by the<br />
Infrastructure Planning Commission. As right hon. and<br />
hon. Members will be aware, the previous Administration<br />
consulted on a suite of draft energy national policy<br />
statements between November 2009 and February 2010.<br />
Alongside that consultation, <strong>Parliament</strong> undertook scrutiny<br />
of the draft national policy statements. Scrutiny in this<br />
House was undertaken by the Select Committee on<br />
Energy and Climate Change, which held a number of<br />
oral hearings, requested written evidence and published<br />
a report of its findings, together with 30 recommendations<br />
and conclusions. I would like to take this opportunity to<br />
thank the then members of the Committee for the<br />
important work that they undertook and the thoroughness<br />
with which they approached it.<br />
This afternoon’s debate is part of <strong>Parliament</strong>’s scrutiny<br />
of the draft energy national policy statements, so I will<br />
talk about the purpose of national policy statements<br />
and the changes that we have made to them, the<br />
parliamentary scrutiny process required for national<br />
policy statements, and the coalition Government’s proposals<br />
for planning reform. The statements are complicated,<br />
lengthy documents that cover all aspects of energy<br />
policy, so I will talk at some length in introducing them.<br />
I hope that the House will bear with me. I will also give<br />
way to any interventions from hon. Members wishing<br />
to raise concerns. However, before going into the detail<br />
of the national policy statements, I would like to take a<br />
moment to set out the background to the coalition<br />
Government’s energy policy and the need to build new<br />
major energy infrastructure, as it is against that background<br />
that such massive new investment is required.<br />
Our energy policy is based on four pillars: energy<br />
saving, more renewables, new nuclear, and clean coal<br />
and gas. That includes the green deal, which we believe<br />
will help to bring existing buildings up to 21st-century<br />
efficiency standards. We are taking steps to reduce<br />
demand for gas through both energy efficiency measures<br />
to help improve our energy security, and demand-side<br />
response, through interruptable contracts for large users<br />
that will ensure that domestic users are prioritised in an<br />
emergency. A reduction in demand will also help to<br />
improve our energy security. Under the green deal,<br />
home owners and businesses will be able to get energy<br />
efficiency improvements without having to pay cash in<br />
advance. The private sector will provide the up-front<br />
funding, receiving its money back from the energy<br />
savings on household bills. That will help to save energy,<br />
reduce carbon and protect energy consumers from price<br />
rises through greater energy savings.<br />
John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab): I commend<br />
the hon. Gentleman on the work that he did on the<br />
Energy and Climate Change Committee, and on which<br />
he congratulated everyone involved—they say that selfpraise<br />
is no praise, but t<strong>here</strong> we go. My great worry, and<br />
that of many of my colleagues on the Opposition<br />
Benches, is that the poor will always suffer. While<br />
everybody else is looking for ways of saving money,<br />
they cannot do so. What will his Government do to help<br />
people who perhaps cannot afford to do what is necessary<br />
to make the savings that he is talking about?<br />
Charles Hendry: The hon. Gentleman has often raised<br />
this issue in the Select Committee in the past, and it<br />
should be at the heart of our thinking. At this time of<br />
year, when people are struggling to pay their bills, how<br />
they will pay them in the future is a matter of great<br />
concern to us.<br />
The nature of the green deal is that it does not<br />
depend on the creditworthiness of the individual<br />
householder. A charge will be set against the future<br />
energy bills of their property, with the condition that<br />
the total cost of the energy efficiency measures should<br />
be such that it can be repaid through that extra charge<br />
over a period of 20 or 25 years. So the people living in<br />
those properties will get the immediate full benefit in<br />
terms of warmth and reduced energy consumption, but<br />
the charge will be brought back over time. We think that<br />
this policy has been devised in a way that has at its heart<br />
the interests of those who are fuel poor and have<br />
difficulty in paying their bills. The hon. Gentleman is<br />
absolutely right to say that, in all these issues, t<strong>here</strong> are<br />
massive costs for consumers. Our job as a Government<br />
is to find ways of trying to drive down the number of<br />
units that consumers will be using. The green deal is<br />
part of that process, as is smart metering.<br />
Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/<br />
Co-op): May I issue an appeal to the Minister and his<br />
colleagues that, as the green deal mechanism is being<br />
finalised and formulated, it should not be targeted at<br />
only cavity wall and loft insulation? T<strong>here</strong> are many<br />
properties in my constituency and elsew<strong>here</strong> for which<br />
that would be no use at all, and some of those properties<br />
are among the least fuel efficient.<br />
Charles Hendry: The hon. Gentleman brings to the<br />
House a huge amount of expertise on these issues and I<br />
very much welcome his contribution. He has touched<br />
on an issue that is at the core of our thinking on how to<br />
take the green deal forward. He is absolutely right to say<br />
that, while a significant number of houses would be<br />
helped if it were to address issues of cavity wall and loft<br />
insulation, t<strong>here</strong> are many that do not have cavity walls<br />
and many that need additional measures. We are looking<br />
at the role that boilers can play in regard to energy<br />
efficiency, because that area has not been given sufficient<br />
attention in the past. The key will be to find a range of<br />
measures that are relevant to each individual property,<br />
the savings from which will justify the investment over<br />
time. I can give the hon. Gentleman an absolute assurance<br />
that the type of houses that he is talking about in his<br />
constituency, in mine, and in many others across the<br />
country will be very much included as the green deal is<br />
developed.
891 National Policy Statements 1 DECEMBER 2010 National Policy Statements 892<br />
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con): In my<br />
constituency, many properties are not on the gas network,<br />
and t<strong>here</strong> are no plans to expand the network into many<br />
of the small villages t<strong>here</strong>. Will those properties be able<br />
to access alternative sources of heating through the<br />
green deal, perhaps through air source heat pumps and<br />
so on?<br />
Charles Hendry: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for<br />
the work that he has done to highlight issues such as<br />
these. We said in the coalition agreement that prioritising<br />
off-grid customers would be an important part of what<br />
we are seeking to do. However, the help for them will<br />
not come through the measures in the green deal. His<br />
constituents will of course be eligible for support for<br />
energy efficiency measures through the green deal, but<br />
the renewable heat incentive will give them support for<br />
other mechanisms such as air source heat pumps, ground<br />
source heat pumps and solar thermal installations. T<strong>here</strong><br />
will be a different funding mechanism for that, and we<br />
have confirmed that £860 million will be made available<br />
for the renewable heat incentive. We will set out the<br />
precise details of that in the next few weeks, and it will<br />
target precisely the people that he is most concerned<br />
about in that respect.<br />
Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab): The Minister has<br />
been very effective in campaigning for the extension of<br />
the gas network throughout the <strong>United</strong> <strong>Kingdom</strong>, but<br />
what he has just said will be of little comfort to people<br />
in many areas who simply want a choice. At present,<br />
they have oil or liquefied petroleum gas, but they want<br />
mains gas, which is often located only a few hundred<br />
yards away from their village or hamlet. Do the Government<br />
understand their frustration? Given that the market is<br />
failing them, would it be possible for incentives to be<br />
given in this regard, and for the regulator to ensure that<br />
those gas connections can take place?<br />
Charles Hendry: The hon. Gentleman raises an important<br />
point. Certainly, encouraging people to install renewable<br />
heat sources, particularly in off-grid properties, is part<br />
of the solution. He is absolutely right to say, however,<br />
that for many people, the convenience of being on the<br />
grid will be their primary concern. It must be extremely<br />
frustrating to live in a house close to the grid that is<br />
unable to benefit from it. Ofgem is working to ensure<br />
that the grid is extended, but that is obviously a gradual<br />
process. We are considering different ways of dealing<br />
with the problem. Grid development is mentioned in<br />
the planning policy papers, but we are introducing<br />
other measures such as the renewable heat incentive, to<br />
help people who currently have no alternative to heating<br />
oil or liquefied petroleum gas. I hope that it can be said<br />
that we are dealing with the issue comprehensively.<br />
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con): Do not<br />
local councils also have an important role to play?<br />
Cornwall council, for example, is undertaking a project<br />
involving feed-in tariffs. It will work with the third<br />
sector in using the money that it earns from installing<br />
solar panels in the county to help those in the greatest<br />
fuel poverty—who, as other Members have pointed out,<br />
are often off grid—not only through energy-efficiency<br />
schemes but by providing heat from more appropriate<br />
sources, such as ground-source heat.<br />
Charles Hendry: My hon. Friend is right to draw that<br />
to the House’s attention. As a result of one of the<br />
changes that we have made, local authorities are now<br />
allowed to sell electricity directly to the grid. Rather<br />
than merely being able to host new facilities, they can<br />
now become involved in these processes as partners.<br />
They can sell the electricity that is generated, and benefit<br />
from the feed-in tariffs or other financial packages that<br />
are available. I hope that, in difficult times, councils<br />
throughout the country will see such measures as an<br />
important potential income-earner and a way of<br />
encouraging their communities to move in a low-carbon<br />
direction. That is a critical part of Government policy.<br />
We have said that t<strong>here</strong> will be special help for the<br />
most vulnerable. The new energy company obligation<br />
will provide additional funds for those who are most in<br />
need and for homes that are hard to treat, which may<br />
need additional support. Our policy also involves the<br />
electricity market reform programme, which is a wholesale<br />
redesign of our electricity market. T<strong>here</strong> is no doubt<br />
that that process, which will begin in a few weeks, is the<br />
most fundamental reform of the market for 30 years. It<br />
involves a new way of encouraging people to invest in<br />
electricity generation, and I cannot over-emphasise the<br />
importance that we attach to it. The power sector needs<br />
to lead the way when it comes to cutting carbon.<br />
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con): Many of my least<br />
well-off and most vulnerable constituents fear that in<br />
five years’ time the lights may go out. What action can<br />
the Government take to deal with the backlog of<br />
infrastructure repairs?<br />
Charles Hendry: I am keen to reassure my hon.<br />
Friend. A couple of years ago, the outlook was a cause<br />
for great concern. The recession reduced demand by 5%<br />
or 6%, and, although it has grown again, it has not<br />
reached its previous level. What appeared to be a serious<br />
pinch point now seems to have been pushed further out,<br />
but that does not give grounds for complacency. We all<br />
know that cold winters and, in particular, cold still days<br />
place immense demand on the system, and we need to<br />
take action to deal with that.<br />
As much as £200 billion of new investment may be<br />
required in our electricity infrastructure. We have to<br />
rebuild it. It would have been much better for the<br />
country if more of that work had been done before<br />
6 May, and it would have been much better had t<strong>here</strong><br />
not been a five-year moratorium on new nuclear and a<br />
delay of some years in new installations. I applaud the<br />
conversion of the last Administration, which began to<br />
put us back on track, but a number of years were lost.<br />
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)<br />
rose—<br />
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab) rose—<br />
Charles Hendry: I will give way shortly, but I hope I<br />
shall be forgiven if I do not do so immediately, as I am<br />
in full flight.<br />
We need to establish a structure that will give people<br />
an incentive to invest in new nuclear, clean coal, coal<br />
with carbon capture, renewables—in regard to which<br />
we have great potential—and new gas plant, along with<br />
gas storage. We are alive to all the challenges, and we<br />
are moving forward on all fronts.
893 National Policy Statements 1 DECEMBER 2010 National Policy Statements 894<br />
John Woodcock: The Government talk a great deal<br />
about blank pages. Have they whitewashed their time in<br />
opposition, when one party was dead set against nuclear<br />
and the other wanted it to be a last resort? If they have<br />
converted, that is fine, but let us at least have a bit of<br />
candour about the process through which the Minister<br />
has got to w<strong>here</strong> he is now.<br />
Charles Hendry: The hon. Gentleman is new to the<br />
House and he might t<strong>here</strong>fore be unaware of the extent<br />
to which we worked very constructively with the previous<br />
Secretary of State, the now noble Lord Hutton, and<br />
others to try to ensure that we took this agenda forward.<br />
As the hon. Gentleman has been a special adviser<br />
however, he will be aware that nuclear was taken off the<br />
agenda for five years. T<strong>here</strong> was a Government White<br />
Paper that said, in effect, “We do not see a need for new<br />
nuclear in this country.” T<strong>here</strong> were no qualifications to<br />
that statement; it was just stated that t<strong>here</strong> was no<br />
requirement, full stop. For five years, that delayed the<br />
development of new nuclear.<br />
I completely applaud the work of the previous Secretary<br />
of State, which has contributed to our country becoming<br />
one of the most exciting in the world for new nuclear<br />
development. The reality is that we were constructively<br />
involved in that process, but for five years nuclear was<br />
taken off the agenda.<br />
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD): To be candid,<br />
the Minister may know that, as per the coalition agreement,<br />
many Liberal Democrat Members are still absolutely<br />
opposed to nuclear power. Will he confirm that at no<br />
point in the last 30 years has it been impossible for<br />
private investment for nuclear to come forward, and if<br />
Government policy was not preventing that, why does<br />
he think no private investment did come forward in the<br />
last 30 years?<br />
Charles Hendry: The Government are seeking to<br />
address a comprehensive range of issues to do with new<br />
nuclear. T<strong>here</strong> have been planning issues; for example,<br />
the Sizewell B project took five or six years just to go<br />
through the planning stage. Also, regulatory justification<br />
is a legal requirement, and that process had to be gone<br />
through. Last week, a measure on that passed through<br />
this House with a massive majority of over 500 to a<br />
couple of dozen, so t<strong>here</strong> has been a significant step<br />
forward in that respect. The long-term cost of waste<br />
management also needs to be known, and that figure is<br />
now being made clear and given to the industry. Other<br />
barriers to investment are also now being addressed.<br />
T<strong>here</strong>fore, although it is technically right that t<strong>here</strong> was<br />
nothing to stop people investing in new nuclear, it is<br />
also absolutely clear that the circumstances did not<br />
encourage people to come forward with new proposals.<br />
John Robertson: I should declare an interest: I am<br />
chair of the all-party group on nuclear energy. I think<br />
the Minister is being slightly disingenuous towards the<br />
Opposition. It was Labour who led the fight to put<br />
nuclear back on to the table. It was not that it had been<br />
taken off the table; it was just that nobody really<br />
wanted to touch it, including Ministers who were Members<br />
of this House at the time. T<strong>here</strong>fore, in a spirit of<br />
cross-party coalition, will the Minister accept that we<br />
did our bit in getting nuclear back on to the agenda,<br />
and does he agree that now is the time to make sure<br />
that these new power stations are built for the benefit of<br />
this country<br />
Charles Hendry: I am keen that this coalition should<br />
get larger and grander every day, so I am delighted to<br />
welcome the hon. Gentleman to it. I agree with what he<br />
said. I have already twice given credit to the previous<br />
Secretary of State. I am very happy to pay tribute to<br />
him and the previous Prime Minister for the role they<br />
played in putting nuclear back on the agenda.<br />
In response to the question of my hon. Friend the<br />
Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), I think it is true<br />
that the challenges we face today are in part a result of<br />
not enough construction having been carried out early<br />
enough. If t<strong>here</strong> had been more construction in our<br />
energy infrastructure over recent years, we would not<br />
now be faced with the mountain of needing £200 billion<br />
of new investment.<br />
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab): I<br />
am glad to hear that the future of the nuclear industry<br />
in the UK will be a good one. Will t<strong>here</strong>, however, be a<br />
good future for the UK supply chain for the nuclear<br />
industry, particularly in terms of the construction of<br />
these stations? What will the Government do to support<br />
the supply chain?<br />
Charles Hendry: We are very keen indeed to see the<br />
supply chain benefit. We talk to the companies that are<br />
looking to invest in this area, and they are very keen to<br />
use British know-how, skills and businesses. The<br />
Westinghouse approach is to buy w<strong>here</strong> it builds. T<strong>here</strong>fore,<br />
together with Arriva, it has been setting up workshops<br />
around the country to encourage people to show the<br />
contributions and skills they can bring. From our point<br />
of view, this is a critical part of the project. We want<br />
them to partner British companies and, as part of that<br />
process, we believe t<strong>here</strong> is an opportunity for them to<br />
sell that package internationally as well. That is absolutely<br />
at the heart of what we want.<br />
Angela Smith: Why, t<strong>here</strong>fore, do the Government<br />
refuse to support Forgemasters in its bid to play a<br />
strategic part in the development of the supply chain<br />
for the future of our power stations?<br />
Charles Hendry: The hon. Lady is very familiar with<br />
the argument. We have said that we looked at the issues<br />
as we came into government and we identified those<br />
that were based on affordability, not on their importance.<br />
We believe that Sheffield Forgemasters makes an extremely<br />
important contribution in this area. The Government’s<br />
position has been clear and what we now do not understand<br />
is the Opposition’s position.<br />
We had a vote on regulatory justification last week,<br />
which approved two specific reactor types, the Westinghouse<br />
and the Areva designs. In that vote the shadow Business<br />
Secretary, the shadow Chancellor and the shadow Energy<br />
Secretary voted against the approval of those designs.<br />
How can the shadow Business Secretary make a case for<br />
Sheffield Forgemasters when he has voted against the<br />
exact design that it is supposed to be supporting? T<strong>here</strong><br />
is a complete hole in the Opposition’s policy in this<br />
area. I hope that this shadow Minister will rise to his<br />
feet to give us clarity on those issues, but when three<br />
members of the shadow Cabinet vote against the heart<br />
of the nuclear policy, the Opposition’s policy is in<br />
tatters.
895 National Policy Statements 1 DECEMBER 2010 National Policy Statements 896<br />
Huw Irranca-Davies: The hon. Gentleman would not<br />
expect me to agree that our position is in tatters. As I<br />
made clear to him in the debate on the justification<br />
orders in Committee, when they went through with our<br />
support, we would very much welcome an opportunity<br />
for the Minister, alongside his colleagues, to go back to<br />
Sheffield Forgemasters and argue the case for making<br />
sure that it can be part of the supply chain. He is<br />
continually reluctant to do so. I suspect that that is not<br />
necessarily because of his reluctance, but because his<br />
colleagues are reluctant to argue the case.<br />
Charles Hendry: I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman,<br />
for whom I have the highest regard, was going to<br />
explain what his shadow Cabinet colleagues had done<br />
in that vote. During that debate two weeks ago, we had<br />
agreed fundamentally on the need for regulatory justification<br />
and he was speaking officially on behalf of the Opposition,<br />
yet when it came to the deferred Division in this House<br />
a week ago today three of the most senior members of<br />
the shadow Cabinet voted against those reactor designs<br />
being approved. If they had won that debate, the whole<br />
nuclear programme in this country would have been<br />
brought to a standstill. If the Opposition are to have<br />
credibility in this area, we need to understand why the<br />
shadow Chancellor, the shadow Business Secretary, who<br />
is the one who will lead on issues relating to Sheffield<br />
Forgemasters, and the shadow Education Secretary,<br />
who is one of the most senior members of the Labour<br />
party, chose to try to stop nuclear power in its tracks.<br />
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con): Is the<br />
stark contrast between those on the two sides of the<br />
House not shown in the fact that the financing arrangements<br />
for Sheffield Forgemasters were cobbled together in the<br />
dying weeks of the Labour Government w<strong>here</strong>as just<br />
five months into a Conservative-led coalition Government<br />
we have a comprehensive, co<strong>here</strong>nt national infrastructure<br />
plan for the next five to 10 years? That is the difference<br />
between government and opportunism.<br />
Charles Hendry: My hon. Friend makes a very important<br />
point. In the months just before the election an enormous<br />
number of commitments were made, and one of the<br />
first things that we had to do as an incoming Government<br />
was to identify which of them were affordable. We went<br />
through that process extremely thoroughly—I think we<br />
have been robust about it—and Sheffield Forgemasters<br />
entirely understands the decisions that we have made.<br />
The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills<br />
leads on supporting businesses in these areas and my<br />
Department feeds closely into that process. We want<br />
Sheffield Forgemasters, which is an outstanding example<br />
of a British manufacturing company, to have a key role<br />
to play in the future. However, on the basis that I have<br />
outlined, we did not believe it was appropriate for the<br />
loan to go ahead.<br />
John Woodcock: I hope the Minister will accept that<br />
it is important to correct what the hon. Member for<br />
Peterborough (Mr Jackson) said if the Government<br />
are to retain credibility on this issue. Does the<br />
Minister accept that the issue of this loan was being<br />
negotiated for more than a year, including the time<br />
when Lord Hutton was Business Secretary, and that it<br />
was very carefully considered by that Department over<br />
that period?<br />
Charles Hendry: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman<br />
for that intervention. As a new Government coming in,<br />
we had to look at the financial commitments that we<br />
were inheriting. We had to decide which were bad<br />
decisions—the Sheffield Forgemasters loan absolutely<br />
did not come into that category—and which were the<br />
decisions we viewed as simply not affordable. Of course<br />
we would love to be able to shower money on a range of<br />
good projects around the country, but t<strong>here</strong> is no scope<br />
for doing so. As we know from the former Chief Secretary<br />
to the Treasury, t<strong>here</strong> was no money left. That was what<br />
the outgoing Government told us.<br />
Several hon. Members rose—<br />
Charles Hendry: I am keen to get back to some of the<br />
areas w<strong>here</strong> t<strong>here</strong> is consent and general agreement, but<br />
I will of course give way to the Opposition spokesman.<br />
Huw Irranca-Davies: I thank the hon. Gentleman for<br />
giving way. Will he acknowledge that this issue is pertinent<br />
to our debate on our national infrastructure and the<br />
supply chain? It is my clear understanding, unless the<br />
Minister can disabuse me of this, that only one other<br />
global supplier makes the piece that Sheffield Forgemasters<br />
was going to make. If the company had been given that<br />
repayable loan, which would have been repaid to the<br />
Government in short order, it would have led the global<br />
supply chain—not just for the UK but for export—in<br />
the reactors that we passed the justification orders for<br />
last week. It is a clear own goal. I ask the Minister to go<br />
back to his BIS and Treasury colleagues to see whether<br />
t<strong>here</strong> is still an opportunity to bring the measure forward.<br />
It is not too late.<br />
Charles Hendry: The hole in the argument is that the<br />
hon. Gentleman makes that case on behalf of the<br />
Opposition when the shadow Business Secretary, shadow<br />
Chancellor and shadow Education Secretary voted against<br />
the nuclear programme. As long as the shadow Cabinet<br />
has anti-nuclear sentiments at its highest level, any<br />
suggestion that the Opposition want a nuclear renaissance<br />
is fundamentally questionable.<br />
Albert Owen rose—<br />
Charles Hendry: I am keen to move on to other<br />
issues, but as the hon. Gentleman has such a strong<br />
constituency interest in new nuclear I shall give way.<br />
Albert Owen: The hon. Gentleman and I were both<br />
very solid on nuclear power in the last <strong>Parliament</strong> when<br />
the then Leader of the Opposition thought that it<br />
should be a last resort. I am pleased that the new<br />
Secretary of State and the Prime Minister have made<br />
their journey and are in the same position as the Minister<br />
and I. The point about the supply chain is important. I<br />
know—the shadow spokesman is right—that if this<br />
work does not go ahead in Sheffield, Korea is the next<br />
port of call. That is not in the British interest. Will the<br />
Minister consider that as we go through these new<br />
policies and talk about infrastructure, so that we can<br />
keep British jobs and British business in the supply<br />
chain to help the nuclear industry?<br />
Charles Hendry: I have said several times that our<br />
decision is no reflection on the quality of the workmanship<br />
at Sheffield Forgemasters. The Government came in,
897 National Policy Statements 1 DECEMBER 2010 National Policy Statements 898<br />
identified that £1 in every £4 of Government spending<br />
was borrowed, believed that that position was unsustainable<br />
and had to make difficult, tough choices about the right<br />
way forward.<br />
Several hon. Members rose—<br />
Charles Hendry: I would give way to my hon. Friend<br />
the Member for Dover, but he was the one who made<br />
me depart from my extremely consensual speech into<br />
this area of great contention. I am keen that we should<br />
get on to the issues of planning policy that are at the<br />
heart of our debate.<br />
Dan Byles (North Warwickshire) (Con): To come<br />
back to the future of nuclear power in the UK and the<br />
comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for<br />
Dover (Charlie Elphicke) about keeping the lights on,<br />
Germany is now considering extending the lives of its<br />
reactors by up to 12 years. I am a great supporter of the<br />
idea that we need to replace our nuclear reactors with<br />
new nuclear reactors, but is t<strong>here</strong> any scope in the<br />
Department’s plan to extend the lives of our current<br />
reactors to try to bridge that gap?<br />
Charles Hendry: My hon. Friend raises an important<br />
issue. The situation in Germany is very different from<br />
the situation <strong>here</strong>. The plan in Germany had been to<br />
have an artificially early closure of the nuclear fleet, and<br />
Chancellor Merkel’s Government have allowed them to<br />
operate for their full lives. They have reversed a decision<br />
that would have brought about early closure. The approach<br />
that we have always taken in the <strong>United</strong> <strong>Kingdom</strong> is<br />
that plants should operate for their safe life. If t<strong>here</strong> is<br />
an independent assessment that they can operate for<br />
longer than had been planned, that should be considered.<br />
The case <strong>here</strong> is based on safety and security issues and<br />
some recent life extensions have been given, which we<br />
welcome. At the end of the day the extensions are a<br />
bonus rather than a building block in energy policy, but<br />
my hon. Friend makes an important point.<br />
I want to get back to some of the key areas of the<br />
debate. Our concern is that the existing market framework<br />
will not deliver the scale of investment needed in renewables,<br />
nuclear and carbon capture and storage, all of which<br />
have significant up-front costs. Our electricity market<br />
reform programme will examine the reforms necessary<br />
to restructure the electricity market to decarbonise the<br />
power sector by the 2030s while maintaining security of<br />
supply and affordable prices. We must move quickly to<br />
give investors certainty about our reforms because of<br />
the long lead-times in developing new generation capacity.<br />
Our reform of the planning system for major infrastructure,<br />
including for major energy infrastructure, also has an<br />
important role, as does the consultation on the revised<br />
draft energy national policy statements.<br />
Reducing demand for electricity w<strong>here</strong>ver possible is<br />
important in meeting our energy objectives. Our 2050<br />
pathways analysis shows that total UK energy demand<br />
from all sources will need to fall significantly by 2050.<br />
As I have mentioned, the green deal will save energy in<br />
the home and non-domestic buildings. We will also roll<br />
out smart meters to help to reduce demand. However,<br />
those savings will be offset by increases in other areas,<br />
such as the increased use of electricity in industrial and<br />
domestic heating and in transport. Our 2050 pathways<br />
analysis suggests that demand for electricity may even<br />
double by 2050, as we plug into the grid to power our<br />
cars and heat our homes.<br />
Decarbonising surface transport is essential to meet<br />
our target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by<br />
2050, as we are required to do by law. We expect<br />
electrification to play a major role in achieving that.<br />
While electric vehicles can be powered up overnight by<br />
fluctuating electricity generation, trains, for example,<br />
will need more base load generation. We have already<br />
announced £900 million of investment in the electrification<br />
of train lines from London to Didcot, Newbury and<br />
Oxford, and for lines serving Liverpool, Manchester,<br />
Preston and Blackpool. In the new year, we will consult<br />
on the next steps for building a national high-speed rail<br />
network, which will free up capacity to allow a shift of<br />
freight from road to rail and provide an attractive<br />
low-carbon option for travelling between our major<br />
cities.<br />
Some 80% of journeys in the UK are currently made<br />
by car, and cars will continue to play an essential part in<br />
our national transport infrastructure. The Government<br />
announced in the spending review investment of more<br />
than £400 million in measures to promote the uptake of<br />
ultra-low-carbon vehicle technologies. That includes the<br />
plug-in car grant, which will be available from January<br />
2011 and which will provide a grant of 25% of the<br />
vehicle price up to £5,000. We are also continuing<br />
the plugged-in places programme, which supports the<br />
development of electric vehicle recharging infrastructure<br />
in strategic locations. As part of the coalition agreement,<br />
we have also undertaken to mandate a national network<br />
of vehicle recharging facilities.<br />
We want to see more decentralised and community<br />
energy systems, such as microgeneration, make a<br />
contribution to our targets on reducing carbon emissions<br />
and increasing energy security. However, we do not<br />
believe that decentralised and community energy systems<br />
are likely to lead to the significant replacement of<br />
large-scale energy infrastructure, which is why t<strong>here</strong> is<br />
an urgent need for new major energy infrastructure.<br />
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con): I have flicked through<br />
the plans, and I cannot see any reference to hydro-power<br />
in the context of micro-schemes. Do the Government<br />
intend to support hydro-power and particularly small-scale<br />
projects?<br />
Charles Hendry: The Government are committed to<br />
taking us forward, and I welcome my hon. Friend’s<br />
support in that respect. Hydro has an important<br />
contribution to make. The Minister of State, Department<br />
of Energy and Climate Change, my hon. Friend the<br />
Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), who<br />
has responsibility for climate change, set out how we<br />
can hope to achieve that ambition in his recent speech<br />
on the subject. Most issues that we are discussing today<br />
relate to major applications of more than 50 MW. Most<br />
hydro schemes will fall below that threshold and will<br />
t<strong>here</strong>fore be subject to local planning decisions.<br />
The section of the energy policy statement that deals<br />
with renewable energy does not cover major hydro<br />
schemes, such as major schemes involving tidal flow,<br />
because at this stage t<strong>here</strong> is no evidence of a serious<br />
application for such a scheme of more than 50 MW. If<br />
that happens, we will need either to review the national
899 National Policy Statements 1 DECEMBER 2010 National Policy Statements 900<br />
[Charles Hendry]<br />
policy statement or to introduce one specifically for<br />
marine technologies. In this country, we have a network<br />
of rivers, which are a potential source for electricity<br />
generation that we are keen to see harnessed.<br />
Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD): The Minister has discussed<br />
the urgent need for new renewable electricity generation<br />
capacity. If that is the case, why is the banding review of<br />
renewables not reporting until August 2012 with<br />
implementation in March 2013? Will he consider speeding<br />
up that process, so that we can get the capital that is<br />
waiting for, for example, biomass power stations released<br />
and get such projects under way?<br />
Charles Hendry: One of the issues for investors in this<br />
area is certainty. They want to be able to plan for the<br />
long term and to know what rate of support they will<br />
get under whatever mechanism is in place. A date of<br />
2013 enables people to plan a transition to whatever the<br />
banded level will be after that. I understand the need for<br />
early clarity, and if t<strong>here</strong> are ways we can provide that,<br />
we shall seek to do so. We seek to work constructively<br />
because we understand that the alternative can be a<br />
hiatus in investment, with investment dropping off for a<br />
period of years in advance of the threshold and the<br />
level of support changing. It is important, in terms of<br />
national interest, to have a continuous flow of investment.<br />
I turn now to the issues that have been covered in the<br />
energy national policy statements. Perhaps it would be<br />
helpful if I briefly set out the purpose of the documents<br />
before us today. The revised draft energy national policy<br />
statements consist of a suite of six national policy<br />
statements and a number of associated documents.<br />
They are not intended to set out new energy policy.<br />
They are consistent with and explain current energy<br />
policy and how it relates to the planning consent process.<br />
Similarly, we are not using national policy statements to<br />
change the standard for consenting projects. They neither<br />
raise nor lower the bar on how a major energy infrastructure<br />
project is examined and consented. They are t<strong>here</strong> to<br />
explain how such decisions should be made. They set<br />
out the consenting policies that need to be considered in<br />
the examination of major energy infrastructure and the<br />
decision on whether to grant or decline consent. At the<br />
same time, they will ensure that new major energy<br />
infrastructure projects respect the principles of sustainable<br />
development. They will allow not only the Infrastructure<br />
Planning Commission but developers and local residents<br />
to see the basis on which applications must be considered.<br />
T<strong>here</strong> is an overarching energy national policy statement<br />
that sets out the Government’s policy on energy and<br />
energy infrastructure development; an energy need<br />
statement on the need for new nationally significant<br />
energy infrastructure projects; the assessment principles<br />
that need to be taken into account in examining and<br />
deciding on proposals for energy infrastructure<br />
development; and generic impacts for all energy<br />
infrastructure, and how they should be assessed and<br />
mitigated to ensure that the right balance is reached<br />
between securing our energy needs and protecting the<br />
environment.<br />
T<strong>here</strong> are also five technology-specific energy national<br />
policy statements, covering fossil fuel electricity generation;<br />
renewable energy infrastructure, which deals with onshore<br />
wind, offshore wind and energy from biomass and/or<br />
waste; gas supply infrastructure and gas and oil pipelines;<br />
electricity networks infrastructure; and nuclear power<br />
generation.<br />
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con):<br />
We know that we are legally required to reduce carbon<br />
emissions by about 80% in the next 40 years. Can we<br />
fulfil that requirement, given that of the 59 GW of new<br />
capacity required in the next 25 years, 33 GW of which<br />
is needed from renewables, we have only 2 GW currently<br />
under construction? The other 26 GW that is needed<br />
will, presumably, come from low-carbon nuclear. The<br />
Government have made enormous progress in this area—I<br />
acknowledge that—but would t<strong>here</strong> be more scope to<br />
look at nuclear if we, for whatever reason, did not hit<br />
those targets?<br />
Charles Hendry: I pay tribute to the work that my<br />
hon. Friend has done as an ardent supporter of the<br />
Heysham plant in his constituency and of the case for a<br />
new plant in that area. The role for nuclear has been set<br />
out clearly in the national policy statements. We believe<br />
that it has a fundamental role, but we also have to be<br />
realistic about what is achievable. We have identified<br />
sites that could be used for 16 GW of new nuclear<br />
power, but that is as much as the energy companies<br />
believe can be constructed over the next 15 years, which<br />
is the time scale that the national policy statements<br />
cover. That is not necessarily the end of the ambition,<br />
but it looks like what is achievable and realisable over<br />
those 15 years. T<strong>here</strong> is no doubt about the Government’s<br />
ambition in terms of new nuclear.<br />
Martin Horwood: On the subject of what is realistic,<br />
and referring back to what the Minister was saying<br />
about sustainability, is he aware that the Chartered<br />
Institution of Water and Environmental Management<br />
has said that current known reserves of economically<br />
extractable uranium may last only between 40 and<br />
85 years? Given that other economies are also investing<br />
in new nuclear, we may be looking at the lower end of<br />
that scale rather than the higher, so new nuclear cannot<br />
be regarded as sustainable in any real sense.<br />
Charles Hendry: I have certainly heard that point<br />
before. The OECD has a fundamentally different view<br />
of the availability of uranium stocks, and t<strong>here</strong> is work<br />
to be done in plutonium reprocessing, which would<br />
provide an additional source of fuel. Furthermore, work<br />
is being done on the development of thorium reactors,<br />
which do not give rise to many of the concerns that<br />
people have about uranium reactors. A great deal of<br />
progress can be made and, at the end of the day, the<br />
decision is for investors to make. If they do not believe<br />
that t<strong>here</strong> is sufficient uranium to power their plants for<br />
their lifetime, they will not make that investment. They<br />
will base their decision on the facts available to them<br />
and they will need to be reassured about the availability<br />
of stocks.<br />
The overarching national policy statement contains<br />
information on the impacts that need to be considered<br />
for all energy infrastructure, while the technology-specific<br />
NPSs contain additional information on the impacts<br />
that are specific to each technology. They take into<br />
account the appraisals of sustainability. We have revised<br />
the AOSs for the non-nuclear NPSs substantially, which<br />
is why we are a carrying out a fresh consultation.
901 National Policy Statements 1 DECEMBER 2010 National Policy Statements 902<br />
We believe that the revised appraisals put readers in a<br />
much better position to evaluate the revised draft NPSs.<br />
The revised AOSs give a clear picture of the likely<br />
significant impacts at the strategic level of consenting<br />
energy infrastructure projects in accordance with the<br />
NPSs, by reference to a wide range of relevant<br />
environmental, social and economic factors. They also<br />
explain more clearly why we have not chosen a number<br />
of alternative policies that others proposed, but which<br />
would not have been as good in meeting our overall<br />
objectives of maintaining safe, secure and affordable<br />
energy supplies while moving to a low carbon economy<br />
and reducing carbon emissions by 80% by 2050.<br />
We have made significant changes to the statement of<br />
need in the overarching national policy statement. It<br />
now includes research that was not available for the first<br />
draft, including more detailed analysis of scenarios to<br />
achieve an 80% reduction in carbon emissions by 2050.<br />
We have also included more detail on what is required<br />
for an economic feasibility assessment to ensure that<br />
fossil fuel generating stations are carbon capture-ready.<br />
Neil Carmichael: The NPS gives great support to<br />
those of us who support a green investment bank<br />
because it provides a framework for investment, which<br />
is necessary to the platform of support that investors<br />
might require. How important does the Minister think<br />
the green investment bank will be in delivering some of<br />
the outcomes?<br />
Charles Hendry: The Government have committed<br />
£1 billion to the green investment bank, with additional<br />
funding to follow in due course. I am extremely pleased<br />
that the Environmental Audit Committee is to examine<br />
how the bank might work. Infrastructure banks in<br />
other countries—for example, the one in Holland, which<br />
was funded with ¤2 billion of initial capital, but brought<br />
in ¤100 billion of additional finance—can play a critical<br />
role, particularly in getting business through the so-called<br />
valley of death.<br />
Returning to the technology-specific NPSs, we have<br />
revised the fossil fuels policy statement—document<br />
No. 2—to clarify the requirements for carbon capture<br />
readiness in terms of technical and economic feasibility<br />
in line with the request made by the Energy and Climate<br />
Change Committee.<br />
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab): On carbon capture<br />
and storage, will new applications for gas-fired power<br />
stations be treated the same as applications for new<br />
coal-fired power stations in that they will have to be<br />
carbon capture-ready before they can be accepted at the<br />
planning stage?<br />
Charles Hendry: A new coal plant will have to be<br />
equipped with some degree of carbon capture and<br />
storage capability—we have made it clear that t<strong>here</strong> will<br />
be no role for unabated coal in the future—w<strong>here</strong>as a<br />
new gas plant will have to be carbon capture-ready,<br />
because of the much lower levels of emissions associated<br />
with modern gas plants. Emissions from the most efficient<br />
coal plant are perhaps 750 grams per kWh, w<strong>here</strong>as the<br />
figure for the most sophisticated gas plant is perhaps<br />
350 grams per kWh. Given the significant difference in<br />
emission levels, we are looking at requiring CCS to be<br />
part of the programme. That is why we have allocated<br />
£1 billion, which is more than any Government anyw<strong>here</strong><br />
in the world have allocated to a single plant. We are<br />
keen to take forward the development, but we have also<br />
said that as part of the subsequent pilot projects 2 to 4,<br />
we are keen to see whether that can be applied to gas.<br />
Ian Lavery: The Minister said that £1 billion had<br />
been invested in the carbon capture and storage programme.<br />
T<strong>here</strong> were four initial demonstration plants, the first of<br />
which is to be a coal-fired demonstration plant. The<br />
contract will be awarded, I believe, in December 2011.<br />
Will that not take most of the £1 billion? If so, is he<br />
confident that moneys will be available to secure the<br />
phase 2, 3 and 4 carbon capture and storage projects?<br />
Charles Hendry: The hon. Gentleman makes an<br />
important point. The £1 billion is specifically and only<br />
for that project. As I said, that is more than any Government<br />
anyw<strong>here</strong> in the world have allocated to a single project.<br />
The additional plants will be funded either by the levy<br />
introduced in the Energy Act 2010, or from general<br />
taxation. We are looking at the best way forward in<br />
terms of deliverability and the Treasury is examining<br />
the issue. The funding of projects 2 to 4 is separate from<br />
the funding of project 1, which has the £1 billion<br />
available to it.<br />
The revised renewables NPS has taken particular<br />
account of comments on biomass sustainability for<br />
generating stations using biomass as fuel. We have also<br />
revised the text regarding noise from onshore wind<br />
farms, which is different from general industrial noise,<br />
so a specific assessment methodology is used to take<br />
that into account.<br />
The method of assessing noise from a wind farm is<br />
described in “The Assessment and Rating of Noise<br />
from Wind Farms”, known as ETSU-R-97. The report<br />
recommends noise limits that seek to protect the amenity<br />
of those living close to wind farms. The recommended<br />
noise levels are determined by a combination of absolute<br />
noise limits and noise limits relative to the existing<br />
background noise levels around the site at different<br />
wind speeds.<br />
Policy document 4 relates to gas supply and oil<br />
pipelines. We have clarified that the gas supply infrastructure<br />
and gas and oil pipelines NPS covers only oil and<br />
natural gas pipelines and not CO 2 pipelines, which will<br />
be an important matter in relation to carbon capture<br />
and storage development. We have also added a new<br />
section describing the impacts on gas emissions due to<br />
the flaring or venting of gas.<br />
Policy paper 5 relates to electricity networks. We have<br />
tried to make sure that Government policy on<br />
undergrounding and the need to treat each application<br />
case by case is expressed more clearly. I welcome the<br />
decision by the Institute of Engineering and Technology<br />
to make an authoritative investigation of the costs of<br />
undergrounding, particularly in relation to the issues<br />
that the hon. Member for Wells (Tessa Munt) has<br />
raised, so that we can have a clear fact-based assessment<br />
of the different costs involved.<br />
Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD) rose—<br />
Charles Hendry: I thought that might encourage the<br />
hon. Lady.
903 National Policy Statements 1 DECEMBER 2010 National Policy Statements 904<br />
Tessa Munt: Thank you. Will that investigation examine<br />
the cost of under-sea infrastructure as well? I understand<br />
that the project will look at networks not just underground,<br />
but under-sea. Is that correct?<br />
Charles Hendry: That is my understanding of the<br />
report. We are all keen to have a fact-based scientific<br />
assessment of the relative costs. I know that in the hon.<br />
Lady’s constituency and many others t<strong>here</strong> has been<br />
great concern and a need to know the costs of different<br />
ways of dealing with the issues, so I hope the report will<br />
examine the under-sea aspects as well.<br />
Tessa Munt rose—<br />
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con) rose—<br />
Charles Hendry: I will give way to my hon. Friend,<br />
who has some issues in Suffolk.<br />
Dr Coffey: Thank you. We do indeed have issues in<br />
East Anglia, and in Suffolk in particular. We have an<br />
enormous number of offshore wind farms, yet the green<br />
impact of pylons across our countryside is hardly palatable.<br />
I welcome the changes being made, and hope that we<br />
will have more detailed calculations of the costs and the<br />
impact of the benefits.<br />
Charles Hendry: I shall give way again to the hon.<br />
Member for Wells and deal with both issues together.<br />
Tessa Munt: How can I and my constituents be<br />
assured that the study is wholly independent and is not<br />
in any way informed or directed by National Grid?<br />
Charles Hendry: I would hope that the nature of the<br />
Institute of Engineering and Technology, and its track<br />
record for independence and fact-based assessment,<br />
would be sufficient to assure everyone that a thorough<br />
approach will be taken. T<strong>here</strong> is no doubt in any of our<br />
minds that if anybody tried to steer its conclusions one<br />
way or the other it would publicly require them to go<br />
away. I am absolutely satisfied that the process will be<br />
independent and robust, but in due course the institute<br />
will publish the full report so that it can be peer-reviewed.<br />
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab): Before<br />
the hon. Gentleman leaves EN-5, will he reflect on the<br />
question that he raised previously about investment in<br />
new infrastructure through the electricity markets as<br />
they stood, and the extent to which that investment<br />
stayed in existing equipment to shore up the electricity<br />
market? In the new circumstances, w<strong>here</strong> investment in<br />
infrastructure will increasingly be required before the<br />
replacement of plant, will EN-5 reflect that change<br />
fully? If not, could the energy market reforms that he<br />
will undertake shortly inform a revision of EN-5 to take<br />
those new circumstances into account?<br />
Charles Hendry: We have to see the national policy<br />
statements as part of the process. They are an integral<br />
part of an improved planning process, but they are not<br />
the full package. Electricity market reform will also be a<br />
key element in incentivising people to invest. Let me<br />
give an example of how things are changing. I was<br />
recently with Ofgem launching the second round of<br />
offshore grid transmission infrastructure bids. More<br />
than 100 different organisations, most of which were<br />
new players in this area, were keen to take part in that<br />
process, which was started by the previous Administration.<br />
A number of new organisations—new financial<br />
institutions—want to invest in our energy infrastructure,<br />
which is extremely encouraging, but to see the full<br />
package of these measures it will be necessary to ensure<br />
that they see the planning changes and the funding<br />
mechanisms that will drive it forward.<br />
Andrew Percy rose—<br />
Charlie Elphicke rose—<br />
Charles Hendry: I shall take a couple of interventions<br />
and then seek to conclude my remarks.<br />
Andrew Percy: While we are on the subject of new<br />
players coming into our energy industry, I invite the<br />
Minister to visit north Lincolnshire and the site of the<br />
South Humber Gateway project, w<strong>here</strong> we hope to<br />
cluster a number of offshore wind farm manufacturers<br />
with the potential to create 5,000 jobs initially, possibly<br />
rising to 20,000. It will be incredibly important to our<br />
region, so I invite the Minister to join me and my hon.<br />
Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers)<br />
on a visit some time soon.<br />
Charles Hendry: I know that both my hon. Friends<br />
have done sterling work in pushing the case for the<br />
South Humber Gateway. I would be delighted to see<br />
the planned work to get a clearer understanding of the<br />
ambition. It is typical of many of the ambitions of<br />
people who see a fantastic new opportunity emerging in<br />
the energy sector, and we are keen to encourage that. I<br />
imagine that my hon. Friend the Member for Dover<br />
(Charlie Elphicke) will make a similar plea for a visit.<br />
Charlie Elphicke: I do not wish to trouble the Minister<br />
to come down to east Kent, but for the benefit of the<br />
House will he say how many power stations were brought<br />
into operation during the last <strong>Parliament</strong>? The only one<br />
that we in Kent can recall is the dirty Kingsnorth power<br />
station. On the need for more funding and the need to<br />
build infrastructure and green infrastructure, I recall<br />
that during the last <strong>Parliament</strong> not many power stations<br />
were brought on line.<br />
Charles Hendry: A number of gas powered plants<br />
were brought on stream. The last nuclear power station<br />
was Sizewell in the 1990s. T<strong>here</strong> has not been a new<br />
clean coal plant yet because people need to know how<br />
the carbon abatement technology will move forward.<br />
Gas has been the fuel of choice: 60% of the consented<br />
plant—12 out of 20 GW—is gas. What people want to<br />
build remains to be seen, but t<strong>here</strong> is significant interest.<br />
We now need the policies to drive this forward.<br />
I want rapidly to conclude my remarks with a few<br />
additional points—<br />
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con) rose—<br />
Charles Hendry: An enormous number of colleagues<br />
are keen to speak in the debate, but with your forbearance,<br />
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will allow my hon. Friend to<br />
intervene as he is a member of the Select Committee.
905 National Policy Statements 1 DECEMBER 2010 National Policy Statements 906<br />
Christopher Pincher: I am grateful to my hon. Friend<br />
for being so generous. May I take him back to his earlier<br />
remarks about energy security and how the national<br />
policy statements will feed into our energy security?<br />
Energy security not only relates to the Department of<br />
Energy and Climate Change, but has an impact on the<br />
Ministry of Defence, the Foreign and Commonwealth<br />
Office, the Department for International Development<br />
and the Department for Transport. How do the threads<br />
in our national policy statements interweave to ensure<br />
that across all those Departments we have a holistic<br />
approach to energy security?<br />
Charles Hendry: One thing that has struck and impressed<br />
me most as an incoming Minister has been the extent to<br />
which Departments work constructively together, with<br />
information shared appropriately and buy-in from every<br />
Department on policy proposals. My Department clearly<br />
leads on the energy market and the Treasury is critically<br />
involved in setting a carbon price, which we believe is<br />
part of the process, but t<strong>here</strong> is a holistic approach and<br />
investors are looking at that to make sure that t<strong>here</strong> is<br />
joined-up government.<br />
I want to close, so perhaps I can respond in my<br />
winding-up speech to any additional points about the<br />
exact way in which we will take the process forward.<br />
Having spoken for the best part of an hour, I feel that<br />
many hon. Members on both sides of the House will<br />
wish to have a chance to contribute fully to the debate.<br />
In conclusion, our reforms of the major infrastructure<br />
planning process will ensure much greater democratic<br />
accountability. Ministers will be responsible for decisions<br />
to consent to or refuse major infrastructure development,<br />
and t<strong>here</strong> will be a binding vote in the House on<br />
whether to approve national policy statements. Our<br />
debate today is about whether the House has considered<br />
the matter of the draft energy national policy statements,<br />
and I look forward to listening to it and having the<br />
chance to hear the expertise that so many hon. Members<br />
have to offer.<br />
Several hon. Members rose—<br />
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans): Order. As the<br />
Minister says, a number of Members will be trying to<br />
catch my eye during this debate. T<strong>here</strong>fore, I am introducing<br />
a seven-minute limit on speeches.<br />
5.31 pm<br />
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab): Thank you,<br />
Mr Deputy Speaker. I have indicated to you through the<br />
usual channels that, if it is your wish, I am more than<br />
happy to forgo any concluding remarks so that more<br />
people have time to make their contributions.<br />
I welcome this general debate about national policy<br />
statements, which is timely and necessary. I thank the<br />
Energy and Climate Change Committee for its continuing<br />
effort and expertise and, of course, the Committee on<br />
Climate Change for its recommendations and analysis.<br />
We share much of the Minister’s analysis of the challenges,<br />
but that is not surprising because, as I say with some<br />
humility, my predecessors laid the groundwork that he<br />
is continuing. We are glad to see him and his colleagues<br />
taking up the baton with such relish, because they do so<br />
at a critical juncture, when delay and dithering would be<br />
terminal to investor certainty, UK energy security and<br />
our low-carbon future. T<strong>here</strong> is a real need to get on<br />
with that work.<br />
On that thought, the shadow Front-Bench team and<br />
I—and I am sure the whole House—send our best<br />
wishes to the Secretary of State and his team on their<br />
negotiations in Cancun. In government, Labour adopted<br />
the world’s first legally binding framework to cut emissions,<br />
by 80% by 2050, signalling our clear intent and leadership<br />
on tackling climate change. My right hon. Friend the<br />
Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) played<br />
a difficult hand with some great skill and not insignificant<br />
personal commitment at Copenhagen when he was<br />
Secretary of State, and although the job has not become<br />
any easier, we hope that the new Secretary of State will<br />
keep the momentum going.<br />
Let us reprise w<strong>here</strong> we are, as laid out in the documents<br />
before us. One quarter of the UK’s generating capacity<br />
will close by 2018, and as much as 30% will need to be<br />
replaced by 2020. Without prompt action we face an<br />
electricity generation gap in the next 10 to 15 years as<br />
our nuclear and coal-powered stations are retired. World<br />
energy demand is rising and often highly politicised; as<br />
North sea reserves decline, we are increasingly reliant<br />
on imported oil and gas; and, as the Minister says,<br />
electricity demand is forecast to double over the next<br />
40 years. That will require rapid decarbonisation of the<br />
electricity sector, diversification of the energy sector<br />
with a decreasing reliance on fossil fuels and unabated<br />
combustion, and an increasing reliance on renewables,<br />
low-carbon energy and decentralised energy.<br />
We will also require development of carbon capture<br />
and storage and renewables technology for the UK and<br />
for international markets. We will need to create sufficient<br />
capacity to meet electricity generation needs at all times,<br />
and we will need to put the necessary supply chains in<br />
place. I will not go over the issue of Sheffield Forgemasters<br />
again, as it has been well aired already. We will require<br />
the development of smart grid and electricity networks<br />
to meet the needs of a reconfigured, smart and diverse<br />
electricity infrastructure and, of course, investment in<br />
gas infrastructure.<br />
Ian Lavery: The doubling of the electricity recovery<br />
rate over the next 40 years is vital. As was mentioned,<br />
the first phase of the four demonstration plants will<br />
cost up to £1 billion. Does my hon. Friend agree that it<br />
is essential that funding is found from somew<strong>here</strong> to<br />
fund phases 2, 3 and 4 if we are to meet our electricity<br />
requirements over that period?<br />
Huw Irranca-Davies: Yes, I agree entirely. It was<br />
wonderful news that after a slight delay to do with the<br />
coalition agreement, getting things in order, and some<br />
wrangling with the Treasury, we had the announcement<br />
that £1 billion would be available—the commitment<br />
that the Labour Government had made to the first<br />
phase of CCS on a commercial scale. However, it is<br />
equally essential that we have phases 2, 3 and 4. I am<br />
sure that the Minister is committed to continuing that<br />
wrangling with the Treasury to ensure that we find the<br />
mechanisms that will allow that to happen, and promptly.<br />
We need it for coal, but we also need it for gas. I<br />
welcome the in-principle announcements that have been<br />
made about phases 2, 3 and 4, but what we are waiting<br />
for, as with so much else, is the detail to make it certain.
907 National Policy Statements 1 DECEMBER 2010 National Policy Statements 908<br />
Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con): Given<br />
that the previous Government had a complete lack of<br />
policy on energy, threatening constituents such as mine<br />
with the possibility of their lights being switched off for<br />
long periods in the next 10 years or so, I find it a bit rich<br />
that the hon. Gentleman is lecturing us somewhat,<br />
although I appreciate the consensus on some issues.<br />
Does he at least agree that the national policy statements<br />
brought forward by this coalition Government are a<br />
great step forward in attracting the kind of investment<br />
that we need to ensure that the lights are left on?<br />
Huw Irranca-Davies: Well, we can debate who can<br />
claim credit for the NPSs. Of course, they were instigated<br />
and developed under the last Labour Government, but<br />
I give credit w<strong>here</strong> it is due; I will come to that in a<br />
moment in looking at some of the detail. We agree that<br />
t<strong>here</strong> has been some improvement in the intervening six<br />
months—it will be nine months by the time they are<br />
eventually signed off—but they were in darn good<br />
shape before, and they were ready to go. The hon. Lady<br />
pushed me on trying to claim the credit entirely, but<br />
these are the Labour Government’s documents. They<br />
have been refined and improved, but they were already<br />
in place.<br />
Charlie Elphicke: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?<br />
Huw Irranca-Davies: Let me make a tiny bit of progress.<br />
This short debate is informed by the ongoing<br />
consultation—or perhaps I should say, for the benefit of<br />
the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie<br />
Bray), reconsultation—on the national policy statements.<br />
The coalition Government have taken this opportunity<br />
to pause, to reflect, and to revise them. In a way, that is<br />
a good thing, because it has allowed more time for<br />
deliberation, but—let us be frank—it will also have cost<br />
a vital eight or nine months by the time that the final<br />
NPSs are produced in January. That is a luxury that has<br />
inevitably led to a delay in our national efforts to secure<br />
a long-term energy security future.<br />
Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con): Is it not the<br />
case, though, that the report by the Energy and Climate<br />
Change Committee criticised the previous Government<br />
for leaving it quite so long to get to the stage w<strong>here</strong> the<br />
NPSs were being considered? It published its report in<br />
March 2010, when the Government had had from 2005<br />
onwards to put them in place.<br />
Huw Irranca-Davies: Indeed. The hon. Lady will have<br />
noticed that between March 2010 and now an election<br />
got in the way. The national policy statements were in<br />
place, and this Government, had they so chosen, could<br />
have picked them up and run with them, or alternatively,<br />
as happened when we came into office in 1997 and had<br />
our policies ready to go having worked them up with<br />
the civil service, they could have got on with it straight<br />
away. We will be nine months delayed by the time we<br />
have these documents before the House for full<br />
consideration.<br />
Dr Thérèse Coffey rose—<br />
Huw Irranca-Davies: I will make a little progress.<br />
Although I welcome this debate, we now have only<br />
one hour and 20 minutes to debate issues that, as I am<br />
sure the Minister will agree, are critical to our national<br />
strategic energy needs and to the balance between those<br />
needs and democratic accountability at national and<br />
local levels. Unlike the over-long process of reconsultation,<br />
this short debate demonstrates all speed, but limited<br />
accountability. It will t<strong>here</strong>fore be impossible to do<br />
justice to the six core energy documents and the<br />
accompanying materials. This must be seen instead as a<br />
useful staging post to a much longer debate in this place<br />
in Government time.<br />
I will begin with some points on the reform of planning<br />
in relation to NPSs, in response to the Minister’s opening<br />
remarks.<br />
Martin Horwood: Before we leave the question of<br />
Labour’s legacy, can the hon. Gentleman put a figure<br />
on the unfunded liabilities for cleaning up the last<br />
generation of nuclear power? Some estimates put it as<br />
high as £160 billion. Does that sound accurate to him?<br />
Huw Irranca-Davies: That question should probably<br />
be put to the Minister. I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s<br />
long-held position on nuclear power. I pay credit to the<br />
Minister and the Government for pulling the coalition<br />
into a semblance of agreement on nuclear—albeit with<br />
the odd person against it—which means that we can<br />
move forward.<br />
Labour’s Planning Act 2008, which underpins this<br />
matter, made the planning system for major infrastructure<br />
quicker, more efficient and much more predictable. It<br />
laid the conditions for essential new investment in the<br />
UK’s infrastructure, including large-scale, low-carbon<br />
energy projects. The coalition Government have a<br />
responsibility to ensure that their plans, which include<br />
scrapping the Infrastructure Planning Commission, do<br />
not add delays or remove the clarity and certainty that<br />
industry needs to invest in new renewable and nuclear<br />
capacity, and low-carbon energy. I give credit to the<br />
coalition Government and the Minister, because they<br />
have wisely decided, despite the unnecessary delay, to<br />
continue with the Labour Government’s national policy<br />
statements, with the revisions, rather than wait for<br />
wholesale reform of the planning system. That is a<br />
welcome recognition of the excellent work of the Labour<br />
Ministers who formerly occupied the Minister’s office<br />
and of my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster<br />
North.<br />
Christopher Pincher: The hon. Gentleman waxes eloquent<br />
about the right hon. Member for Doncaster North<br />
(Edward Miliband). Can he t<strong>here</strong>fore explain why the<br />
Public Accounts Committee, when it reviewed the<br />
Department of Energy and Climate Change, said that it<br />
lacked a definite sense of energy and purpose under the<br />
now Leader of the Opposition?<br />
Huw Irranca-Davies: The ball is now firmly in the<br />
court of the Minister. T<strong>here</strong> is an issue with the urgency<br />
and delivery of some the Government’s ambitions that<br />
we share. They must get on with it.<br />
Rather than take further interventions, I will get into<br />
the nitty-gritty. Some of my questions for the Minister<br />
arise from his appearance yesterday before the Energy<br />
and Climate Change Committee, which, as usual, did a<br />
very good job.
909 National Policy Statements 1 DECEMBER 2010 National Policy Statements 910<br />
When we return to this matter with the finished<br />
articles in front of us—the final, beautifully honed,<br />
polished NPSs—will we be afforded adequate time?<br />
Will each national policy statement have adequate, separate<br />
parliamentary time in line with the coalition Government’s<br />
stated aim of enhancing parliamentary scrutiny of NPSs<br />
in their planning reforms, or will they be mixed together<br />
like a bag of all-sorts? If the coalition Government are<br />
true to their aims, the Minister should help us through<br />
the usual channels to push for days, not hours, to debate<br />
the NPSs. Much as we dearly love the Secretary of State<br />
for Communities and Local Government—we may ask<br />
who would not do so, when he is described on the front<br />
page of his website as “an absolute star” and a “saintly<br />
figure”, among other less self-effacing and more humorous<br />
things—when it comes to debating energy NPSs, we<br />
want the Minister of State, Department of Energy and<br />
Climate Change, the hon. Member for Wealden (Charles<br />
Hendry), or the Secretary of State for Energy and<br />
Climate Change. We want them—no one else will do.<br />
Can the Minister guarantee that he and his DECC<br />
colleagues will not be squeezed out of their seats by the<br />
right hon. and saintly Member for Brentwood and<br />
Ongar?<br />
In the coalition’s drive for parliamentary scrutiny, I<br />
am sure that the Minister will be able to confirm today<br />
that t<strong>here</strong> will be a separate vote on each NPS, having<br />
been unable to confirm it yesterday to the Energy and<br />
Climate Change Committee. To mix the nuclear issue<br />
with those of fossil fuels, renewables, pipelines and the<br />
electricity network infrastructure would tax the wit of<br />
Wilde and the wisdom of Solomon. For us mere mortals,<br />
will he make representations through the usual channels<br />
to ensure that the votes are separate?<br />
Will the Minister explain to the House why he has set<br />
against the calls to make an NPS amendable? We<br />
understand that t<strong>here</strong> will be a take-it-or-leave-it vote. It<br />
would be interesting to hear the justification for taking<br />
scrutiny so far but no further. He might have a very<br />
strong rationale for that position, such as wanting to<br />
avoid the unpicking of an NPS that has been through<br />
exhaustive consultation, but we need to hear it.<br />
T<strong>here</strong> is a more fundamental point to be made about<br />
the parliamentary scrutiny of the NPSs, which goes to<br />
the very heart of the planning reforms that the Government<br />
are developing. The argument advanced by the coalition<br />
is that democratic accountability is best assured by<br />
laying the NPSs in front of the House and making a<br />
Minister, hopefully this Minister, answerable for them.<br />
In fact, he said back in June:<br />
“A fast and efficient planning system is critical for facilitating<br />
investment in much needed new energy infrastructure. By abolishing<br />
the Infrastructure Planning Commission we will ensure that vital<br />
energy planning decisions are democratically accountable.”<br />
His colleague the Minister of State, Department for<br />
Communities and Local Government, the right hon.<br />
Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), went further,<br />
saying:<br />
“Today the coalition is remedying those deficiencies by putting<br />
in place a new fast track process w<strong>here</strong> the people’s elected<br />
representatives have responsibility for the final decisions about<br />
Britain’s future instead of unelected commissioners.”<br />
Yet we understand that for the Minister, the consideration<br />
of the NPSs is a quasi-judicial decision. He has described<br />
it as such. Ministers, formerly myself included, are used<br />
to making quasi-judicial decisions and are made aware<br />
of the very strict limitations that bind them. His decision<br />
is strictly limited, involves the application of policy to a<br />
particular set of facts and requires the exercise of discretion<br />
and the application of the principles of natural justice.<br />
It is not a prescription for localism, political interference<br />
or ministerial hokey-cokey. It is about policy and facts.<br />
May we safely assume that the NPSs, once presented<br />
to the House by the Minister in January, will be a fait<br />
accompli? May we assume that he will have satisfied<br />
himself, in a quasi-judicial role, that the NPSs presented<br />
are fit for purpose? He will listen to fellow MPs, but his<br />
mind will be made up. On that basis, will he tell us, first,<br />
what is the point of putting the NPSs to the House if<br />
they represent his full and final view? Secondly, if he<br />
has a mind to amend them, what specific examples can<br />
he give that would cause him to change his quasi-judicial<br />
view and alter the documents, and what further time<br />
delay would ensue?<br />
Charles Hendry: I hesitate to intervene on the hon.<br />
Gentleman after my own comments went on for quite a<br />
while, but I wonder whether I can provide clarity on<br />
that issue now. The quasi-judicial aspect relates to a<br />
ministerial decision on a planning application, not to<br />
the approach taken to the national policy statements<br />
themselves. We are in the course of a three-month<br />
consultation, which will finish on 24 January. T<strong>here</strong> will<br />
quite possibly be amendments to the NPSs after that,<br />
which will be in the final version put before the House<br />
for debate, assessment and a vote. We do not have a<br />
quasi-judicial capacity in that respect. My comments<br />
about acting in a quasi-judicial capacity related to<br />
ministerial decision making on individual planning<br />
applications under the rules set out in the NPSs.<br />
Huw Irranca-Davies: I thank the Minister for that<br />
intervention, but will he clarify two things? Has he just<br />
said that NPSs will be amendable on the Floor of the<br />
House. He will sign off and present NPSs to the House,<br />
but will he sign them in a quasi-judicial role, or will he<br />
perform such a role only in respect of individual planning<br />
applications?<br />
Charles Hendry: T<strong>here</strong> is confusion between the approval<br />
process for NPSs and the role that Ministers will take in<br />
respect of individual planning decisions when the IPC<br />
has been abolished. On individual planning decisions,<br />
Ministers will act in a quasi-judicial capacity, but on<br />
NPSs, a revised consultation period to take account of<br />
the initial representations—we felt that improvements<br />
needed to be made—will end in January. If further<br />
revisions are necessary, a document will be put to the<br />
House for its final consideration and approval.<br />
Huw Irranca-Davies: Is the Minister suggesting that<br />
the final document will be amendable and subject to a<br />
decision by the House, as I think I heard him say from a<br />
sedentary position? It would be helpful if he could<br />
clarify that, because we are talking about significant<br />
decisions over the future energy needs of this country. It<br />
is important that the House knows whether it is voting<br />
on a batch of NPSs or on each one individually and for<br />
how long they will be debated. It is also important that<br />
the House knows whether it has the ability to amend<br />
NPSs. If so, would that cause delays? My assumption is<br />
that if the House changes any individual NPS, it will<br />
need further consideration and possibly consultation.
911 National Policy Statements 1 DECEMBER 2010 National Policy Statements 912<br />
[Huw Irranca-Davies]<br />
The Minister’s officials would certainly become involved,<br />
and relevant stakeholders would need to be consulted.<br />
T<strong>here</strong> would be a minimum of 13 weeks’ consultation,<br />
as recommended by civil service guidelines, but possibly<br />
a heck of a lot more. It would be helpful to get some<br />
clarity on those issues before we debate NPSs.<br />
Charlie Elphicke: Speaking of clarity, can the shadow<br />
Minister explain why we are threatened with the lights<br />
going out in 2015? Should he and his party not apologise<br />
for that shocking situation?<br />
Huw Irranca-Davies: If the hon. Gentleman is seeking<br />
apologies, may I suggest that he starts by knocking on<br />
the door of No. 10? He should ask the Prime Minister<br />
why it took so long for him to move from a position of<br />
equivocation on nuclear new build to a position of<br />
indifference. Following Labour’s leadership, the Prime<br />
Minister finally rowed in behind on the need for nuclear<br />
new build. The five-year hiatus to which the Minister<br />
referred happened, as someone remarked earlier,<br />
because t<strong>here</strong> was no appetite in the country or among<br />
the body politic to move forward on new nuclear. We<br />
showed leadership; certain individuals rowed in behind,<br />
but it took them a long time to do so.<br />
For the sake of taxpayers, who are always in the mind<br />
of the coalition Government, will the Minister tell us<br />
what he knows about the cost of abolishing the IPC?<br />
What are the costs of the transition to the new major<br />
infrastructure unit within the planning inspectorate?<br />
Will t<strong>here</strong> be savings for the taxpayer, and if so, will he<br />
or the Government publish those figures after the debate?<br />
In the absence of the much anticipated localism Bill,<br />
w<strong>here</strong> in the reformed process does localism rear its<br />
lovely head? Will the Minister explain how parliamentary<br />
scrutiny of NPSs, which represent the Minister’s<br />
opinion on the strategic needs of the UK, allows for<br />
localism? If the answer to that question is not in the<br />
Government’s response and if we will not be told in<br />
January, w<strong>here</strong> is it?<br />
What is the expected lifespan of NPSs? I ask that for<br />
a very good reason. The Minister recently spoke with<br />
clarity and purpose at a meeting of the World Coal<br />
Association, which I was pleased to attend, and made a<br />
bold prediction. He said with certainty that next spring,<br />
he would draw a line in the sand on his forthcoming<br />
decisions on a range of market mechanisms and incentives,<br />
including electricity market reforms, carbon floor-pricing,<br />
emissions performance standards, capacity payments<br />
and so on. The NPSs are part of that line in the sand,<br />
giving investors certainty for years ahead, yet they do<br />
not stand alone. T<strong>here</strong> are so many “What ifs?”, and the<br />
Minister has to take these into account—it is like multidimensional<br />
chess.<br />
I know that the Government do not particularly like<br />
the idea of school sport, as we discovered yesterday, but<br />
the Minister has been indulging in his favourite sport<br />
with his ministerial colleagues—an extreme sport known<br />
as Treasury-wrangling. After some delay, he came out<br />
with a partial win, announcing the first stage of commercial<br />
CCS—carbon capture and storage—which has delivered,<br />
after a slight delay of six months, the first part of<br />
Labour’s commitment to CCS. We look forward to him<br />
rapidly bringing forward not only that pilot, but the<br />
three others, including a pilot on gas CCS. However,<br />
may I urge—or should it be “nudge”, in the Government’s<br />
new lexicon?—the Minister to get on with that pronto?<br />
He has honestly and publicly acknowledged that t<strong>here</strong><br />
is no future for coal in the UK unless that technology is<br />
made to work. However, t<strong>here</strong> is also a global imperative,<br />
as developing nations rush towards their own coal-powered<br />
futures. As such, this Government must avoid any further<br />
delay on the complete CCS programme of work.<br />
However, what if CCS on a commercial scale does<br />
not work? What if t<strong>here</strong> are delays because of cost, lack<br />
of funds or complexity, or because the technology to<br />
bring it forward is not available on time, or even not at<br />
all? We all want CCS to succeed—we all say that it has<br />
to succeed—and we are full of hope that it will, both for<br />
UK energy security and abating the global exploitation<br />
of fossil fuels. However, a reasonable man—and a<br />
reasonable Minister—cannot just assume that that will<br />
happen, and must t<strong>here</strong>fore make contingency plans.<br />
Martin Horwood: Given that carbon capture and<br />
storage technology has been in use on a commercial<br />
scale in the <strong>United</strong> States for some 40 years—albeit not<br />
on the same scale as that envisaged for the power<br />
stations in question—what does the hon. Gentleman<br />
imagine the technical barriers will be?<br />
Huw Irranca-Davies: I am glad to say that I am not<br />
an engineer, but that is exactly the point behind the<br />
large-scale commercial CCS pilots. That is exactly why<br />
we are running them, and we all hope that CCS will<br />
work. Indeed, I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s confidence<br />
that it definitely will work. However, t<strong>here</strong> are some<br />
nagging “What ifs?”. What if CCS is not delivered on<br />
time, or cannot happen because of the technology, the<br />
scale or the investment?<br />
In my short time in this post, I have come to realise<br />
that the Minister’s Front-Bench colleague, the hon.<br />
Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), positively<br />
exudes enthusiasm. Indeed, he leaves a trail of enthusiasm<br />
w<strong>here</strong>ver he goes, and for every conceivable energy<br />
source. His enthusiasm is demonstrated in photo-ops<br />
around the country and around the world, but what if<br />
the latest enthusiasm for decentralised energy, which<br />
the Minister mentioned, and combined heat and power<br />
is not realised, because the electricity grid is not smart<br />
enough to make it work locally or because the right<br />
incentives are not in place, or for other reasons?<br />
I have a final “What if?” for the Minister: the nuclear<br />
“What if?”. He has been categorical in recent days—<br />
heroically categorical—that new build nuclear is on<br />
schedule for 2017-18. Yet he knows that the Health and<br />
Safety Executive will not be issuing final certificates<br />
next year on the two designs that this House has taken<br />
through in the past few days through justification orders,<br />
but will instead issue interim certificates. T<strong>here</strong> is more<br />
work to be done on the designs and, equally importantly,<br />
the build speed of new nuclear, as evidenced by delays<br />
internationally, in Europe, the US and Asia.<br />
The coalition Government have struggled to come to<br />
terms with their identity crisis on nuclear—do they love<br />
it or hate it, and will they unequivocally support it or sit<br />
on the fence—but the Minister deserves some credit for<br />
helping his Lib Dem comrades down off the fence.<br />
However, the industry still waits for the long-term certainty<br />
of market signals that will bring forward the investment<br />
at all, let alone on time. So, t<strong>here</strong> are “What ifs?” on
913 National Policy Statements 1 DECEMBER 2010 National Policy Statements 914<br />
nuclear, decentralised energy and CCS, as well as on<br />
other things, if only we had the time to discuss them in<br />
this short debate.<br />
Martin Horwood rose—<br />
Huw Irranca-Davies: I will not take another intervention<br />
because t<strong>here</strong> are other people waiting to speak.<br />
Meanwhile, part 3 of the overarching energy policy<br />
statement details new electricity projections. It outlines<br />
the need for 59 GW of new capacity by 2025, of which<br />
as much as 33 GW will be from renewables, thus leaving<br />
a significant potential gap, on top of the energy gap<br />
that we already acknowledge, if the Minister’s best laid<br />
plans do not come to fruition. This raises the question<br />
of how the Minister can avoid re-carbonising instead of<br />
de-carbonising the energy sector if an unabated dash<br />
for expensive imported gas rushes in to fill the looming<br />
energy gap. The dash for gas and the energy gap could<br />
be made far worse if any of the “what ifs” were to<br />
happen. The Minister has honestly and openly accepted<br />
that gas will form part of our journey to a de-carbonised<br />
future, but how will he ensure that we do not stumble<br />
into a new generation of unabated gas use by default?<br />
As a former Minister, I recognise the problem of<br />
dealing with highly complex issues and scenario planning.<br />
I t<strong>here</strong>fore ask the Minister to share with the House his<br />
scenario planning and risk analysis for the energy market,<br />
before we come to debate the national policy statements<br />
in detail on the Floor of the House in January. If t<strong>here</strong><br />
is to be real democratic accountability, the House needs<br />
to see the complete assumptions on which the Minister<br />
is making his case for the NPSs and for the energy<br />
market underpinning them. We assume that these have<br />
been done. If nuclear, CCS, decentralised energy or a<br />
whole host of other variables were delayed or undeliverable,<br />
what is plan B, plan C or plan D, and would any of<br />
them allow us still to reach our aims on energy security<br />
and low carbon energy?<br />
In that regard, what is the Minister’s response to the<br />
recommendation of the Committee on Climate Change,<br />
in response to the proposals for national policy statements<br />
on energy, that the Government act on the Committee’s<br />
proposal that the widely accepted concept of fully<br />
de-carbonising the electricity sector by 2030 should be<br />
made explicit in Government policy and NPSs? It has<br />
been widely accepted anyway, and it would drive the<br />
achievement of the 2050 targets on greenhouse gases.<br />
The Committee asserts that making explicit that<br />
commitment would drive forward decision making on<br />
new generating capacity and give certainty to investors<br />
regarding the Government’s overarching energy policy.<br />
Dan Byles: The shadow Minister has highlighted the<br />
concern that many of the Government’s plans are predicated<br />
on CCS working and on investment in nuclear coming<br />
through, and he has asked what plan B is. Can we look<br />
forward to hearing from those on his own Front Bench<br />
what their plan B would be if they were in government?<br />
Huw Irranca-Davies: I can give the hon. Gentleman a<br />
guarantee that we are committed to assisting the<br />
Government to deliver this, but to ignore the potential<br />
scenarios of not making good in any one of these areas<br />
would be to bury our head in the sand. T<strong>here</strong> are real<br />
concerns that t<strong>here</strong> could be delays in one of these<br />
areas, and if that were to happen, we, as a constructive<br />
Opposition would have to work jointly with the Government<br />
to fathom a way in which we could still deliver de-carbonised<br />
energy, hit our carbon reduction targets and deliver<br />
energy security and affordable energy. I have not even<br />
touched on the issues of the green deal and the green<br />
investment bank that were raised by other Members<br />
earlier. That is why we need to see the Government’s<br />
working assumptions, the detail behind the Minister’s<br />
development of these NPSs and, as soon as possible,<br />
the proposals for electricity market reform.<br />
I am pleased that the Minister is talking a lot about<br />
the intentions behind the NPSs, but we are really up<br />
against time. I know that he will once again stand up<br />
and say that that is all the fault of the previous<br />
Administration, but actually it was the previous<br />
Administration who put in the foundations for what the<br />
coalition Government are now rightly taking forward.<br />
We will look to the Government to make good, and we<br />
will be constructive in helping them, but the House and<br />
the Energy and Climate Change Committee need to be<br />
able to wrestle with the facts as well as with the broad<br />
thrust of the statements. I have spoken longer than I<br />
intended to, and I look forward to hearing the comments<br />
of other Members.<br />
6.3 pm<br />
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con): We<br />
have had a tour de force from the Minister and the<br />
shadow Minister on many of the issues in the national<br />
policy statements for energy. I shall restrict my comments<br />
to an issue that affects my constituency, which is the list<br />
of suggested nuclear new build sites and, in particular,<br />
the Dungeness site. At present, t<strong>here</strong> is an A station and<br />
a B station at Dungeness, and the site was included on<br />
the previous Government’s original list of 11 sites to be<br />
consulted on. Before the general election, it was removed<br />
from the list after the initial stage of the consultation,<br />
and it has remained off the list of potential sites to be<br />
taken forward within the national policy statement in<br />
the draft consultation that has been presented to <strong>Parliament</strong>.<br />
I have already discussed the issue in debates in the<br />
House and in Westminster Hall and I do not want to go<br />
over all the ground again, but I do want to deal with<br />
some specific points raised by the draft national policy<br />
statement which may be of interest to other Members.<br />
Let me say first that I am grateful to the Minister for the<br />
interest that he has taken in the subject, for his time, and<br />
for agreeing to meet me later in the month, along with<br />
representatives of Shepway district council and Kent<br />
county council, to establish whether any progress can be<br />
made.<br />
I note from the draft statement that the Government<br />
consider the site of Dungeness nuclear power station to<br />
be a credible site for a new power station should the<br />
principal concerns about it be addressed during the rest<br />
of the consultation period. Those concerns lie chiefly<br />
with Natural England’s objection to the development in<br />
a special protected area, a Natura 2000 reserve with a<br />
European designation. Dungeness is the only site under<br />
consideration in the initial consultation in which<br />
development would take place within a protected area.<br />
T<strong>here</strong> are problems with the other sites that the Government<br />
believe can be solved, but the problems affecting Dungeness<br />
remain.
915 National Policy Statements 1 DECEMBER 2010 National Policy Statements 916<br />
[Damian Collins]<br />
My constituents have particular concerns. They are<br />
typical of many communities living alongside nuclear<br />
power stations who have grown used to them, and are<br />
gratefully respectful not only of the energy that they<br />
contribute but of the large amount of employment that<br />
they bring to the communities that they serve. The<br />
existing Dungeness B station brings about £20 million a<br />
year into the local economy in Romney Marsh and in<br />
my constituency. That is not to be sniffed at: it would be<br />
difficult for a community to obtain the same amount of<br />
investment from any other source.<br />
My constituents’ concerns lie with Natural England’s<br />
objections, with which the draft statement deals in some<br />
detail. The statement gives an answer, but it does not<br />
provide much further consideration that could help us<br />
to address some of those concerns. One objection is<br />
that building on the vegetated shingle at Dungeness<br />
would damage the site, and that that damage could not<br />
be mitigated. The counter-argument is that t<strong>here</strong> would<br />
be a relatively small amount of development, and that a<br />
new nuclear power station would take up less than<br />
1% of the entire protected area and thus could not be<br />
said to damage the integrity of the whole site. Natural<br />
England, however, believes that the damage will be<br />
greater, and that it will be impossible to mitigate.<br />
We would like to know what further study could be<br />
conducted. Some of the land that would be lost has<br />
been developed before: it is not virgin territory that has<br />
never been disturbed. Much of the area that would be<br />
disturbed by the building of a new power station was<br />
disturbed when the existing power station was built. We<br />
would like any further study to consider the areas<br />
containing flora and fauna, and the vegetation on the<br />
shingle, which is the reason for the designation. Natural<br />
England says that if that vegetation is lost, it would not<br />
come back, but in parts of the peninsula it can be seen<br />
that w<strong>here</strong> vegetation has been disturbed and lost, it has<br />
grown back.<br />
Is a further study possible? Could it be said that<br />
Natural England’s concerns are not as great as it would<br />
have us believe, and that t<strong>here</strong> is room for mitigation?<br />
We would welcome some guidance, either from the<br />
Government or through the process that is taking place.<br />
At present, the response seems to be an absolute “no”,<br />
although t<strong>here</strong> have been a series of detailed considerations.<br />
EDF Energy, the owner of the current site, has made<br />
three presentations to the Government during the<br />
consultation, and Shepway district council has presented<br />
the Department with its own report, written by Ian<br />
Jackson. I know that those views have been considered,<br />
but we have been given no further detailed information<br />
about why they have been rejected, and we would like to<br />
know how we can make progress.<br />
The behaviour of Natural England raises a different<br />
concern. A view is developing among local people that<br />
Natural England is not particularly interested in the<br />
opinions of others, but is interested only in its own<br />
opinion, and that that colours its desire to extend the<br />
protected areas beyond the current Dungeness site. At<br />
the end of last month, Shepway district council passed<br />
a motion which includes the following paragraph:<br />
“This Council t<strong>here</strong>fore rejects any need for the extension of<br />
the Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay area nature conservation<br />
designations. It further looks to Natural England to work with<br />
the local population and businesses to find a more collaborative<br />
and integrated approach in preference to the prescriptive approach<br />
it is currently favouring.”<br />
We would certainly welcome that.<br />
Turning to the nature of the national policy statements,<br />
the site report on Dungeness states:<br />
“Given the nature of the issues at Dungeness, it may be easier<br />
to ascertain that t<strong>here</strong> will not be adverse effects on the integrity<br />
of the SAC at the detailed project level of an application for<br />
development consent.”<br />
My concern in that respect is that no energy company<br />
would take forward such a proposal for Dungeness if it<br />
were not included in the list of preferred sites. The<br />
Minister said to the Energy and Climate Change Committee<br />
yesterday that national policy statements<br />
“set the framework for major planning decisions. I think that the<br />
thoroughness with which they address those issues gives investors<br />
a significant amount of security.”<br />
I agree; that is what the national policy statements are<br />
for. However, if a site is not included in a list, even<br />
though it can in theory be taken forward, no one will do<br />
so without a degree of certainty. I t<strong>here</strong>fore wonder<br />
whether Dungeness could be included within the draft<br />
NPS, but with caveats listing the concerns of Natural<br />
England, which could then be addressed at a later stage.<br />
I would like us to be able to get to that stage first,<br />
however.<br />
6.10 pm<br />
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab): We<br />
have a scandalously short time in which to address these<br />
issues this evening. I have calculated that if we were to<br />
stack vertically the documents we are talking about this<br />
evening—important documents fundamental to the future<br />
of our energy planning—the pile would be 7 inches<br />
high. We have t<strong>here</strong>fore been allocated 21 minutes per<br />
inch of document. As I have seven minutes, I will<br />
address just one third of the documents by focusing on<br />
EN-1 and EN-5. However, I hope the powers that be<br />
will press through the usual channels for a lot more<br />
time in the Chamber to discuss these documents as<br />
they go through the consultative phase, because it is just<br />
not right that we have such a short time to get to grips<br />
with them.<br />
EN-1 is an overarching policy document setting out<br />
our energy planning framework for the future. It deals<br />
with our climate change commitments, and our<br />
commitments to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions<br />
by 80% by 2050. That, in turn, means the documents<br />
have to address the decarbonisation of the UK’s energy<br />
supply. The Committee on Climate Change wrote to the<br />
Secretary of State for Energy on 17 June, stating baldly:<br />
“The path to meeting the UK’s 2050 target to reduce emissions<br />
by 80% requires that the power sector is largely decarbonised in<br />
the period to 2030 (e.g. average emissions should be about 100 g/kWh<br />
in 2030 compared to around 500 g/kWh currently).”<br />
I assume that the Government largely agree with the<br />
Committee on Climate Change that to meet the<br />
requirements of our climate change budgets this, or<br />
something like it, should be the scenario and that that<br />
will be reflected in the planning documents that are<br />
published. After all, if we are to achieve these goals we<br />
cannot just hope they will happen; we need to plan for<br />
them, and to achieve them through a combination of<br />
planning signals, market incentives and supply and<br />
trading arrangements.
917 National Policy Statements 1 DECEMBER 2010 National Policy Statements 918<br />
EN-1 states that under some of our pathways some<br />
revisions have taken the scenario beyond 2025 towards<br />
the 2050 targets. It states:<br />
“Under some of our 2050 pathways, energy would need to be<br />
virtually emission-free”.<br />
Tessa Munt: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the<br />
Infrastructure Planning Commission successor body<br />
appears to be carbon-blind in its decision making under<br />
the arrangements? The IPC successor body should give<br />
significant weight to any project’s carbon emissions and<br />
ensure that cumulative emissions from the various projects<br />
do not jeopardise the UK’s carbon targets and their<br />
budgets. The national policy statement should provide<br />
an additional safeguard to that process.<br />
Dr Whitehead: The hon. Lady is absolutely right. In<br />
response to the Energy and Climate Change Committee<br />
report examining the previous national policy statements<br />
the Government have accepted they need to undertake<br />
some sort of spatial planning arrangement which will<br />
look at the cumulative impacts between various<br />
arrangements as they progress. She is also absolutely<br />
right that in this NPS that question of decarbonisation<br />
of supply needs to be part of the process, not anterior<br />
to it. The current level of emissions of our energy<br />
supply means that if we are to get to that position, gas<br />
at about 450 grams per kWh unabated probably will<br />
have no part to play in the energy economy by 2030—when<br />
abated, it comes in at about 100 grams per kWh.<br />
What are we planning? What are we looking for in<br />
these overarching documents? According to EN-1, we<br />
are planning to require a capacity of about 113 GW of<br />
installed power sources by 2025, which is a substantial<br />
increase on 2010 levels because of the penetration of<br />
wind, in particular. According to the scenario of that<br />
capacity projection, wind needs greater capacity to balance<br />
its variability. So the 113 GW, which is an increase on<br />
the about 80 GW of installed capacity that we have at<br />
the moment, will need to be installed by that point.<br />
However, 22 GW are expected to go offline, including<br />
most nuclear plants and a number of power plants,<br />
under the large plant directive and the industrial emissions<br />
directive. So 59 GW of new power will need to be built<br />
between now and 2025, one way or another.<br />
If we reach the renewables targets for wind, and we<br />
probably will, given the amount of wind power already<br />
in planning, we will have about 33 GW of wind power<br />
on the grid. That means that we will need 26 GW of<br />
new build non-renewables or non-wind. Of whatever<br />
type, they will, for the reasons I have outlined, need to<br />
be low-carbon or lowish-carbon. Some 8 GW are under<br />
construction and almost all that construction relates to<br />
gas. That leaves a balance of 18 GW. Some 9 GW is not<br />
under construction but has planning permission. The<br />
Government dismiss that as uncertain, but 5 GW of<br />
that relates to gas; plans for a further 7 GW are under<br />
consideration, most of which also relates to gas. So it<br />
appears that most of the current gap is set to be<br />
made up by gas. As the Select Committee has been<br />
told by the Committee on Climate Change, more gas is<br />
in the pipeline in terms of planning, permissions or<br />
build than we need for that future decarbonisation<br />
strategy to work.<br />
The NPS says that<br />
“it would be for industry to determine the exact mix of the<br />
remaining 26 GW of required new electricity capacity, acting<br />
within the strategic framework set by the Government”.<br />
If industry decides as it appears to be deciding, it will<br />
choose gas. If it is to be gas and that gas is unabated or<br />
only partially abated, the decarbonisation of our electricity<br />
supply will not happen.<br />
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con) rose—<br />
Dr Whitehead: I am sorry but I have to make progress<br />
because I will not get injury time for the second intervention<br />
I take.<br />
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle): You will,<br />
Alan.<br />
Dr Whitehead: Okay, then I will take the intervention.<br />
David Mowat: Thank you for your help on that<br />
matter, Mr Deputy Speaker. I agree with the hon.<br />
Gentleman’s point about decarbonisation, but it prompts<br />
the question: how much cost penalty would he advocate<br />
as reasonable in order for us to go down the route of a<br />
totally carbon-free mix in the way he is suggesting?<br />
Each household in the country already pays about<br />
£50 for the renewables obligation. The implication of<br />
his remarks is that the sum should be very much higher.<br />
I wonder whether he has thought about that.<br />
Dr Whitehead: Indeed I have. I think we will find out<br />
considerably more about that in the material that will<br />
come out on energy market reform, particularly the<br />
details on what a carbon floor price will look like and<br />
what capacity payments will look like to keep the energy<br />
balance more decarbonised in future. Yes, that will add<br />
costs to the system and t<strong>here</strong> need to be circumstances<br />
in which those can be abated for the public, but that is a<br />
particular issue for the energy market reform material<br />
to address.<br />
When the Minister was asked in the recent Energy<br />
and Climate Change Committee sitting about the gap<br />
that I have mentioned he said that it is possible that<br />
16 GW of the 18 GW gap could be new nuclear. That<br />
represents 10 new nuclear power stations by 2025, and<br />
although that would solve the gap problem it has the<br />
unfortunate downside of being in<strong>here</strong>ntly implausible.<br />
The Minister may want to rectify what he said in the<br />
light of that implausibility at a future date.<br />
The Committee on Climate Change’s estimate for the<br />
nuclear roll-out, produced in 2009, said that t<strong>here</strong> would<br />
be a maximum of three nuclear power stations online<br />
by 2020, even based on optimistic build and planning<br />
time scenarios. Indeed, as we have seen, the timing of<br />
the justification process has already slipped.<br />
That leaves a gap that is not filled by nuclear. It is<br />
clear at the moment that t<strong>here</strong> is an apparent contradiction<br />
in our national planning statements. We want to decarbonise<br />
our supply, but for 2025 we are pushing towards having<br />
a majority of gas as opposed to a small amount of<br />
peripheral gas at peaking periods, which is what our<br />
future energy supply should be based on.<br />
That is compounded by NPS EN-5, which attempts<br />
to collate permissions for plant and line. It will t<strong>here</strong>fore<br />
replicate the question of providing grid capacity for<br />
plants as they stand and not provide new grid capacity
919 National Policy Statements 1 DECEMBER 2010 National Policy Statements 920<br />
[Dr Whitehead]<br />
for plants that are not yet completed and that will be<br />
needed for a decentralised and decarbonised future<br />
energy supply.<br />
I do not have time to go into the matter of electricity<br />
storage, but I hope that the NPSs will pay some attention<br />
to that question. It is not true that electricity cannot be<br />
stored, as NPS EN-1 says. It can be stored and storage<br />
must be a future part of our increased capacity, as the<br />
Minister mentioned in the Select Committee yesterday.<br />
I hope that the Minister will reflect on that.<br />
6.21 pm<br />
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con): Thank you,<br />
Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to contribute to<br />
this stimulating debate, which is fundamentally focused<br />
on the process of establishing the Government’s important<br />
plan for the greatest increase in energy capacity and<br />
generation that we will see in our lifetimes. It is required,<br />
of course, to avoid a situation such as the one described<br />
by the line, “The lights are going out all over Europe; we<br />
may not see them lit again in our lifetimes.” That phrase<br />
was used by Sir Edward Grey, the British Foreign<br />
Secretary at the beginning of the first world war, as a<br />
metaphor for the catastrophe that was enveloping our<br />
continent, but by 2014 it could be the reality of our<br />
energy situation.<br />
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on leading<br />
us towards a plan and through a process that will attract<br />
the enormous new investment of some £200 billion that<br />
is required to replace a third of all power stations in the<br />
next 10 years. I want to touch briefly on one aspect of it,<br />
which is the nuclear energy part. I am conscious that the<br />
shadow Minister said earlier that our overall energy<br />
situation was in “darn good shape” and “ready to go”.<br />
If new nuclear power stations had been under starter’s<br />
orders for 13 years, t<strong>here</strong> must have been a terrible<br />
problem with the starter’s pistol.<br />
Today those plans are closer to becoming reality, not<br />
least because of the contribution made by EDF and its<br />
plan for a new nuclear power station. It is worth reminding<br />
Members that EDF took over the eight existing nuclear<br />
power stations previously operated by British Energy<br />
from Barnwood in my constituency. It is also worth<br />
noting EDF’s considerable investment, which will benefit<br />
people all over this country, of £20 billion towards the<br />
next new power station. That is almost twice EDF’s<br />
initial investment in buying British Energy.<br />
With the new generation of nuclear power stations<br />
come one or two other things I want to make the House<br />
aware of. First, the Barnwood nuclear power academy<br />
is becoming the training academy for nuclear engineers<br />
not just from this country but from all over Europe, and<br />
it brings thousands of young engineers to learn their<br />
trade in the centre of England. It is also running the<br />
country’s leading apprenticeship scheme, with some<br />
400 apprentices studying on a four-year course. I am<br />
optimistic that before the Gloucestershire apprenticeship<br />
fair in February of next year, the academy will offer<br />
more apprenticeships in finance and human resources<br />
as well as in the core business of engineering on the<br />
operations side. Nuclear power is critical to the future<br />
of our energy supply and to employment opportunities<br />
in the energy sector—EDF will create some 2,000 jobs<br />
over the next 10 years. It is also important in terms of<br />
employment opportunities for our young through an<br />
ever-expanding apprenticeship scheme. That illustrates<br />
how important it is, first, to attract foreign investment<br />
to Britain; and secondly, to set up a framework and a<br />
robust plan so investors have the confidence to fulfil<br />
their part in the important new energy capabilities that<br />
the Minister is shaping us towards.<br />
I conclude by saying that I hugely look forward to<br />
hosting a visit by the Minister to Barnwood soon to see<br />
at first hand the enthusiasm in my constituency both for<br />
tackling the energy shortages in our country and for<br />
building new nuclear power stations. Overall, the national<br />
policy statements will contribute hugely to having a<br />
more robust process, and I will certainly vote in favour<br />
of them this evening.<br />
6.26 pm<br />
Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/<br />
Co-op): I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in<br />
this debate. I served for a short time on the Energy and<br />
Climate Change Committee before being moved on to<br />
other things.<br />
As the Minister and the shadow Minister, my hon.<br />
Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies),<br />
made clear in their opening remarks, the policy statements<br />
are important, and it is crucial that we have the opportunity<br />
to debate them—I hope that we will have more opportunity<br />
to debate them than the short time that is available this<br />
evening. Bearing in mind that several Government Members<br />
want to speak, I will try to curtail my remarks to less<br />
than seven minutes, if possible.<br />
As the Minister has said, policy statements are crucial<br />
to energy security, our capacity and our ageing plant,<br />
which needs to be replaced. As the hon. Member for<br />
Gloucester (Richard Graham) said, they are crucial to<br />
investment, which can create and sustain jobs in the<br />
industry and the supply chain—I know that many Members<br />
on both sides of the House have a definite interest in<br />
that.<br />
I will not repeat the issues with Sheffield Forgemasters,<br />
other than to say that it is a crying shame that opportunities<br />
to develop, nurture and create jobs and skills will be<br />
enjoyed by other parts of the world, when we are<br />
focused on trying—in the words of the Prime Minister—to<br />
“rebalance the economy”.<br />
I want to touch on a couple of issues, to which I hope<br />
the Minister will respond. Many Members are more<br />
than aware of the huge frustration at the time it takes to<br />
move an infrastructure project from planning to building<br />
and to being ready for use—the clock is, as we all know,<br />
ticking. The previous Government looked to address<br />
that frustration through the Infrastructure Planning<br />
Commission. T<strong>here</strong> are concerns that by choosing a<br />
different route—by making the IPC part of the Planning<br />
Inspectorate—the Government might be subjecting the<br />
certainty that investors need to further delays. In moving<br />
to that model, I hope that some reassurance will be<br />
given that delays will not result in investment decisions<br />
not being taken or in investment being taken elsew<strong>here</strong>.<br />
That is absolutely crucial.<br />
The Minister knows from our discussions that I<br />
welcome the Government’s commitment to carbon capture<br />
and storage and to the pilot project at Longannet. That<br />
is the right project, given the speed with which existing<br />
coal technology can be retrofitted and be up and running.
921 National Policy Statements 1 DECEMBER 2010 National Policy Statements 922<br />
As my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian<br />
Lavery) said in an intervention, it is also important that<br />
gas forms part of future carbon capture and storage<br />
projects. I have heard the Minister refer to that, but I<br />
would be grateful if he reaffirmed it and gave further<br />
information. Otherwise, we will miss out on technology<br />
that can be developed, tested and used in this country,<br />
which goes back to my earlier point about some of the<br />
jobs and skills that can be nurtured in this country but<br />
exported elsew<strong>here</strong>. When the Prime Minister and others<br />
go off to China, India and other parts of the world<br />
evangelising for UK manufacturing industry, t<strong>here</strong> is<br />
potential for jobs to be created in the whole of the UK,<br />
not only in one part. That can help to join up the parts<br />
of the policy agenda.<br />
I want to touch on some of the issues of electricity<br />
market reform. I know that I am getting a reputation<br />
for being able to bore on about transmission charging<br />
for ever, but I have about two minutes, so I will bore on<br />
about it briefly. As the Minister will be aware, t<strong>here</strong> is<br />
considerable concern in some parts of the industry that<br />
investment decisions are being limited by the current<br />
transmission charging regime. Although the Ofgem review<br />
is being conducted—I welcome Ofgem’s recent change<br />
in stance—we have to be absolutely clear that as the<br />
electricity markets are reformed the transmission charging<br />
regime changes too. It was designed primarily for the<br />
pre-renewables world and is not serving our interests in<br />
achieving our overall targets for reducing carbon. T<strong>here</strong><br />
is potential for that industry to develop, partly, but not<br />
entirely, in Scotland, w<strong>here</strong> investors could be put off<br />
making a number of decisions on projects as a result of<br />
the current transmission charging regime.<br />
T<strong>here</strong> has been a lot of talk about the importance of<br />
the green investment bank. The idea originated under<br />
the previous Government and has been carried forward<br />
under this Government. It is crucial that we get the<br />
model right. It has to be about levering in green investment<br />
on a certain scale if it is to have any positive impact.<br />
I use my last few seconds to reiterate my plea to the<br />
Secretary of State for Scotland—which he seemed to<br />
begin to agree with—that the green investment bank be<br />
based in Scotland, given the industry and the expertise<br />
that is t<strong>here</strong>.<br />
6.32 pm<br />
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con): I am<br />
pleased to be called to speak in this important debate.<br />
Like many MPs, I believe that the first responsibility of<br />
any Government is the security of its citizens, and I take<br />
that responsibility very seriously. Securing our energy<br />
supplies is vital for the well-being and prosperity of the<br />
people who sent us <strong>here</strong> to represent them. The failure<br />
of the previous Government to invest, despite the so-called<br />
boom years and their great appetite for spending other<br />
people’s money, has led to our being far too dependent<br />
on imports to supply our national energy needs. Why?<br />
As we are discovering from so many other areas of<br />
policy that we have inherited, the reason is the previous<br />
Government’s failure to fix the roof while the sun was<br />
shining. T<strong>here</strong> has been a lack of co<strong>here</strong>nt and consistent<br />
policy to enable the UK to have a secure energy supply.<br />
Like any industry, the providers of energy need a<br />
clear and timely planning process, and the national<br />
policy statements are a step in the right direction. Along<br />
with proposals that we anticipate in the localism Bill,<br />
they will create the right processes that will enable the<br />
development of sustainable and secure energy supplies<br />
for the UK. I believe that the new policies should<br />
provide an efficient and democratically accountable<br />
system, and a fast-track process for major infrastructure<br />
projects. T<strong>here</strong> is no doubt that t<strong>here</strong> is an urgent need<br />
for a new energy structure in the UK. In developing that<br />
structure, the right balance must be struck between<br />
consenting to and building new energy infrastructure<br />
and the importance of protecting our environment and<br />
the quality of life for those who live in the communities<br />
w<strong>here</strong> that important infrastructure is located.<br />
Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con): I<br />
wonder whether my hon. Friend might also emphasise<br />
the great importance of ensuring that energy is affordable<br />
for the poorest people in the country. T<strong>here</strong> are some<br />
high-falutin’ ideas that seem to add cost for consumers,<br />
and they should be opposed.<br />
Sarah Newton: I very much agree. Far too many<br />
people in constituencies such as my hon. Friend’s and<br />
mine, especially in rural areas, are living in real fuel<br />
poverty and enduring the hardship associated with high<br />
energy bills.<br />
In establishing the right balance between environmental<br />
protection and the need to build new infrastructure, my<br />
hon. Friend the Minister must take very seriously the<br />
points my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and<br />
Hythe (Damian Collins) made about Natural England.<br />
Many of us up and down the country face the problems<br />
he described.<br />
I welcome in the draft statement the recognition of<br />
the important role that local authorities will play in the<br />
development and consideration of proposed major energy<br />
projects. The extent to which local authorities wish to<br />
be involved in the planning process has always been,<br />
and will continue to be, up to them, but the new regime<br />
is a significant improvement, giving local government<br />
statutory rights in the process and ensuring that its<br />
views are adequately taken into consideration. In addition,<br />
rather than imposing additional costs, t<strong>here</strong> are potential<br />
savings for local government from the new regime, as<br />
shorter hearings and quicker decisions should ensure<br />
that in future local authorities do not incur the costs<br />
incurred now.<br />
As hon. Members will be aware, I represent a constituency<br />
in Cornwall, w<strong>here</strong> we aspire to be world leaders in the<br />
new low carbon industrial revolution. As a result I have<br />
a particular interest in how the relevant parts of the<br />
NPS support the development of renewable energy. We<br />
are blessed with an abundance of natural resources that<br />
make us ideally situated to develop significant quantities<br />
of low carbon electricity to feed into the national grid.<br />
In the universities of Exeter and Plymouth and the<br />
Camborne school of mines, we have a world-leading<br />
knowledge base in renewable and sustainable energy. In<br />
local companies such as GeoScience and Kensa<br />
Engineering, we have pioneering and highly skilled<br />
engineering companies. The wave hub off Cornwall’s<br />
north coast is the first of its kind in Europe and it<br />
enables the testing of prototype wave and tide devices.<br />
We have great light for photovoltaics, an abundance of<br />
onshore wind and the hottest rocks in the UK. What we<br />
do not have is a national grid infrastructure able to take
923 National Policy Statements 1 DECEMBER 2010 National Policy Statements 924<br />
[Sarah Newton]<br />
the anticipated volumes of electricity that can be generated<br />
locally to be fed into the grid. I believe that the NPS will<br />
help to tackle that wholly unsatisfactory situation.<br />
Although I understand the Government’s reasons for<br />
feeling that t<strong>here</strong> is no urgency about including technologies<br />
such as wave and tide in the NPS until large-scale<br />
commercially viable schemes have been developed, I<br />
urge the Minister to keep them in mind for the next<br />
round and subsequent revisions and, in the meantime,<br />
to do all he can to support that sector of renewable<br />
energy generation and to keep a watching brief on how<br />
the Marine Management Organisation handles its<br />
responsibilities. He will not be surprised to hear a<br />
similar plea from me for deep geothermal energy generation,<br />
which has the potential to contribute 5% of the UK’s<br />
electricity. That technology, which is tried and tested in<br />
other countries—often developed by UK engineers—is<br />
yet to receive the support it deserves from Government<br />
in this country. With my hon. Friend’s assistance, I hope<br />
to reverse that.<br />
Given the scale of the challenge ahead, it is vital that<br />
NPS is capable of being revised and updated, so that, as<br />
we learn more about new and emerging technologies<br />
and develop an evidence base for their capacity to<br />
deliver energy into the grid and to contribute to the<br />
Government’s aim of decarbonising electricity production,<br />
they are supported and given the chance that inclusion<br />
in the NPS will provide.<br />
6.39 pm<br />
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con): It is a delight<br />
to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and<br />
Falmouth (Sarah Newton), who spoke about the energy<br />
potential of the hot rocks of Cornwall. I shall say<br />
something about the energy potential of the East Riding<br />
of Yorkshire and north Lincolnshire, which it is my<br />
privilege to represent. My rocks may be a little colder,<br />
however.<br />
We already contribute significantly to the energy<br />
infrastructure of this country, not least through the<br />
power stations just outside my constituency and the<br />
constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for<br />
Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), at Drax and<br />
Eggborough, as well as through the coal-fired power<br />
station at Keadby in my constituency. T<strong>here</strong> are also the<br />
potential opportunities that I raised with the Minister<br />
earlier with regard to offshore wind at the South Humber<br />
Gateway. I shall not mention in the presence of my<br />
neighbour, my right hon. Friend and the Member for<br />
Haltemprice and Howden, onshore wind turbines, as he<br />
and I are engaged in a number of skirmishes with<br />
various developers.<br />
I welcome today’s debate, which has ranged much<br />
broader than simply the national policy statements. We<br />
have gone into many wider areas of energy policy. The<br />
national policy statements will contribute to putting<br />
our energy policy on a much more secure footing, which<br />
we recognise is essential if we are to attract the necessary<br />
investment to keep the lights on in this country, as other<br />
Members have mentioned.<br />
I shall speak about two issues associated with the<br />
potential for offshore wind. I mentioned earlier the<br />
potential for clustering the manufacturing for offshore<br />
wind at the South Humber Gateway, which has been<br />
progressing somewhat slowly through the planning system,<br />
owing to similar problems to those mentioned by other<br />
Members in relation to Natural England. In fairness to<br />
both Natural England and the developers, I should say<br />
that t<strong>here</strong> has been significant movement in recent days<br />
and we may well get agreement. The planning structure<br />
is a problem for us because the developers are looking<br />
at sites not just in the UK, but internationally. Unless<br />
we get that right, we risk losing a potentially huge<br />
amount of investment, in this case to other countries in<br />
Europe.<br />
I was pleased to hear the Minister talk about the<br />
review of overhead lines, which are another massive<br />
issue in my constituency. The national grid seems to<br />
criss-cross all over some beautiful Lincolnshire and east<br />
Yorkshire countryside. I shall follow the proceedings<br />
with interest.<br />
On the relationship between national policy statements<br />
and local councils, I echo some of the concerns expressed<br />
by the Energy and Climate Change Committee, which<br />
said:<br />
“We are concerned that the current status of the NPSs within<br />
the wider planning system is, at best, ambiguous.”<br />
I note the Government’s response, which states that<br />
“the degree to which Government policy, including the policy in<br />
the NPS, or draft NPS, is relevant to any particular planning<br />
application...isnotforGovernment to prescribe.”<br />
They go on to say that they t<strong>here</strong>fore do not believe that<br />
any additional guidance is necessary.<br />
I ask the Minister to reconsider that. Having served<br />
as a local councillor for 10 years, I know that it is an<br />
undeniable attraction to planning officers to look for<br />
leadership from national Government in local planning<br />
decisions. Could we have a clearer statement that the<br />
NPSs will not impact on local planning decisions and<br />
should not be used as an excuse? We saw regional<br />
spatial strategies often being drawn into planning<br />
applications, w<strong>here</strong> they had no real role. The temptation<br />
is irresistible to many planning officers to look to<br />
national policy for guidance. Perhaps that can be considered<br />
in more detail when we debate national policy statements<br />
next year.<br />
I welcome the general direction of policy. The debate<br />
today has been interesting, with the Minister and the<br />
shadow Minister working on a consensual cross-party<br />
basis on many topics. That is significant on a subject<br />
that is so important to the country. I look forward to<br />
seeing the Minister at the South Humber Gateway<br />
shortly, and I thank him for that.<br />
6.43 pm<br />
Dan Byles (North Warwickshire) (Con): I shall keep<br />
my remarks brief, as I am conscious of time.<br />
It is extremely important that we get energy policy<br />
right. It is right that the Department has reconsulted on<br />
it, rather than rushing ahead, as it might have done. If<br />
we get energy policy wrong, we will live with the<br />
consequences for decades to come. T<strong>here</strong> is a huge<br />
infrastructure challenge. As has been mentioned, we<br />
need to replace about one third of our entire energy<br />
generating capacity in the next 10 years.<br />
All our nuclear power stations bar one will be off line<br />
by 2023, and we need to rebuild substantially, if not<br />
completely, our energy transmission infrastructure if
925 National Policy Statements 1 DECEMBER 2010 National Policy Statements 926<br />
we are to move towards a smart grid, which we will need<br />
to enable the 21st century energy infrastructure that we<br />
are trying to put in place to work. This huge infrastructure<br />
challenge translates into a huge investment challenge.<br />
Some £200 billion of investment is required in the<br />
coming years. To put that into context, I point out that<br />
it is approximately one third of the entire investment in<br />
energy infrastructure that the whole of Europe will<br />
require. EDF is looking at spending some £20 billion on<br />
what we hope will be the first of a new generation of<br />
nuclear power stations. That £20 billion represents the<br />
largest single investment by a French company outside<br />
France, I think ever, but certainly since the second<br />
world war. We need another nine just like that if we are<br />
to hit our £200 billion.<br />
At the risk of over-emphasising this issue, let me say<br />
that we absolutely have to get the investment climate<br />
right. We need to put in place a stable regulatory and<br />
investment climate that will give investors the confidence<br />
to invest staggering sums of money for 30 or 40-year<br />
timelines and beyond. The investment challenge <strong>here</strong> is<br />
probably the biggest single part of the issue that we are<br />
discussing today. I t<strong>here</strong>fore strongly welcome the broad<br />
degree of cross-party consensus that we have on our<br />
emerging energy policy. Investors must have the confidence<br />
that we will not lurch from one energy policy in this<br />
country to another with potential changes of Government,<br />
but work together and put something in place that will<br />
give the confidence for 10, 20, 30, 40 years or more.<br />
That is all I want to say. It is a plea as much to those<br />
on the Opposition Front Bench as to those on the<br />
Government Front Bench. We must ensure that we put<br />
together an investment and regulatory regime that will<br />
not change, that will be stable and give the confidence<br />
that is necessary if we are to have the investment that we<br />
need.<br />
6.46 pm<br />
Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD): I will return to my favourite<br />
subject of the electricity grid, particularly as it affects<br />
Somerset, Suffolk and the other areas that have been<br />
mentioned today. Electricity networks have a significant<br />
effect on the beauty and tranquillity of the countryside,<br />
and to date the industry has been guided by a set of<br />
principles called the Holford rules in routing new overhead<br />
lines. I particularly want to note that the second draft of<br />
the NPS on electricity networks proposes to weaken the<br />
standing of the Holford rules. The latest draft says only<br />
that decision makers<br />
“should bear them in mind”.<br />
That is likely to mean that t<strong>here</strong> will be no requirement<br />
on either the electricity companies to demonstrate that<br />
they have sought to avoid damaging impacts on important<br />
areas of landscape, or that the decision maker should<br />
base its evaluation for proposed overhead transmission<br />
line schemes on whether the Holford rules have been<br />
met. Neither does t<strong>here</strong> seem to be an expectation<br />
that the mitigation measures suggested in EN-5, at<br />
paragraph 289, should be carried out for schemes w<strong>here</strong><br />
one or more of the Holford rules are not met. The effect<br />
of this will be seriously to weaken the protection of the<br />
countryside from unnecessary or intrusive energy<br />
infrastructure.<br />
The other minor points that I would like to make<br />
include the wording of several sections of the NPS<br />
w<strong>here</strong> minor changes of wording could have major<br />
impacts. I will write to the Minister in detail about those<br />
if I may, but certainly t<strong>here</strong> are paragraphs in EN-1 that<br />
relate to the historic environment w<strong>here</strong> t<strong>here</strong> is weakened<br />
protection for non-designated but still important heritage<br />
assets, and t<strong>here</strong> are impacts on the visual landscape<br />
that relate to the regional economy departing from<br />
existing protections for nationally designated areas such<br />
as national parks or areas of outstanding national<br />
beauty. In addition, EN-1 also seems to advise applicants<br />
on how to circumvent green belt protection.<br />
Finally, I cannot reflect the comments that were<br />
made earlier, and I should like to be sure that t<strong>here</strong> is<br />
some way in which local authorities can negotiate a<br />
realistic contribution from developers, especially, for<br />
example, for residents in my area, which will be<br />
providing a storage facility for nuclear waste on a<br />
temporary basis that I understand to be somew<strong>here</strong> in<br />
excess of 100 years.<br />
6.49 pm<br />
Charles Hendry: We have had a good debate. It has<br />
been brief, but it is part of the process, not the end, and<br />
t<strong>here</strong> will be further opportunities to discuss the issues<br />
at length when the House returns in the new year. We<br />
have had a very good mix, involving national interest<br />
and a great tour of the energy opportunities horizon in<br />
the constituencies of many Members on both sides of<br />
the House. One of the most encouraging outcomes of<br />
the debate is the recognition that, throughout the country,<br />
people are looking at how we can generate electricity in<br />
a new way. W<strong>here</strong> are the new opportunities? The hot<br />
rocks in Cornwall and the cold rocks in Yorkshire—the<br />
great opportunities that we find around us—are something<br />
that we should truly celebrate as we look at the issue.<br />
The hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies),<br />
who speaks for the Opposition on these matters, talked<br />
about who should take the credit, Labour Ministers or<br />
Conservative Ministers? I do not think it should be any<br />
of us, because it should be our incredibly hard-working<br />
officials, who have done almost all the work in getting<br />
us to our current position and an outstandingly good<br />
job on a very complex set of documents.<br />
The hon. Gentleman talked about the delay. We wish<br />
that t<strong>here</strong> had not been one, but we recognised that in<br />
the previous draft statement t<strong>here</strong> was a flaw in the<br />
appraisal of sustainability, and we felt it right to re-interpret<br />
that in order to make it stronger and clearer. Because<br />
that was so fundamental and in the overarching national<br />
policy statement, it seemed right that we should re-consult<br />
on all the statements, and it has been absolutely the<br />
right way to take the matter forward.<br />
On the question of how the process will move forward,<br />
we have assumed that t<strong>here</strong> will be a debate about the<br />
national policy statements overall and, at the end of the<br />
day, votes on the individual statements, but we do not<br />
anticipate the scope for hundreds of amendments to<br />
them. We have changed the previous Government’s<br />
decision that t<strong>here</strong> would be no vote at all, because we<br />
believe it important that, as part of this democratic<br />
process, the House should have the chance to vote on<br />
them.<br />
The hon. Gentleman asked also about the role of<br />
localism. T<strong>here</strong> is a difference between the nationally<br />
critical strategic infrastructure, which we deal with in<br />
the national policy statements, and the local agenda,
927 National Policy Statements 1 DECEMBER 2010 National Policy Statements 928<br />
[Charles Hendry]<br />
w<strong>here</strong> we believe that local authorities should have<br />
significantly more power when deciding on the issues<br />
that come to them below the 50 MW. Of course, the<br />
views of local people, directly and through their local<br />
authorities, will be an integral part of individual planning<br />
applications, and they will be heard.<br />
I shall pick up on some of the other points that have<br />
been raised during the debate. My hon. Friend the<br />
Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins)<br />
talked about Dungeness, and from our conversations<br />
and his consistent representations, I understand w<strong>here</strong><br />
he is coming from. We recognise that the development<br />
of a new nuclear power station at Dungeness would be<br />
a continued source of employment and bring economic<br />
benefits to the surrounding area, but the Government<br />
are obliged by law to consider adverse affects on the<br />
integrity of European-protected sites which might be<br />
caused by development and to consider alternative sites<br />
if those impacts cannot be mitigated.<br />
Dungeness is not on the NPS, because we have not<br />
yet been persuaded that a new nuclear power station<br />
could be built t<strong>here</strong> without having adverse impacts on<br />
the integrity of the Dungeness special area of conservation,<br />
or that adverse impacts could be avoided or mitigated.<br />
The Dungeness SAC is the most important shingle site<br />
in Europe, so after careful consideration of the<br />
representations made so far our view that Dungeness<br />
should be excluded has not changed. The consultation<br />
is continuing, and, if additional evidence that changes<br />
that conclusion emerges in the course of the meeting<br />
that I will have with my hon. Friend and his local<br />
authority’s representatives, or in written submissions,<br />
we will take it into account.<br />
The hon. Member for Southampton, Test<br />
(Dr Whitehead), who speaks with such authority, raises<br />
several issues, but I shall focus on the role of gas. We see<br />
a need for gas, but part of the issue is that we have<br />
inherited a situation in which new nuclear cannot be<br />
built until the end of the decade, because its construction<br />
did not start earlier. Further, when it comes to the<br />
mass roll-out of renewables, we are third from bottom<br />
in the whole EU. We have great ambition but start from<br />
a long way behind. Carbon capture and storage on a<br />
major commercial scale cannot play a massive role until<br />
the end of the decade, although our ambitions for that<br />
are high.<br />
Gas will t<strong>here</strong>fore have to be part of the process; that<br />
is the simple, practical reality. Gas-powered stations can<br />
be built quickly; gas requires lower capital expenditure<br />
than other technologies, so the write-off period is lower;<br />
and importantly it is flexible, so it can back up other,<br />
more in<strong>here</strong>ntly variable technologies.<br />
Of course, the issue of emissions will be critical. That<br />
is why we are taking forward the work on the carbon<br />
floor price and looking at emissions performance standards<br />
and the other measures that will be brought to bear,<br />
which investors will need to take into account as they<br />
make decisions on these critical investments. The time<br />
scale of that is now almost upon us. In the next few<br />
weeks, before Christmas, we will set out how the electricity<br />
market reform process will work.<br />
My hon. Friends took me on a fascinating tour of the<br />
country. We heard about the nuclear opportunities in<br />
Gloucester and the great training opportunities at the<br />
Barnwood EDF facility. My hon. Friend the Member<br />
for Gloucester (Richard Graham) is absolutely right to<br />
talk about the skills agenda and the supply chain<br />
opportunities that we are determined to realise.<br />
My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth<br />
(Sarah Newton) focused on energy security and the<br />
issues surrounding the wave hub and deep geothermal<br />
resources. I look forward to visiting those facilities with<br />
her in due course. My hon. Friend the Member for<br />
Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) talked about the supply<br />
chain and his concerns about power lines, which we<br />
completely understand.<br />
My hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Tessa Munt)<br />
spoke about the Holford rules. We will reflect on the<br />
concerns that she expressed, but we must also have<br />
clarity about what benefit local areas will achieve from<br />
these new investments. That is at the heart of the<br />
localism Bill. Thinking about how local communities<br />
should benefit in terms of business rates and other<br />
direct benefits coming into their communities will<br />
completely transform the relationship between these<br />
facilities and the communities who host them. That will<br />
be an important element as we move forward.<br />
The hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West<br />
(Tom Greatrex) speaks with great authority on these<br />
issues, and the House benefits from his expertise. He is<br />
absolutely right that time is not on our side. The whole<br />
purpose of what we are trying to do is to remove the<br />
barriers to new investment in these areas. We are absolutely<br />
clear that t<strong>here</strong> will be no public subsidy for new nuclear,<br />
but we must then remove the other potential barriers—the<br />
regulatory barriers—to ensure that that investment can<br />
go ahead. On carbon capture and storage, I can absolutely<br />
give him the assurance that we are looking to gas as part<br />
of the next projects. The market-sounding exercise showed<br />
a significant interest in gas, and we will t<strong>here</strong>fore open<br />
up this competition to gas plants as well.<br />
The hon. Gentleman talked about EMR and the cost<br />
of transmission. We have to look at this in a new way.<br />
People will not build power plants if they do not believe<br />
that they can get their power to market. Historically,<br />
power plants were built in the coal centres or outside<br />
the big industrial centres; now, we are looking at new<br />
places for them to be built. We have to look at this<br />
afresh, and I am delighted with the work that Ofgem is<br />
doing to look at the best structure for the process. I will<br />
leave others to deal with the issue of the location of the<br />
green investment bank.<br />
Finally, I want to deal with some of the points made<br />
by the hon. Member for Ogmore. He mentioned “what<br />
if?” scenarios. He was right to do that, but we are in that<br />
“what if?” environment because of the situation that we<br />
inherited. After 13 years, we have to get £200 billion of<br />
new investment coming into the infrastructure. If more<br />
decisions had been made to take forward the role of<br />
nuclear and not to have the five-year moratorium, we<br />
would be significantly further advanced, and the challenging<br />
energy situation in the middle of this decade would not<br />
have applied in the same way.<br />
My hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire<br />
(Dan Byles) talked extremely clearly and effectively<br />
about the energy security needs that we have to address.<br />
It is possible that CCS may not work, or that the price<br />
may be too high, but if we do not push the process<br />
forward and take advantage of the extraordinary<br />
opportunities that we have in this country, we will
929 1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
930<br />
always be followers and never be leaders. That is why we<br />
have been so keen to take forward that technology.<br />
The hon. Member for Ogmore suggested that<br />
decentralised energy may be unable to deliver as much<br />
as we hope, and he may be right. However, we are right<br />
to try to look at what can be done locally, although we<br />
are doing it against the backdrop of how much more<br />
should have been done historically. In the end, this all<br />
comes back to the broad portfolio of policies that we<br />
are putting forward—the need to have clarity on national<br />
planning issues, which is exactly what these documents<br />
are about, and the need to have clarity on the market<br />
structure that will exist.<br />
The hon. Gentleman talked almost as if EMR—the<br />
market reform process—was his own idea. Seven months<br />
ago, Labour Members were saying that t<strong>here</strong> did not<br />
need to be a price on carbon, that t<strong>here</strong> should not be<br />
an emissions performance standard, and that we did<br />
not need capacity payments. We are having to reinvent a<br />
market in order to take us forward and give us the<br />
security that we need. This is part of a package. I hope<br />
that he is in no doubt about our determination to<br />
achieve that and to drive it forward. Let me assure my<br />
hon. Friends, and all hon. Members that we totally<br />
understand everything that needs to be done to drive<br />
forward investment in this area. We will take nothing<br />
for granted. Our goal is to make this the most attractive<br />
place in the world in which to invest in new energy<br />
infrastructure. We are determined to do that and we<br />
look for consensus and partnership to take it forward.<br />
This debate has been a constructive and important part<br />
of that process. I hope we can conclude that we have<br />
had a good debate on these issues—<br />
7pm<br />
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).<br />
Business without Debate<br />
DELEGATED LEGISLATION<br />
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing<br />
Order No. 118(6)),<br />
OFFICIAL STATISTICS<br />
That the draft Official Statistics Order 2010, which was laid<br />
before this House on 13 October, be approved.—(Mr Goodwill.)<br />
Question agreed to.<br />
Libel Law<br />
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House<br />
do now adjourn.—(Mr Goodwill.)<br />
7pm<br />
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con): If<br />
the world has a capital of free speech, it is Britain. If it<br />
has a centre of free speech, it is this Chamber, as you<br />
know well, Mr Speaker. Yet in the last few years, Britain<br />
has become a watchword for something else—the use of<br />
our libel law to suppress free speech.<br />
This is not an esoteric philosophical issue. Free speech<br />
is the mother of freedom of thought and freedom of<br />
thought is the mother of many virtues, including integrity,<br />
individualism and creativity. That is why Britain has a<br />
vigorous and successful tradition of high culture and<br />
science, as well as of democracy. As I will demonstrate,<br />
all those virtues of British culture have been suppressed,<br />
to a greater or lesser extent, by our libel law.<br />
As a <strong>Parliament</strong>, we have failed to defend one of our<br />
nation’s primary virtues—free speech. We have also<br />
failed in the duty to protect the weak and vulnerable<br />
from the rich and powerful. More often than not, it is<br />
the rich and powerful who use the libel laws to intimidate<br />
the less wealthy and the less powerful, as I shall demonstrate.<br />
Perhaps the best demonstration that English libel law<br />
has become a weapon of the rich and powerful is the<br />
extent to which they choose to use the English courts<br />
over any other option and over the courts of any other<br />
country. When Boris Berezovsky sued a Russian TV<br />
company, he did so not in Russia, w<strong>here</strong> the deed<br />
occurred, but in England. Similarly, Roman Abramovich<br />
chose to sue an Italian newspaper not in Rome, but in<br />
London.<br />
In 2004, the Saudi billionaire, Khalid bin Mahfouz,<br />
launched a libel action against Rachel Ehrenfeld, the<br />
American author of “Funding Evil: How Terrorism Is<br />
Financed—and How to Stop It”. The book claimed<br />
that Mahfouz financed al-Qaeda. It was not published<br />
<strong>here</strong>, but it was available online. Mahfouz brought the<br />
case not in America or Saudi Arabia, but in Britain,<br />
and the court awarded him substantial damages. As a<br />
direct result, New York law was changed to prevent<br />
British judgments applying in the US and American<br />
national law is undergoing the same change.<br />
Those rich men each brought their cases under the<br />
English judicial system, rather than in the appropriate<br />
forum, because English libel law is complex, clumsy,<br />
expensive and draconian. It is 140 times more expensive<br />
to defend a libel case in England than in other European<br />
nations. As a result, it favours the wealthy man who has<br />
the most financial stamina and can afford the most<br />
expensive lawyers. Although libel tourism is not the<br />
most important weakness in English libel law, it is the<br />
starkest symptom of how unfair it can be, compared<br />
with every other jurisdiction in the modern world.<br />
Perhaps the best domestic example of this grotesquely<br />
expensive system is the Naomi Campbell case. A newspaper<br />
wrote about her drug problem. It was sued and lost on<br />
the grounds of breach of confidentiality. Although the<br />
story was true, the legal fees alone cost more than<br />
£1 million.<br />
How did all that come about? English libel law was<br />
largely developed centuries ago by English judges, as an<br />
alternative to duelling to protect the honour of gentlemen.
931 Libel Law<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
Libel Law<br />
932<br />
[Mr David Davis]<br />
I am sure that no Member wants to see Hampstead<br />
heath littered with the bodies of dead journalists, but I<br />
am not sure how much of an improvement that new law<br />
was. It has been compounded with undoubtedly well<br />
intentioned European Union and European Court of<br />
Human Rights law, and we have ended up with dreadful<br />
unintended consequences.<br />
One of the most egregious consequences has been the<br />
rise of the so-called super-injunction, which bans any<br />
reporting of a case at all. The most extreme of those<br />
was the Trafigura case, which you will remember,<br />
Mr Speaker. Trafigura was accused of dumping toxic<br />
waste on the Ivory Coast, and for a while its lawyers<br />
secured a ban on the reporting even of questions in<br />
<strong>Parliament</strong>. In so doing, they overturned the absolute<br />
right to free speech fought for and won more than two<br />
centuries ago by John Wilkes. That is a suppression of<br />
free speech in this country that no one in the House<br />
should countenance or tolerate.<br />
T<strong>here</strong> is worse yet: the crushing of free speech in<br />
science and medicine. Both those disciplines advance by<br />
conjecture and refutation, through the advancing of<br />
theories and the testing of them by experiment. Free<br />
dispute and unfettered argument are essential to that<br />
process. Yet we are witnessing, time and again, the use<br />
of English libel law by powerful commercial interests to<br />
suppress legitimate discussion of scientific fact and<br />
medical effectiveness.<br />
That is not entirely new. A famous member of this<br />
House, William Cobbett, was bankrupted by a lawsuit<br />
in 1797 after he pointed out that the practice of bleeding<br />
victims of yellow fever probably killed a number of<br />
them. He fled the lawsuit and the victims continued to<br />
be bled, and of course continued to die.<br />
In modern times, the starkest example was the<br />
thalidomide case. For some time, The Sunday Times<br />
was prevented from publishing articles alleging negligence<br />
in the manufacture and distribution of the drug, which,<br />
as Members will remember, caused terrible deformities<br />
in the children of women who took it in pregnancy.<br />
That judgment was eventually overruled, and the law<br />
was rebalanced slightly to favour free speech in the<br />
Contempt of Court Act 1981. Unfortunately, however,<br />
t<strong>here</strong> are still actions by commercial companies and<br />
other vested interests to suppress criticism of medical<br />
products and practices.<br />
I shall give an example. Henrik Thomsen, a Danish<br />
radiologist, raised concerns that Omniscan, a drug used<br />
to enhance medical scanner images, was causing crippling<br />
pain and even death in a few patients. Despite the fact<br />
that medicine advances by a process of critical appraisal,<br />
the maker of the drug, GE Healthcare, sued him in the<br />
British courts, clearly in order to silence him. The suit<br />
has been resolved, but another medical specialist, the<br />
eminent cardiologist Peter Wilmshurst, has faced similar<br />
treatment. At a cardiology conference not in Britain but<br />
in Washington DC in 2007, he criticised a product made<br />
by an American company, NMT Medical, to deal with<br />
symptoms of hole-in-the-heart syndrome. NMT sued<br />
Mr Wilmshurst not in America but in the English<br />
courts. He courageously decided to fight the case,<br />
specifically to defend free speech.<br />
Time and again, commercial companies take such<br />
action to silence critics. The proper, responsible,<br />
scientific way of dealing with criticism in medicine is<br />
tousb present the data and confront the argument.<br />
Using the law to silence legitimate criticism is to put<br />
shareholder interest above public health and, sometimes,<br />
public safety.<br />
The best known case in England, of course, is that of<br />
Simon Singh, who essentially called some of the claims<br />
of chiropractors bogus. The British Chiropractic<br />
Association sued him and, after a protracted legal battle,<br />
lost. Nevertheless, he ended up hundreds of thousands<br />
of pounds out of pocket in addition to losing two years<br />
of his life—two years of stress, anxiety and the prospect<br />
of financial ruin. A less courageous man would have<br />
buckled, and indeed most do. That, of course, is the<br />
purpose: to intimidate critics out of saying anything, or<br />
to force a humiliating retraction, effectively gagging the<br />
press from reporting such criticism.<br />
The tactics used are carefully refined. They are known<br />
as “lawfare” and are designed to focus the financial<br />
intimidation on the individual who is least able to bear<br />
it. The most recent demonstration of that nasty tactic<br />
would be ludicrous—bordering on the farcical—were it<br />
not so serious in its wider implications. It involves a<br />
product, elegantly called “Boob Job”, sold at £125 a jar<br />
and produced by a company called Rodial. The Daily<br />
Mail sought the advice of a leading consultant plastic<br />
surgeon, Dr Dalia Nield, of the London Clinic. As one<br />
might expect, she questioned its effectiveness and suggested<br />
that if it had the physiological effects claimed for it by<br />
its producers, it might be dangerous.<br />
Rodial threatened Dr Nield with legal action. It has<br />
not threatened the Daily Mail, which carried her comments,<br />
because it has the resources to fight back, just Dr Nield,<br />
to get the maximum intimidation for the minimum risk.<br />
The proper response of any self-respecting company<br />
would be to publish the detailed composition of its<br />
product and the data supporting its claims, and engage<br />
experts to test those claims and carry out safety tests.<br />
That would be the approach of a respectable company,<br />
but I am afraid that Rodial has not taken such an<br />
approach—it has taken instead the approach of a charlatan<br />
and a bully.<br />
Of course, Rodial is not alone. When NMT threatened<br />
Peter Wilmshurst with a lawsuit, it did not threaten the<br />
BBC, which broadcast his comments, because the BBC<br />
can fight back. When the chiropractors sued Simon<br />
Singh, they did not sue The Guardian, which published<br />
his comments, because The Guardian can fight back.<br />
That is why it is called ″lawfare″—it is the deployment<br />
of judicial shock tactics against the most defenceless<br />
part of the opposition. It is a disgraceful tactic, and it<br />
should not be possible under any decently balanced<br />
judicial system.<br />
The effect of “lawfare” is to chill free speech in<br />
science, medicine and many other areas. In this age of<br />
the internet, that chilling effect does not stop at our<br />
borders. We should remember that English is the language<br />
of science. The impact of our dysfunctional laws will<br />
become more global as more corporations come to<br />
understand what they can do to use our laws to suppress<br />
criticism.<br />
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab): I wanted to highlight<br />
the fact that “lawfare” operates not merely in<br />
science. My constituent, Hardeep Singh, has been<br />
battling for four years in the ludicrously named case of
933 Libel Law<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
Libel Law<br />
934<br />
His Holiness v. Singh. He has been accused by a sex cult<br />
leader in the Sikh tradition of libel, and it has taken up<br />
four years of his life and thousands of pounds to<br />
defend his claim in a religious dispute that, in my view,<br />
is not able to be decided by the courts.<br />
Mr Davis: The hon. Lady is entirely right. I used<br />
science and medicine to demonstrate the starker effects<br />
of “lawfare”, but she has demonstrated one of the<br />
reasons why we debated the law on religious hatred: to<br />
allow unfettered discussion of religion, which is another<br />
great tradition of British democracy. I apologise to her<br />
constituent because I think of his case as Singh II, but it<br />
is just as important as the Singh case I cited, because<br />
both demonstrate only too clearly that we must get a<br />
grip on British libel law to prevent it damaging every<br />
aspect of our culture and tradition of free speech.<br />
That brings me to what we should do. Regrettably,<br />
t<strong>here</strong> is no single, simple solution. This week is the first<br />
anniversary of the Libel Reform Campaign, which<br />
encompasses campaigning organisations such as PEN,<br />
Index on Censorship, Sense About Science and others.<br />
T<strong>here</strong> are a variety of issues that we need to address.<br />
The cost of defending libel cases should be brought<br />
down. One step would be not to remove jury trial, but<br />
to introduce a tribunal process to deal with all but the<br />
most serious cases. The Minister might also care to tell<br />
us about his Green Paper—published a few weeks ago, I<br />
think—in which he talks about contingent fee arrangements<br />
and their possible reform, which might be another way<br />
of reducing costs. The law should focus on protecting<br />
individual reputation, without allowing heavy-handed<br />
commercial intimidation. One step towards that might<br />
be not to allow commercial companies above a certain<br />
size—in fact, really rather a small size—to bring such<br />
suits unless they can, in advance, demonstrate financial<br />
damage.<br />
The public interest defence—again, this is something<br />
that the hon. Lady will be interested in—is too vague<br />
and unhelpful to authors of legitimate criticism. A<br />
stronger and clearer defence than that provided by the<br />
so-called Reynolds defence should be instituted. In<br />
particular, t<strong>here</strong> should be a broader definition of what<br />
constitutes fair comment. In the light of what I have<br />
said about scientific and medical concerns, such a definition<br />
should be designed to exclude scientific and medical<br />
dispute from the courts completely. T<strong>here</strong> should be<br />
intelligent limits on what constitutes multiple publication.<br />
For a court case to be brought in Britain, a significant<br />
proportion—certainly more than 10%—of the publication<br />
should have been in Britain. As the House can see, t<strong>here</strong><br />
are many proposals—I have given only a short list—that<br />
need to be considered. I should like the Minister to<br />
confirm that the Government will be introducing a Bill<br />
in 2011; that he will consult Index on Censorship, PEN,<br />
Sense About Science and other campaigners before<br />
publishing it; and that the Government will correct this<br />
unintended and unwanted systemic failure in our judicial<br />
system.<br />
I shall finish by quoting the Appeal Court judges in<br />
the Simon Singh ruling. Speaking about the words used<br />
by Simon Singh in his criticism of the chiropractors,<br />
they said that his<br />
“opinion may be mistaken, but to allow the party which has been<br />
denounced…to compel its author to prove in court what he has<br />
asserted by way of argument is to invite the court to become an<br />
Orwellian ministry of truth.”<br />
The judges went on to quote Milton, writing about his<br />
visit to Italy, from 1683 to 1689:<br />
“I have sat among their learned men…and been counted<br />
happy to be born in such a place of philosophic freedom, as they<br />
supposed England was, while themselves did nothing but bemoan<br />
the servile condition into which learning among them was<br />
brought…that nothing had been t<strong>here</strong> written now these many<br />
years but flattery and fustian. T<strong>here</strong> it was…I found and visited<br />
the famous Galileo, grown old a prisoner of the Inquisition, for<br />
thinking in astronomy otherwise than the Franciscan and Dominican<br />
licensers thought.”<br />
When the judges had finished quoting Milton, they<br />
said:<br />
“That is a pass to which we ought not to come again.”<br />
I say to the Minister: it is a pass that the coalition<br />
Government ought not to allow to come again. To<br />
achieve that, we need clearly thought through and thorough<br />
reform of this bad law, to put free speech back at the<br />
pinnacle of public life in Britain.<br />
7.18 pm<br />
The <strong>Parliament</strong>ary Under-Secretary of State for Justice<br />
(Mr Jonathan Djanogly): I am grateful to my right hon.<br />
Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden<br />
(Mr Davis) for securing today’s debate on such an<br />
important and contemporary issue. Let me start by<br />
confirming that the Government are firmly committed<br />
to reviewing the law on defamation in order to protect<br />
free speech, and that is reflected in our coalition agreement.<br />
My noble Friend Lord McNally confirmed that<br />
commitment in July by announcing on behalf of the<br />
Government that we will publish a draft defamation<br />
Bill for consultation and pre-legislative scrutiny in the<br />
first Session of this <strong>Parliament</strong>, with a view to introducing<br />
a substantive Bill as soon t<strong>here</strong>after as parliamentary<br />
time allows.<br />
Our core aim in reviewing the law is to ensure that<br />
responsible journalism, academic and scientific debate<br />
and the valuable work of non-governmental organisations<br />
are properly protected, and that a fair balance is struck<br />
between freedom of expression and the protection of<br />
reputation. We want to ensure that the right balance is<br />
achieved, so that people who have been defamed are<br />
able to take action to protect their reputation w<strong>here</strong><br />
appropriate, but that free speech is not unjustifiably<br />
impeded.<br />
Ensuring that the right balance is struck is a difficult<br />
and sensitive exercise. It raises complex issues on which<br />
a wide range of differing views are likely to be held. In<br />
recognition of that, I can confirm to my right hon.<br />
Friend that we believe that any reform proposals will<br />
need to be the subject of extensive consultation, and<br />
that publication of a draft Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny,<br />
together with a full public consultation, represents the<br />
most effective approach to achieving substantive provisions<br />
that focus on core issues of concern w<strong>here</strong> legislation<br />
can make a real difference.<br />
Since Lord McNally’s announcement, the Ministry<br />
of Justice held informal discussions with a range of<br />
people and organisations with an interest in defamation<br />
law to ensure that their views are taken into account.<br />
These included: non-governmental organisations and<br />
libel reform campaigners; claimant representatives and<br />
members of the legal profession; representatives of the<br />
media and the publishing industry; internet service<br />
providers and other internet-based organisations; and
935 Libel Law<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
Libel Law<br />
936<br />
[Mr Jonathan Djanogly]<br />
representatives of the science community. I can confirm<br />
to my right hon. Friend that they included, as he<br />
requested, Index on Censorship, PEN and Sense About<br />
Science.<br />
My right hon. Friend featured the position of the<br />
science community very strongly in his remarks. It<br />
would be inappropriate for me to comment on many of<br />
the cases that he mentioned, given that proceedings are<br />
pending. I can confirm, however, that we are very much<br />
aware of the concerns about the harmful impact that<br />
the current law is having on scientific debate. The case<br />
of Simon Singh and his brave stand for his beliefs have<br />
been widely reported, and I was pleased to hear his<br />
position being clearly explained this evening by his MP,<br />
the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart). We<br />
want to ensure that any provisions that we introduce<br />
will help to address those concerns and enable robust<br />
scientific and academic debate to flourish without being<br />
hampered by the threat of libel proceedings.<br />
The discussions that we held were extremely helpful<br />
in identifying areas in which concerns exist and the<br />
possible approaches to tackling the difficulties that<br />
arise with the current law. We have also had the benefit<br />
of being able to consider the range of issues raised in<br />
the private Member’s Bill on defamation that was introduced<br />
earlier in the year by Lord Lester of Herne Hill. That<br />
Bill was also the subject of a debate called by my hon.<br />
Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) in<br />
Westminster Hall in July this year on behalf of the<br />
Culture, Media and Sport Committee, which he chairs.<br />
It is good to see him <strong>here</strong> this evening.<br />
It is not possible for me to indicate today precisely<br />
what provisions might be included in the Government’s<br />
draft Bill on defamation. However, a range of issues<br />
have been the subject of much discussion and debate<br />
over recent months, and I can confirm that we are<br />
giving careful consideration to them, to assess whether<br />
it is appropriate to include provisions in the draft Bill.<br />
They include the need for a statutory defence relating to<br />
the public interest and responsible journalism. Concerns<br />
have been expressed by non-governmental organisations,<br />
the scientific community and others that t<strong>here</strong> is a lack<br />
of certainty over how the common law defence established<br />
in Reynolds v. Times Newspapers applies outside the<br />
context of mainstream journalism, and that this creates<br />
a chilling effect on freedom of expression and investigative<br />
reporting. This is a complex area of the law, and we are<br />
considering whether and how a statutory defence could<br />
be framed in a way that is beneficial and appropriate for<br />
a range of different contexts.<br />
We are also considering libel tourism. My right hon.<br />
Friend gave various examples of that. T<strong>here</strong> is a widespread<br />
perception that the English courts have become the<br />
forum of choice for those who wish to sue for libel, and<br />
that that is having a chilling effect on freedom of<br />
expression. I have to say to him, however, that t<strong>here</strong> are<br />
mixed views over the extent to which libel tourism is a<br />
real problem. Research conducted in the context of the<br />
libel working group’s consideration of this issue did not<br />
show a significant number of actual cases involving<br />
foreign litigants in the High Court in 2009. However,<br />
non-governmental organisations have indicated that a<br />
major problem arises from the threat of libel proceedings<br />
by wealthy foreigners and public figures, which is used<br />
to stifle investigative journalism, regardless of whether<br />
actual cases are subsequently brought—hence the fact<br />
that the number of cases alone might not accurately<br />
reflect the extent of the problem.<br />
We are considering possible options carefully in reaching<br />
a decision on the way forward, including the proposal<br />
of the Ministry of Justice libel working group for<br />
procedural steps to tighten the rules and practice in<br />
order to head off inappropriate claims at the earliest<br />
possible stage, in cases w<strong>here</strong> court permission is required<br />
to serve a defamation claim outside England and Wales.<br />
In doing so, we are of course keeping in mind the fact<br />
that t<strong>here</strong> is relevant European legislation—in particular<br />
the Brussels I regulation—on jurisdictional matters.<br />
We are also considering the difficulties caused by the<br />
“multiple publication rule”—w<strong>here</strong>by each publication<br />
of defamatory material gives rise to a separate cause of<br />
action subject to its own limitation period—in relation<br />
to online material. The effect of the rule is that publishers<br />
are potentially liable for any defamatory material published<br />
by them and accessed online. That applies however long<br />
after the initial publication the material is accessed, and<br />
whether or not proceedings have already been brought<br />
in relation to the initial publication. We are considering<br />
how we could frame a single publication rule to remove<br />
the current threat of open-ended liability.<br />
We are also considering a range of other aspects of<br />
the law. They include the possible need for provisions<br />
on renaming and codifying the existing defences of<br />
justification and fair comment; on the basis on which<br />
an action for defamation can be brought and whether it<br />
should be necessary for claimants to show that they<br />
have suffered substantial harm; on the ability of<br />
corporations to bring defamation actions; on trial by<br />
jury; on defamation in the context of internet publication;<br />
and on issues relating to absolute and qualified privilege.<br />
T<strong>here</strong> is much ground to cover<br />
My right hon. Friend asked about the use of superinjunctions.<br />
I can tell him that the Master of the Rolls<br />
has set up a committee to examine their use. We look<br />
forward to seeing the outcome of its work soon.<br />
We are pressing ahead with our work to ensure that<br />
publication of the draft Bill and the accompanying<br />
consultation paper takes place on as timely a basis as<br />
possible in the new year. As well as considering the<br />
substantive law, we are determined to ensure that costs<br />
in all civil proceedings, including defamation, are<br />
proportionate. In that context, the Secretary of State<br />
for Justice announced to the House on 15 November<br />
that the Government were consulting on proposals for<br />
reform of civil litigation funding and costs in England<br />
and Wales. We are seeking views on the implementation<br />
of a package of recommendations made by Lord Justice<br />
Jackson in his “Review of Civil Litigation Costs”. The<br />
Government are grateful for Sir Rupert Jackson’s report,<br />
in which he argues cogently that the costs of civil<br />
litigation are too high and are often disproportionate to<br />
the sums at issue. I also accept his fundamental argument<br />
that achieving proportionate costs and promoting access<br />
to justice go hand in hand.<br />
The key proposal on which we are consulting is the<br />
one to abolish recoverability of success fees and “after<br />
the event” insurance premiums under conditional fee<br />
agreements. Defendants who lose their cases are currently<br />
liable for those additional costs, which are often substantial.<br />
Abolishing recoverability would mean that claimants
937 Libel Law<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
Libel Law<br />
938<br />
had to pay their lawyers’ success fees, and would t<strong>here</strong>fore<br />
take an interest in the costs being incurred on their<br />
behalf. It is clear that if the current situation continues,<br />
and claimants continue to have no interest in the legal<br />
costs of their own lawyer if they win or in those of the<br />
defendant’s lawyer if they lose, the “have a go”<br />
compensation culture can only grow.<br />
As well as consulting on that key proposal for reform<br />
of CFAs, we are seeking views on implementing a<br />
package of Sir Rupert’s recommendations that balances<br />
measures for defendants with measures affecting claimants.<br />
They include introducing qualified one-way cost shifting,<br />
increasing general damages by 10%, strengthening part<br />
36 arrangements, which encourage parties to make and<br />
accept reasonable offers, and allowing damages-based<br />
agreements in civil litigation, otherwise known as<br />
contingency fees. It is hoped that the proposals will<br />
result overall in more proportionate costs in all civil<br />
proceedings including defamation, while enabling those<br />
who need access to justice to obtain it. The consultation<br />
on reform of civil litigation funding and costs closes on<br />
14 February 2011, and in due course the Government<br />
will publish a response setting out the next steps.<br />
I hope that I have reassured my right hon. Friend and<br />
other colleagues that we are taking focused and<br />
proportionate action that takes account of many of the<br />
issues involved. I believe that it is very important to<br />
ensure that the law achieves a fair balance between<br />
freedom of expression and the protection of reputation,<br />
and that steps are taken to bring the cost of proceedings<br />
under control. I thank my right hon. Friend again for<br />
the valuable contribution to the ongoing debate on<br />
these issues that he has made today.<br />
Question put and agreed to.<br />
7.29 pm<br />
House adjourned.
939 1 DECEMBER 2010 Deferred Division<br />
940<br />
Deferred Division<br />
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW<br />
That the draft Scottish <strong>Parliament</strong> (Elections etc.) Order 2010,<br />
which was laid before this House on 25 October, be approved.<br />
The House divided: Ayes 317, Noes 212.<br />
Division No. 135]<br />
Adams, Nigel<br />
Afriyie, Adam<br />
Aldous, Peter<br />
Alexander, rh Danny<br />
Amess, Mr David<br />
Andrew, Stuart<br />
Arbuthnot, rh Mr James<br />
Bacon, Mr Richard<br />
Bagshawe, Ms Louise<br />
Baker, Steve<br />
Baldry, Tony<br />
Baldwin, Harriett<br />
Barclay, Stephen<br />
Barker, Gregory<br />
Barwell, Gavin<br />
Bebb, Guto<br />
Beith, rh Sir Alan<br />
Benyon, Richard<br />
Beresford, Sir Paul<br />
Berry, Jake<br />
Bingham, Andrew<br />
Blackman, Bob<br />
Blackwood, Nicola<br />
Blunt, Mr Crispin<br />
Boles, Nick<br />
Bottomley, Peter<br />
Bradley, Karen<br />
Brady, Mr Graham<br />
Brake, Tom<br />
Bray, Angie<br />
Bridgen, Andrew<br />
Brokenshire, James<br />
Brooke, Annette<br />
Browne, Mr Jeremy<br />
Bruce, Fiona<br />
Buckland, Mr Robert<br />
Burley, Mr Aidan<br />
Burns, Conor<br />
Burrowes, Mr David<br />
Burstow, Paul<br />
Burt, Lorely<br />
Byles, Dan<br />
Cable, rh Vince<br />
Cairns, Alun<br />
Cameron, rh Mr David<br />
Campbell, Mr Gregory<br />
Campbell, rh Sir Menzies<br />
Carmichael, Mr Alistair<br />
Carmichael, Neil<br />
Carswell, Mr Douglas<br />
Clappison, Mr James<br />
Clark, rh Greg<br />
Clarke, rh Mr Kenneth<br />
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey<br />
Coffey, Dr Thérèse<br />
Collins, Damian<br />
Colvile, Oliver<br />
Cox, Mr Geoffrey<br />
Crabb, Stephen<br />
Crockart, Mike<br />
Crouch, Tracey<br />
AYES<br />
Davey, Mr Edward<br />
Davies, David T. C.<br />
(Monmouth)<br />
Davies, Glyn<br />
Davies, Philip<br />
Davis, rh Mr David<br />
de Bois, Nick<br />
Dinenage, Caroline<br />
Djanogly, Mr Jonathan<br />
Dodds, rh Mr Nigel<br />
Dorrell, rh Mr Stephen<br />
Dorries, Nadine<br />
Doyle-Price, Jackie<br />
Drax, Richard<br />
Duddridge, James<br />
Dunne, Mr Philip<br />
Ellis, Michael<br />
Ellison, Jane<br />
Ellwood, Mr Tobias<br />
Elphicke, Charlie<br />
Evans, Graham<br />
Evans, Jonathan<br />
Evennett, Mr David<br />
Fabricant, Michael<br />
Fallon, Michael<br />
Farron, Tim<br />
Field, Mr Mark<br />
Foster, Mr Don<br />
Fox,rhDrLiam<br />
Francois, rh Mr Mark<br />
Freeman, George<br />
Fullbrook, Lorraine<br />
Fuller, Richard<br />
Gale, Mr Roger<br />
Garnier, Mr Edward<br />
Garnier, Mark<br />
Gauke, Mr David<br />
George, Andrew<br />
Gibb, Mr Nick<br />
Gilbert, Stephen<br />
Gillan, rh Mrs Cheryl<br />
Glen, John<br />
Goldsmith, Zac<br />
Goodwill, Mr Robert<br />
Gove, rh Michael<br />
Graham, Richard<br />
Grant, Mrs Helen<br />
Gray, Mr James<br />
Grayling, rh Chris<br />
Green, Damian<br />
Greening, Justine<br />
Grieve, rh Mr Dominic<br />
Griffiths, Andrew<br />
Gummer, Ben<br />
Hague, rh Mr William<br />
Halfon, Robert<br />
Hames, Duncan<br />
Hammond, rh Mr Philip<br />
Hammond, Stephen<br />
Hancock, Matthew<br />
Hands, Greg<br />
Harper, Mr Mark<br />
Harrington, Richard<br />
Harris, Rebecca<br />
Hart, Simon<br />
Haselhurst, rh Sir Alan<br />
Heald, Mr Oliver<br />
Heath, Mr David<br />
Heaton-Harris, Chris<br />
Hemming, John<br />
Henderson, Gordon<br />
Hendry, Charles<br />
Herbert, rh Nick<br />
Hermon, Lady<br />
Hinds, Damian<br />
Hollingbery, George<br />
Hollobone, Mr Philip<br />
Holloway, Mr Adam<br />
Hopkins, Kris<br />
Horwood, Martin<br />
Howarth, Mr Gerald<br />
Howell, John<br />
Hughes, Simon<br />
Huhne, rh Chris<br />
Hunter, Mark<br />
Huppert, Dr Julian<br />
Hurd, Mr Nick<br />
Jackson, Mr Stewart<br />
Jenkin, Mr Bernard<br />
Johnson, Gareth<br />
Johnson, Joseph<br />
Jones, Andrew<br />
Jones, Mr David<br />
Jones, Mr Marcus<br />
Kawczynski, Daniel<br />
Kelly, Chris<br />
Knight, rh Mr Greg<br />
Laing, Mrs Eleanor<br />
Lamb, Norman<br />
Lancaster, Mark<br />
Latham, Pauline<br />
Laws, rh Mr David<br />
Leadsom, Andrea<br />
Lee, Jessica<br />
Lee, Dr Phillip<br />
Leech, Mr John<br />
Lefroy, Jeremy<br />
Leslie, Charlotte<br />
Lewis, Brandon<br />
Lewis, Dr Julian<br />
Lilley, rh Mr Peter<br />
Lloyd, Stephen<br />
Long, Naomi<br />
Lopresti, Jack<br />
Lord, Jonathan<br />
Loughton, Tim<br />
Luff, Peter<br />
Lumley, Karen<br />
Macleod, Mary<br />
Main, Mrs Anne<br />
Maude, rh Mr Francis<br />
May, rh Mrs T<strong>here</strong>sa<br />
Maynard, Paul<br />
McCartney, Jason<br />
McCartney, Karl<br />
McLoughlin, rh Mr Patrick<br />
McPartland, Stephen<br />
McVey, Esther<br />
Menzies, Mark<br />
Mercer, Patrick<br />
Miller, Maria<br />
Mills, Nigel<br />
Milton, Anne<br />
Mitchell, rh Mr Andrew<br />
Moore, rh Michael<br />
Mordaunt, Penny<br />
Morgan, Nicky<br />
Morris, Anne Marie<br />
Morris, David<br />
Morris, James<br />
Mosley, Stephen<br />
Mowat, David<br />
Mulholland, Greg<br />
Mundell, rh David<br />
Munt, Tessa<br />
Murray, Sheryll<br />
Murrison, Dr Andrew<br />
Neill, Robert<br />
Newmark, Mr Brooks<br />
Newton, Sarah<br />
Nokes, Caroline<br />
Norman, Jesse<br />
Nuttall, Mr David<br />
O’Brien, Mr Stephen<br />
Offord, Mr Matthew<br />
Ollerenshaw, Eric<br />
Opperman, Guy<br />
Osborne, rh Mr George<br />
Ottaway, Richard<br />
Paice, Mr James<br />
Paisley, Ian<br />
Patel, Priti<br />
Paterson, rh Mr Owen<br />
Pawsey, Mark<br />
Penning, Mike<br />
Penrose, John<br />
Percy, Andrew<br />
Perry, Claire<br />
Pincher, Christopher<br />
Poulter, Dr Daniel<br />
Pritchard, Mark<br />
Pugh, Dr John<br />
Raab, Mr Dominic<br />
Randall, rh Mr John<br />
Redwood, rh Mr John<br />
Rees-Mogg, Jacob<br />
Reid, Mr Alan<br />
Rifkind, rh Sir Malcolm<br />
Robertson, Mr Laurence<br />
Rogerson, Dan<br />
Rosindell, Andrew<br />
Ruffley, Mr David<br />
Russell, Bob<br />
Rutley, David<br />
Sanders, Mr Adrian<br />
Sandys, Laura<br />
Scott, Mr Lee<br />
Selous, Andrew<br />
Shannon, Jim<br />
Shapps, rh Grant<br />
Sharma, Alok<br />
Shelbrooke, Alec<br />
Shepherd, Mr Richard<br />
Simmonds, Mark<br />
Simpson, David<br />
Simpson, Mr Keith<br />
Skidmore, Chris<br />
Smith, Miss Chloe<br />
Smith, Henry<br />
Smith, Julian<br />
Smith, Sir Robert<br />
Soames, Nicholas<br />
Soubry, Anna<br />
Spelman, rh Mrs Caroline<br />
Stanley, rh Sir John
941 Deferred Division<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010 Deferred Division<br />
942<br />
Stephenson, Andrew<br />
Stevenson, John<br />
Stewart, Bob<br />
Stewart, Iain<br />
Stewart, Rory<br />
Streeter, Mr Gary<br />
Stride, Mel<br />
Stuart, Mr Graham<br />
Stunell, Andrew<br />
Sturdy, Julian<br />
Swales, Ian<br />
Swayne, Mr Desmond<br />
Swinson, Jo<br />
Swire, Mr Hugo<br />
Syms, Mr Robert<br />
Teather, Sarah<br />
Thurso, John<br />
Timpson, Mr Edward<br />
Tomlinson, Justin<br />
Tredinnick, David<br />
Truss, Elizabeth<br />
Turner, Mr Andrew<br />
Tyrie, Mr Andrew<br />
Uppal, Paul<br />
Vaizey, Mr Edward<br />
Vara, Mr Shailesh<br />
Abbott, Ms Diane<br />
Ainsworth, rh Mr Bob<br />
Alexander, rh Mr Douglas<br />
Alexander, Heidi<br />
Ali, Rushanara<br />
Austin, Ian<br />
Bain, Mr William<br />
Banks, Gordon<br />
Barron, rh Mr Kevin<br />
Bayley, Hugh<br />
Begg, Miss Anne<br />
Bell, Sir Stuart<br />
Benn, rh Hilary<br />
Berger, Luciana<br />
Blackman-Woods, Roberta<br />
Blears, rh Hazel<br />
Blenkinsop, Tom<br />
Blomfield, Paul<br />
Blunkett, rh Mr David<br />
Bradshaw, rh Mr Ben<br />
Brennan, Kevin<br />
Brown, Lyn<br />
Brown, rh Mr Nicholas<br />
Brown, Mr Russell<br />
Burden, Richard<br />
Burnham, rh Andy<br />
Byrne, rh Mr Liam<br />
Cairns, David<br />
Campbell, Mr Alan<br />
Campbell, Mr Ronnie<br />
Caton, Martin<br />
Chapman, Mrs Jenny<br />
Clark, Katy<br />
Clarke, rh Mr Tom<br />
Clwyd, rh Ann<br />
Coaker, Vernon<br />
Coffey, Ann<br />
Cooper, Rosie<br />
Crausby, Mr David<br />
Creagh, Mary<br />
Cruddas, Jon<br />
NOES<br />
Vickers, Martin<br />
Villiers, rh Mrs T<strong>here</strong>sa<br />
Walker, Mr Charles<br />
Walker, Mr Robin<br />
Wallace, Mr Ben<br />
Watkinson, Angela<br />
Weatherley, Mike<br />
Webb, Steve<br />
Wharton, James<br />
Wheeler, Heather<br />
White, Chris<br />
Whittaker, Craig<br />
Whittingdale, Mr John<br />
Wiggin, Bill<br />
Willetts, rh Mr David<br />
Williams, Mr Mark<br />
Williams, Roger<br />
Williams, Stephen<br />
Williamson, Gavin<br />
Willott, Jenny<br />
Wilson, Mr Rob<br />
Wollaston, Dr Sarah<br />
Wright, Jeremy<br />
Wright, Simon<br />
Young, rh Sir George<br />
Zahawi, Nadhim<br />
Cunningham, Alex<br />
Cunningham, Mr Jim<br />
Cunningham, Tony<br />
Curran, Margaret<br />
Dakin, Nic<br />
Danczuk, Simon<br />
Darling, rh Mr Alistair<br />
Davidson, Mr Ian<br />
Davies, Geraint<br />
De Piero, Gloria<br />
Denham, rh Mr John<br />
Dobson, rh Frank<br />
Donohoe, Mr Brian H.<br />
Doran, Mr Frank<br />
Doyle, Gemma<br />
Dromey, Jack<br />
Dugher, Michael<br />
Durkan, Mark<br />
Eagle, Ms Angela<br />
Eagle, Maria<br />
Edwards, Jonathan<br />
Efford, Clive<br />
Ellman, Mrs Louise<br />
Engel, Natascha<br />
Esterson, Bill<br />
Evans, Chris<br />
Fitzpatrick, Jim<br />
Flint, rh Caroline<br />
Fovargue, Yvonne<br />
Francis, Dr Hywel<br />
Gapes, Mike<br />
Gardiner, Barry<br />
Gilmore, Sheila<br />
Glass, Pat<br />
Goggins, rh Paul<br />
Goodman, Helen<br />
Greatrex, Tom<br />
Green, Kate<br />
Greenwood, Lilian<br />
Griffith, Nia<br />
Gwynne, Andrew<br />
Hain, rh Mr Peter<br />
Hamilton, Mr David<br />
Hanson, rh Mr David<br />
Harris, Mr Tom<br />
Healey, rh John<br />
Hendrick, Mark<br />
Hepburn, Mr Stephen<br />
Heyes, David<br />
Hillier, Meg<br />
Hilling, Julie<br />
Hodge, rh Margaret<br />
Hodgson, Mrs Sharon<br />
Hosie, Stewart<br />
Howarth, rh Mr George<br />
Hunt, Tristram<br />
Illsley, Mr Eric<br />
James, Mrs Siân C.<br />
Jamieson, Cathy<br />
Johnson, rh Alan<br />
Johnson, Diana<br />
Jones, Graham<br />
Jones, Helen<br />
Jones, Mr Kevan<br />
Jones, Susan Elan<br />
Jowell, rh Tessa<br />
Joyce, Eric<br />
Keeley, Barbara<br />
Keen, Alan<br />
Kendall, Liz<br />
Khan, rh Sadiq<br />
Lammy, rh Mr David<br />
Lavery, Ian<br />
Lazarowicz, Mark<br />
Leslie, Chris<br />
Lewis, Mr Ivan<br />
Lloyd, Tony<br />
Llwyd, Mr Elfyn<br />
Love, Mr Andrew<br />
Lucas, Caroline<br />
Lucas, Ian<br />
MacNeil, Mr Angus Brendan<br />
Mactaggart, Fiona<br />
Mahmood, Mr Khalid<br />
Mahmood, Shabana<br />
Mann, John<br />
Marsden, Mr Gordon<br />
McCabe, Steve<br />
McCarthy, Kerry<br />
McClymont, Gregg<br />
McDonagh, Siobhain<br />
McDonnell, Dr Alasdair<br />
McFadden, rh Mr Pat<br />
McGovern, Alison<br />
McGovern, Jim<br />
McGuire, rh Mrs Anne<br />
McKechin, Ann<br />
McKinnell, Catherine<br />
Mearns, Ian<br />
Michael, rh Alun<br />
Miller, Andrew<br />
Moon, Mrs Madeleine<br />
Morrice, Graeme (Livingston)<br />
Morris, Grahame M.<br />
(Easington)<br />
Mudie, Mr George<br />
Question accordingly agreed to.<br />
Munn, Meg<br />
Murphy, rh Mr Jim<br />
Murphy, rh Paul<br />
Murray, Ian<br />
Nandy, Lisa<br />
Nash, Pamela<br />
O’Donnell, Fiona<br />
Onwurah, Chi<br />
Owen, Albert<br />
Pearce, Teresa<br />
Perkins, Toby<br />
Pound, Stephen<br />
Qureshi, Yasmin<br />
Reynolds, Emma<br />
Reynolds, Jonathan<br />
Riordan, Mrs Linda<br />
Robertson, Angus<br />
Robertson, John<br />
Robinson, Mr Geoffrey<br />
Rotheram, Steve<br />
Roy, Mr Frank<br />
Roy, Lindsay<br />
Ruane, Chris<br />
Ruddock, rh Joan<br />
Sarwar, Anas<br />
Seabeck, Alison<br />
Sharma, Mr Virendra<br />
Sheerman, Mr Barry<br />
Sheridan, Jim<br />
Shuker, Gavin<br />
Singh, Mr Marsha<br />
Skinner, Mr Dennis<br />
Slaughter, Mr Andy<br />
Smith, rh Mr Andrew<br />
Smith, Angela<br />
Smith, Nick<br />
Soulsby, Sir Peter<br />
Spellar, rh Mr John<br />
Stringer, Graham<br />
Stuart, Ms Gisela<br />
Sutcliffe, Mr Gerry<br />
Thomas, Mr Gareth<br />
Thornberry, Emily<br />
Timms, rh Stephen<br />
Trickett, Jon<br />
Turner, Karl<br />
Twigg, Derek<br />
Twigg, Stephen<br />
Umunna, Mr Chuka<br />
Vaz, rh Keith<br />
Vaz, Valerie<br />
Walley, Joan<br />
Watson, Mr Tom<br />
Watts, Mr Dave<br />
Whiteford, Dr Eilidh<br />
Whitehead, Dr Alan<br />
Williams, Hywel<br />
Williamson, Chris<br />
Wilson, Phil<br />
Wilson, Sammy<br />
Winnick, Mr David<br />
Winterton, rh Ms Rosie<br />
Wishart, Pete<br />
Woodward, rh Mr Shaun<br />
Wright, David<br />
Wright, Mr Iain
269WH<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010 Candour in Health Care<br />
270WH<br />
Westminster Hall<br />
Wednesday 1 December 2010<br />
[MR JAMES GRAY in the Chair]<br />
Candour in Health Care<br />
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting<br />
be now adjourned.—(Jeremy Wright.)<br />
9.30 am<br />
Mr Robert Syms (Poole) (Con): It is a pleasure to<br />
serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I start with<br />
an apology: I cannot possibly do justice in this debate to<br />
all those who have suffered as a result of mistakes made<br />
by the national health service. I know that a lot of<br />
people are paying attention to this debate, and I will do<br />
my best to make the case for a duty of candour in health<br />
care, particularly a statutory duty. That would be progress.<br />
In the House, if an hon. Member makes a mistake,<br />
however outrageous, everybody thinks that it is fair<br />
enough as long as they apologise quickly. I want to put<br />
forward the arguments for why honesty is the best<br />
policy and why it is best to acknowledge that mistakes<br />
are made in medicine and in the health service. That is<br />
part of the medical process. If people inform relatives,<br />
put their hands up and say, “We made a mistake”, that<br />
is a far better way to proceed than what seems to have<br />
happened in the past.<br />
I would like to thank Peter Walsh from Action against<br />
Medical Accidents for assisting me as I prepared for<br />
this debate. Over the next few weeks, Ministers are due<br />
to decide on their preferred option for honouring a<br />
commitment to require openness when things go wrong<br />
in health care. During the 2010 general election, the<br />
Liberal Democrat manifesto stated:<br />
“We will: require hospitals to be open about mistakes, and<br />
always tell patients if something has gone wrong.”<br />
I do not often quote from the Liberal Democrat manifesto,<br />
but it is probably important to do so under current<br />
circumstances and the coalition. That pledge was also<br />
included in the coalition programme for government:<br />
“We will enable patients to rate hospitals and doctors according<br />
to the quality of care they received, and we will require hospitals<br />
to be open about mistakes and always tell patients if something<br />
has gone wrong.”<br />
That has clearly been lifted from the Liberal Democrat<br />
manifesto. The White Paper, “Liberating the NHS”,<br />
stated:<br />
“We will enable patients to rate hospitals and doctors according<br />
to the quality of care they received, and we will require hospitals<br />
to be open about mistakes and always tell patients if something<br />
has gone wrong.”<br />
That shows consistency running from the original Liberal<br />
Democrat manifesto to the coalition programme for<br />
government and the White Paper produced by the<br />
Department of Health.<br />
Those commitments have been widely interpreted<br />
and welcomed as going some way towards the introduction<br />
of a statutory duty of candour in health care. Such a<br />
move has been advocated for many years by patient<br />
groups and others, including the ex-chief medical officer,<br />
Sir Liam Donaldson. Recently, Ministers have made it<br />
clear that as well as the possible introduction of an<br />
explicit statutory duty of candour, they are also considering<br />
not altering or adding to the statutory regulations, but<br />
merely issuing new or refreshed guidance to existing<br />
regulations contained in the Care Quality Commission<br />
(Registration) Regulations 2009.<br />
It is implied that that is more likely to be the favoured<br />
option because t<strong>here</strong> is an extreme reluctance to add<br />
or alter statutory regulation. I will speak about those<br />
two options, with a view to encouraging support for the<br />
introduction of a statutory duty of candour. Action<br />
against Medical Accidents has campaigned on that<br />
matter for a number of years, and representatives from<br />
that charity met with a Health Minister to try to put<br />
forward their case about the right way to proceed.<br />
Put simply, the situation is unacceptable. It comes as<br />
a shock to most people, particularly patients and members<br />
of the public, to know that health care organisations<br />
are in breach of no rules and will face no sanctions if<br />
they cover something up or decide not to inform a<br />
patient—or, in the case of a fatality, their relatives—that<br />
something went wrong during an operation or health<br />
care.<br />
Probably more by accident than design, the current<br />
system tolerates cover-ups and denials. People ask how<br />
that can happen in a modern, ethical health service, and<br />
the vast majority of people would agree that honesty<br />
with patients and their relatives is a moral and ethical<br />
requirement. T<strong>here</strong> is an abundance of guidance on the<br />
issue, and best practice dictates that honesty, or being<br />
open, is the only course of action.<br />
We know that t<strong>here</strong> are a million incidents in the<br />
national health service each year, about half of which<br />
cause some harm. Within those cases, t<strong>here</strong> are many<br />
serious incidents, so it is a large problem. When something<br />
goes wrong, most people want someone to explain what<br />
happened to their relative, mother, father or daughter.<br />
In part, such behaviour is part of the professional code<br />
for individual doctors and nurses, and is recognised as a<br />
central component of an open and fair patient safety<br />
culture. However, the failure to be open and honest<br />
when things go wrong is not uncommon.<br />
Although many trusts or PCTs do act openly, a<br />
significant minority tell patients nothing. Something<br />
must be done to provide parents and relatives with<br />
a flow of information and an honest approach. Patients<br />
and their families are unfairly denied crucial information<br />
about what happened during their health care procedure,<br />
and they may never learn the truth. If they do, they are<br />
often deeply traumatised by the initial dishonest response<br />
to something going wrong. It is not unusual to find<br />
people who have spent decades campaigning under<br />
difficult circumstances to find out what happened to<br />
one of their relatives.<br />
If patients suspect that something has gone wrong<br />
but have to fight to get the truth, they lose all confidence<br />
in the health care system and are more likely to take<br />
legal and disciplinary action. The NHS and health care<br />
organisations have failed to develop a learning culture<br />
and the ability to learn from errors and make things<br />
safer. Instead, they have developed a culture of defence<br />
or denial; they do not want to see themselves in the<br />
newspapers.<br />
The situation in England became even worse when<br />
the previous Government introduced the Care Quality<br />
Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009, which came
271WH<br />
Candour in Health Care<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
Candour in Health Care<br />
272WH<br />
[Mr Robert Syms]<br />
into force in April 2010. That introduced a statutory<br />
requirement on health care organisations to report<br />
anonymously incidents that caused harm to the national<br />
incident reporting system. However, it did not include<br />
an equal requirement on the organisation to inform the<br />
patient or their relatives.<br />
T<strong>here</strong>fore, an organisation is not currently in breach<br />
of the regulations if it covers up an incident from<br />
patients or relatives. It may be bad practice, but t<strong>here</strong> is<br />
no real sanction as long as it sends an anonymous<br />
report to the system. An organisation will be ticked off<br />
if it does not send a report for the purposes of national<br />
measurement, but it will not be ticked off it fails to be<br />
open and honest with a patient or their relatives. Let me<br />
draw the Chamber’s attention to a document produced<br />
by Action against Medical Accidents entitled “The<br />
need for a statutory duty of candour in healthcare.” It is<br />
a good article for those who want to look at the more<br />
detailed requirements involved.<br />
I pay tribute to my constituents, Derek and Joan Bye.<br />
As MPs, we deal with many constituents, but Mr and<br />
Mrs Bye have had to put up with a horror story following<br />
the death of their daughter, Helenor Bye, who died on<br />
27 April 1978 in south Wales. T<strong>here</strong> was a catalogue of<br />
medical errors. The parents were lied to, records were<br />
altered and their MP, John Morris, then the right hon.<br />
Member for Aberavon, held a debate in the House of<br />
Commons on 27 November 1979, volume 974, columns<br />
1253-64. He called for a public inquiry, although that<br />
was turned down.<br />
The situation was compounded by the fact that body<br />
parts were taken from Helenor Bye, some of which have<br />
been returned over the years. The last time body parts<br />
were received by the parents was in 2005. They have<br />
been through the most horrific period because of what<br />
happened to their daughter, what happened subsequently<br />
and, more importantly, because all along the line they<br />
felt that they were being lied to and that people were not<br />
being open and honest. Mr and Mrs Bye have become<br />
doughty campaigners for a more honest and honourable<br />
system of health care. They have also campaigned on<br />
their concerns about the drug Epilim. I cannot do<br />
justice to that campaign today, but if any journalist<br />
wants to know what can go wrong, I advise them to<br />
look at the case of Mr and Mrs Bye. They have had a<br />
very rough time.<br />
Action against Medical Accidents calls for a change<br />
in the law and the introduction of a statutory duty of<br />
candour. It is called “Robbie’s law” because of the case<br />
of Robert Powell, who died on 17 April 1990, aged 10.<br />
His parents have campaigned for over 20 years to try<br />
and get justice. Similar things happened to them, such<br />
as changed medical records, and t<strong>here</strong> was a catalogue<br />
of events, but they still do not feel that they have justice.<br />
Their campaign has continued under several Secretaries<br />
of State. The case is currently with the Welsh Assembly,<br />
and Mr and Mrs Powell are waiting to hear whether<br />
t<strong>here</strong> will be a public inquiry into what happened to<br />
Robbie. Will Powell, who feels passionately about putting<br />
right what happened to his son and getting to the truth,<br />
has been a doughty campaigner for a long time. I pay<br />
tribute to him.<br />
All the people whom we are talking about are, in their<br />
own way, fighting for the truth, not only to find out<br />
what happened to their loved ones, but so that such<br />
things do not happen again to someone else. This<br />
debate is about setting out a context and a better way of<br />
doing things, so that we have a much more honest and<br />
honourable system and families do not have to spend<br />
10, 20 or 30 years going through absolute hell. Mr Bye<br />
told me that the start of the healing process is learning<br />
the truth and knowing what has happened to one’s<br />
relative. That is a very important point.<br />
The Government have two options to consider. They<br />
can go for an explicit duty or for more guidance. Ministers<br />
often go down the guidance route. When the NHS<br />
constitution was being debated in the previous <strong>Parliament</strong>,<br />
the then hon. Member for Wyre Forest, Dr Richard<br />
Taylor, who served with me on the Health Committee,<br />
raised the issue of openness and whether we could go<br />
further down that route. He was informed by the then<br />
Minister of State, Mike O’Brien, “No, we can do it all<br />
through guidance,” yet guidance so far has not produced<br />
the results that we need.<br />
Department of Health officials met representatives<br />
of Action against Medical Accidents and other stakeholders<br />
on 16 November 2010, when the two options were<br />
discussed in some detail. I shall go through the pros and<br />
cons of both. Option 1 is no new statutory duty but<br />
refreshed guidance in respect of the existing CQC<br />
regulations. The pros of that are that it would require<br />
no new legislation or change in the regulations.<br />
Dr John Pugh (Southport) (LD): Is not the difficulty<br />
with guidance the fact that guidance is already in place<br />
and any other guidance would simply reiterate what it<br />
says? Clearly, guidance by itself is not doing the trick in<br />
this case.<br />
Mr Syms: The hon. Gentleman makes a very important<br />
point, because we have to change the whole culture of<br />
the national health service and I am not sure whether<br />
guidance will do that.<br />
An argument can be made that the existing CQC<br />
regulations, backed up by clearer guidance, could be<br />
interpreted as making it a requirement to be open. For<br />
example, regulation 17 has been cited. It says that<br />
service users should be provided with adequate information<br />
and support in relation to their care or treatment. The<br />
guidance could clarify that that includes telling them if<br />
something has gone wrong. However, one of the cons is<br />
that, as the hon. Member for Southport (Dr Pugh) said,<br />
that would be in effect no different from the current<br />
situation. Such guidance and the existing regulations<br />
already existed when the policy to introduce a requirement<br />
was agreed. They were clearly not seen as sufficient<br />
then.<br />
Given that the Department of Health was of the firm<br />
opinion previously that the existing regulations, even<br />
with the guidance alongside them, did not constitute a<br />
statutory duty to be open with patients when things go<br />
wrong—because at that stage they were not supporting<br />
a statutory duty—it is hard to see how that could be<br />
credible now.<br />
Such a measure would be unlikely to be enforceable.<br />
Lawyers would no doubt have a field day if, given the<br />
above, the CQC tried to impose sanctions on a trust<br />
based on such a tortuous and dubious interpretation<br />
when the opportunity to be clear and specific had not<br />
been taken. Even if such a measure were enforceable,<br />
the CQC would be unlikely to give it a high priority,
273WH<br />
Candour in Health Care<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
Candour in Health Care<br />
274WH<br />
given the number of clear statutory obligations already<br />
spelt out in the regulations themselves, rather than<br />
developed by supporting guidance.<br />
Option 1 would not have anything like the same<br />
impact as introducing a specific statutory duty, if it had<br />
any impact at all. The Department of Health would be<br />
trying to say, “This has always been the case, but we<br />
didn’t realise it and didn’t think it was important enough<br />
to make it clear.” That option would fail to deliver<br />
positive opportunities for sending a clear, unequivocal<br />
message about the importance of being open and would<br />
fail to support a major culture change. It would not deal<br />
with the bizarre situation w<strong>here</strong>by t<strong>here</strong> has already<br />
been, since April 2010, a statutory obligation to report<br />
anonymously to the national incident reporting system<br />
patient safety incidents that cause harm, but t<strong>here</strong> is no<br />
equal requirement to tell the patient or a relative. It<br />
would send the message that being open with patients is<br />
not important enough to justify a minor amendment to<br />
the regulations.<br />
Option 2, which I prefer and think should be given<br />
serious consideration by the Government, is to introduce<br />
a specific statutory duty by amending the existing CQC<br />
registration regulations. That would send a clear,<br />
unequivocal message about the importance of being<br />
open, which would support and underpin other initiatives<br />
to develop a more open and fair culture. It would be<br />
enforceable. The CQC has confirmed that it would be<br />
practical for it to enforce such a measure. Of course, it<br />
would be a condition of registration with the CQC. It<br />
would have real impact: boards and management could<br />
not escape noticing the change or recognising the need<br />
to comply. At the moment, even when doctors or nurses<br />
want to be open with patients, sometimes the management<br />
of PCTs or of hospitals are less keen. We must send a<br />
clear message so that the whole organisation undergoes<br />
a major culture change in how it deals with patients.<br />
Option 2 would balance out the existing statutory<br />
regulation w<strong>here</strong> it is a statutory obligation to report<br />
anonymously patient safety incidents that cause harm<br />
but t<strong>here</strong> is no equal requirement to tell the patient or a<br />
relative. It would not add to the regulatory burden on<br />
health care organisations, and I think that it would<br />
enjoy public confidence, which is a very important thing<br />
to have in this area. That option would be relatively<br />
easy to achieve. The con is that it would require a<br />
change in the regulations, so t<strong>here</strong> would possibly be<br />
some legislation.<br />
In my opinion, option 2 is the best way to go. It is not<br />
something that is supported only by a few oddbods;<br />
such a change has the support of many people, including<br />
many senior people in the medical profession. I know<br />
that t<strong>here</strong> are concerns about compensation and litigation,<br />
but the evidence from the <strong>United</strong> States, w<strong>here</strong> many<br />
insurers now do insist on a more honest system, is that<br />
when people receive an apology, they are less likely to<br />
sue. When they find out what happened to their relative,<br />
they accept that mistakes are sometimes made and they<br />
are less likely to pursue lengthy and costly legal action.<br />
People are sometimes pushed into legal action by the<br />
sense of injustice that they feel when their relative has<br />
undergone harm or perhaps died in the course of treatment.<br />
They feel a sense of injustice and are then driven to take<br />
that action. Of course, many of the costs to the NHS<br />
are from the legal fees, not necessarily the money paid<br />
out in compensation.<br />
I shall go through a list of some of those who would<br />
support a statutory duty of candour. I have already<br />
mentioned Sir Liam Donaldson, the ex-chief medical<br />
officer, who formally recommended a statutory duty in<br />
2003. Harry Cayton, chair of the Council for Healthcare<br />
Regulatory Excellence, has also supported such a duty.<br />
The late Claire Rayner, who was a doughty campaigner<br />
on behalf of patients, and a former nurse, supported it.<br />
Professor Aidan Halligan, the former deputy chief medical<br />
officer for England, who is currently chief of safety at<br />
Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust,<br />
is completely supportive of the proposal. T<strong>here</strong> is also<br />
Sir Graeme Catto, the immediate past president of the<br />
General Medical Council; Sir Donald Irvine, a past<br />
president of the GMC; Sally Taber, director of Independent<br />
Healthcare Advisory Services; Cure the NHS; Patient<br />
Concern; and Sufferers of Iatrogenic Neglect. T<strong>here</strong> is<br />
broad support in the LINks—local involvement<br />
networks—organisation for the view that what has been<br />
described is an important thing to do.<br />
In recent years, we have become aware of a major<br />
disaster at Stafford hospital. It has affected not one or<br />
two people, but hundreds of them. Of course, it has<br />
been the subject of much debate, many statements in<br />
the House and a lot of real concern, but had t<strong>here</strong> been<br />
a statutory duty of candour, the management of Stafford<br />
hospital would not have been able to get away with the<br />
poor standards of treatment and nursing and the fact<br />
that many hundreds of people lost their lives. Such a<br />
duty is a very important and practical measure, and if<br />
the NHS is to mean anything to the people of this<br />
country, being open and honest with those who have<br />
suffered as a result of what are sometimes unavoidable<br />
accidents is the best way to proceed.<br />
T<strong>here</strong> are clear benefits to introducing a statutory<br />
duty, and t<strong>here</strong> is an historic opportunity in that regard.<br />
I listened to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State<br />
talking over the weekend about more transparency.<br />
Introducing such a duty would be a brave step, because<br />
all the advice from people in the Department of Health<br />
would be, “Careful, Minister. Don’t do anything that<br />
might have long-term costs.”<br />
However, in the modern age—an age of freedom of<br />
information, when thousands of documents appear on<br />
the internet—it is not unreasonable that a cornerstone<br />
of the NHS in this century should be that people are<br />
up-front and honest, and tell the truth when something<br />
goes wrong. Things inevitably do go wrong—not necessarily<br />
deliberately, but simply because that is the way of the<br />
world and medical science. People can then understand<br />
what has happened to their relatives.<br />
As my constituent Mr Bye said, “The start of the<br />
healing process after the loss of a loved one is to know<br />
the truth of what happened.” It is a very poor thing if<br />
Governments cannot tell the truth. One has to acknowledge<br />
that truth has not always been the essential component<br />
of the NHS that it should be. I propose that the Government<br />
give serious consideration to a statutory duty of candour,<br />
because that is the best protection for those who use the<br />
health service and for higher standards. The best protection<br />
is that all of us believe in honesty in public life.<br />
9.50 am<br />
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD): It is a<br />
pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning,<br />
Mr Gray. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member
275WH<br />
Candour in Health Care<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
Candour in Health Care<br />
276WH<br />
[Tom Brake]<br />
for Poole (Mr Syms) on securing the debate and on<br />
lucidly and concisely setting out precisely why the<br />
Government should look carefully at a statutory duty<br />
of candour. I have not heard any effective arguments<br />
against it, but I will come on to some arguments from<br />
opponents. My hon. Friend set out why the duty would<br />
boost public confidence and he rightly pointed out that<br />
an apology—as we have probably all experienced—often,<br />
first, helps to secure closure for a family if a loved one<br />
has been involved in a tragic accident, and, secondly,<br />
can defuse a difficult situation that could end up in the<br />
courts for years afterwards. He has rightly set out the<br />
reasons why a duty of candour is a necessity.<br />
My hon. Friend started by quoting from the Liberal<br />
Democrat manifesto, and I would expect nothing less in<br />
the coalition, so t<strong>here</strong> is no need for me, as a Liberal<br />
Democrat, to do so. He also mentioned that the proposal<br />
has been carried through to the coalition agreement<br />
and, subsequently, into the NHS White Paper, which—<br />
although it perhaps does not contain a proposal as<br />
specific as a duty of candour—certainly makes it clear<br />
that hospitals need to be open about mistakes and<br />
always tell patients if something has gone wrong. One<br />
development to which he did not refer was the fact that<br />
legal aid will no longer be available in cases of clinical<br />
negligence, which I hope the Minister will pick up on in<br />
her response. I wonder whether that will have an impact<br />
and whether that strengthens the case for a duty of<br />
candour.<br />
As I said in my opening remarks, t<strong>here</strong> are opponents<br />
of a duty of candour. A briefing has been sent to<br />
Members by the Medical Protection Society, which is a<br />
“leading provider of comprehensive professional indemnity and<br />
expert advice to…health professionals around the world.”<br />
The briefing states that the society is committed to<br />
promoting openness in health care and supports the<br />
principle in the NHS White Paper that hospitals should<br />
be open about mistakes and always tell patients if<br />
something has gone wrong. However, it goes on to say<br />
that the MPS strongly believes that a change in culture<br />
would be more effective than a statutory duty. However,<br />
I agree with Action against Medical Accidents, which<br />
also briefed me for the debate. It said that perhaps the<br />
MPS is missing the point: it is not a question of a duty<br />
of candour or a change in culture, as it is perfectly<br />
possible to have both. Indeed, the duty of candour is<br />
one way of supporting and underpinning a change of<br />
culture so that health care organisations are always<br />
open and honest with patients when things go wrong.<br />
The MPS says that it has been advocating that change<br />
in culture, and it is true that a number of organisations<br />
have been advocating it for the past 50 years or so, but<br />
the desired change has not happened. I am not sure how<br />
much longer one can wait for it.<br />
T<strong>here</strong> is an issue about guidance and about how<br />
seriously organisations take guidance when they are<br />
statutorily required to do other things. T<strong>here</strong> is always a<br />
risk that guidance gets left aside while organisations<br />
focus on statutory duties. As the MPS said, it is correct<br />
that t<strong>here</strong> is a professional duty for doctors and nurses<br />
to be open with patients in the event of a mistake, but<br />
t<strong>here</strong> is a wider issue about t<strong>here</strong> being no statutory<br />
duty on all health care organisations to promote and<br />
support that practice in their organisations. As my hon.<br />
Friend the Member for Poole said, the medical professionals<br />
may want to be open but, unfortunately, they are being<br />
advised by managers, who are not subject to the same<br />
professional codes and perhaps believe that less openness<br />
is the best course of action. My hon. Friend referred to<br />
the Stafford case, and, as I understand it, it was a legal<br />
officer who sought to suppress the doctor’s report in<br />
that case. When the General Medical Council was asked<br />
to confirm how many cases it had brought against<br />
a doctor specifically for a breach of this part of its code,<br />
it confirmed that it has not brought a case against a<br />
single one.<br />
My hon. Friend also referred to the very sad case of<br />
Robbie Powell and the sterling efforts that the family<br />
have made. I am pleased to see that Mr Powell has<br />
joined us <strong>here</strong> today.<br />
Mr James Gray (in the Chair): Order.<br />
Tom Brake: I am sure that Mr Powell will be listening<br />
carefully to what is said and reading the remarks in<br />
Hansard later. That family have played a major role<br />
in bringing this issue to our attention and are working<br />
with AvMA to promote what they hope will become<br />
Robbie’s law.<br />
The MPS has provided information that I think<br />
works against its case. Its research shows that, at the<br />
moment, a third of doctors are not prepared to be open<br />
and honest when an accident occurs. If so many doctors<br />
feel constrained from or concerned about being open<br />
when an accident has occurred, it supports the case for<br />
a culture of candour. The MPS also refers to states in<br />
the <strong>United</strong> States w<strong>here</strong> t<strong>here</strong> is a duty of candour and<br />
w<strong>here</strong> it perceives that t<strong>here</strong> may be a difficulty in<br />
enforcing the duty. In his remarks, my hon. Friend the<br />
Member for Poole made it clear that the Care Quality<br />
Commission has confirmed that it could and would<br />
enforce a statutory duty, and would be in a position to<br />
do so, if that were part of its regulations.<br />
Another issue that the MPS raised, which we need to<br />
respond to, is that the proposed duty would not include<br />
near misses. It is arguing against the duty of candour,<br />
but at the same time saying that it would be a problem if<br />
near misses were not included. I understand that t<strong>here</strong><br />
is a general agreement that, although it might the norm<br />
for near misses to be reported to the patient, t<strong>here</strong><br />
would be discretion in cases in which reporting a near<br />
miss might cause unnecessary harm. T<strong>here</strong> is recognition<br />
that the near miss issue needs to be addressed carefully.<br />
One important fact is that, whether it is a duty or a<br />
requirement, it must apply to all health care organisations.<br />
If t<strong>here</strong> was one thing in the coalition agreement that<br />
was slightly remiss, it was the fact that it referred only to<br />
hospitals, but t<strong>here</strong> is a wider health body that we need<br />
to include. I am sure that the Minister will clarify in her<br />
response that the duty of candour, or the requirement,<br />
would need to apply not only to the patient but, sadly, if<br />
the patient has died as a result of the accident, more<br />
widely to include family members. It should not be<br />
strictly restricted to the person who had the misfortune<br />
of suffering the accident.<br />
Dr Pugh: My hon. Friend mentions hospitals, but<br />
does he not accept that t<strong>here</strong> are severe diagnostic<br />
failures at primary care level? Failures to refer can<br />
seriously imperil life, so they, too, need to be encompassed<br />
in the duty of candour.
277WH<br />
Candour in Health Care<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
Candour in Health Care<br />
278WH<br />
Tom Brake: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention,<br />
and I entirely agree. A duty of candour must not be<br />
restricted simply to hospitals, because, as he rightly<br />
says, GPs in primary care and other health care providers<br />
regrettably also make mistakes. A duty would need to<br />
encompass more than simply hospitals, as was initially<br />
proposed in the coalition agreement.<br />
I entirely support the points that my hon. Friend the<br />
Member for Poole made in opening the debate. T<strong>here</strong> is<br />
strong, overwhelming evidence in support of a duty of<br />
candour. Guidance has not done the job, and a duty<br />
of candour really would open up the system and make<br />
sure that families and those who have suffered are, and<br />
know they are, entitled to receive information about an<br />
accident. That would make it much easier for them to<br />
arrive at closure. Regrettably, under the current system,<br />
people must all too often use great energy and perseverance<br />
to extract with great difficulty information that they<br />
should be entitled to from the outset.<br />
10 am<br />
Dr John Pugh (Southport) (LD): I thank the hon.<br />
Member for Poole (Mr Syms) for introducing this important<br />
and timely debate and for putting the Government’s<br />
dilemma so succinctly and accurately. I also pay tribute<br />
to my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and<br />
Wallington (Tom Brake), who has done as much as<br />
anybody in this place to raise the issues of a duty of<br />
candour and patient rights.<br />
I do not know whether anybody caught Ian Hislop’s<br />
programme about do-gooders on the BBC this week,<br />
but in it he described the creation of the journal The<br />
Lancet. It was set up by a young doctor, who, among<br />
other things, wished to expose some of the deficiencies<br />
in the appalling surgical practices at that time. He was<br />
greeted with wholesale acrimony from much of the<br />
medical profession and he was successfully sued. That<br />
shows that t<strong>here</strong> is resistance in most businesses and<br />
professions to acknowledging error.<br />
In an excellent book published some time ago, the<br />
sociologist Erving Goffman suggested that people in all<br />
organisations—whether in health, business, teaching or<br />
policing—have a vested interest in supporting their<br />
colleagues, playing as part of a team and working<br />
together to minimise the reputational loss that their<br />
organisation can suffer. He analysed in particular detail<br />
how that can happen in health services right across the<br />
world, although it must be said that such things do not<br />
always happen for bad reasons. People have duties of<br />
loyalty to colleagues and a genuine concern for the<br />
organisation to which they belong—for its reputation<br />
and, w<strong>here</strong> admitting to errors might seriously imperil<br />
it, for its very survival.<br />
People inside organisations often recognise that mistakes<br />
will happen in their organisations. I have worked in the<br />
teaching profession all my life, and I have not always<br />
been very overt about my colleagues’ deficiencies, even<br />
when that sometimes has involved people suffering from<br />
alcoholic intoxication when they should not. T<strong>here</strong> are<br />
t<strong>here</strong>fore circumstances in which people cover up. T<strong>here</strong><br />
is also probably a belief in many organisations that the<br />
internal resolution of problems is the best way to proceed.<br />
However, t<strong>here</strong> is a huge downside; confidence is<br />
eroded by simply taking such a path. Worse still, false<br />
confidence persists; in other words, t<strong>here</strong> are palpable<br />
and demonstrable errors in organisations, but nobody<br />
finds out about them until it is too late. Errors remain<br />
uncorrected, and poor performance is undeterred or, in<br />
some cases, it worsens.<br />
That is w<strong>here</strong> the duty of candour fits in, because it<br />
will, on a voluntary or simply a request basis, lessen the<br />
problems. T<strong>here</strong> is an enormous amount of evidence<br />
not only that patients want the NHS to be candid with<br />
them, but that the NHS finds it hard to be candid. The<br />
Department of Health itself spoke of a culture of<br />
denial in the NHS—denial about error and, more seriously,<br />
about negligence.<br />
No one believes that things will necessarily improve if<br />
nothing is done. No willing provider entering the frame<br />
will find it easier to be more candid than NHS organisations;<br />
in fact, they might have other motives for covering up.<br />
They might be answerable to others apart from members<br />
of the public, such as shareholders and the like. T<strong>here</strong> is<br />
t<strong>here</strong>fore a genuine concern to get things right.<br />
Every Member of the House of Commons has probably<br />
come across a case, or several cases, w<strong>here</strong> they feel that<br />
things have gone badly wrong. In my intervention on<br />
my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington,<br />
I mentioned primary care. A young man in my<br />
constituency—he was a relative of a friend of my<br />
daughter’s—went to his GP five times to complain of<br />
listlessness, a lack of energy and so on. He was brushed<br />
off with suggestions that he needed more rest and less<br />
stress. He was told that he perhaps had glandular fever,<br />
but no blood test was done. Eventually, when one was<br />
done, it was discovered that he had late-stage leukaemia.<br />
My children attended his funeral. That clearly was a<br />
failing.<br />
I am also familiar with the ongoing case in my<br />
constituency of a TV soap star with a disabling condition<br />
that was brought on by receiving the wrong diagnosis<br />
and the wrong treatment. Similarly, I had the long-running<br />
case of a lorry driver with severe hypertension who was<br />
prescribed Viagra for other complaints, even though<br />
Viagra increases blood pressure. The thought of a lorry<br />
driver being prescribed a drug that can imperil not only<br />
him but members of the public is quite disturbing.<br />
A woman in my constituency was falsely diagnosed<br />
with cancer and treated for it until, on the spur of the<br />
moment, she decided to request a check of the X-rays.<br />
Staff then found that the X-rays that they had been<br />
using, and which they had assumed were correct, were<br />
those of another person. That woman had spent a year<br />
in absolutely harrowing circumstances. More disturbingly,<br />
we do not know whose X-rays were assigned to her.<br />
Presumably, that person was not given the treatment<br />
that this woman was wrongly given.<br />
Each of those cases leads to a prolonged complaints<br />
procedure, involving the ombudsman and the Care<br />
Quality Commission. In other cases, as other Members<br />
have indicated, t<strong>here</strong> have been accusations that records<br />
have been altered. The whole process is inordinately<br />
cumbersome and difficult. To some extent, it exists<br />
because t<strong>here</strong> is no candour w<strong>here</strong> candour would<br />
probably be the solution.<br />
On top of that, t<strong>here</strong> are the systemic failures—the<br />
Mid Staffordshires, the Bristol heart babies and so on.<br />
To be fair, the Government recognise that this all comes<br />
with the territory of running the modern health service,<br />
and they are, to some extent, endeavouring to deal with
279WH<br />
Candour in Health Care<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
Candour in Health Care<br />
280WH<br />
[Dr John Pugh]<br />
the problems. Lots of things are going on, and we all<br />
want to applaud and support what the Government are<br />
doing on quite a few issues. We also applaud the previous<br />
Government for having initiated some of these things.<br />
Incident reporting has got better, which is wholly<br />
desirable. Complaints are monitored, which is good and<br />
a move wholly in the right direction. T<strong>here</strong> is more<br />
intensive recommending of procedures. The NHS is<br />
more of a learning body than it ever used to be; good<br />
practice is disseminated, while bad practice is identified<br />
and controlled. T<strong>here</strong> is a general beefing-up across the<br />
piece of NHS guidance—particularly to the secondary<br />
care sector—about things not to do, things that will<br />
help and things that will avoid mishap.<br />
Right across the profession, t<strong>here</strong> is a constant stressing<br />
of professional ethics, as spelt out by the General<br />
Medical Council or whoever. In the past few days, we<br />
have had the phenomenon of publicising outcomes,<br />
with efforts by Dr Foster and, presumably, the Department<br />
of Health to see that outcomes are properly tracked.<br />
Mr Syms: It is interesting that it is sometimes non-NHS<br />
organisations such as Dr Foster, rather than the NHS<br />
itself, that put their finger on the things that go wrong.<br />
The NHS is a wonderful organisation generally, but<br />
most of my constituents would be surprised that t<strong>here</strong> is<br />
not a duty of candour already. One reason why we have<br />
not got one is that we find out that we do not only when<br />
we actually have a problem.<br />
Dr Pugh: Dr Foster is probably doing what the<br />
Government will eventually get around to doing, and it<br />
will presumably prompt the Government to do that<br />
more expeditiously.<br />
In some cases, private organisations may find it slightly<br />
easier than the Department of Health to progress such<br />
matters, but a lot of internal consultations and procedures<br />
will need to take place. Such organisations do not need<br />
to be answerable for how they treat the bodies within<br />
the NHS. A recent key development is the Government’s<br />
willingness to ensure immunity for whistleblowers, and<br />
to encourage whistleblowing when appropriate. That is<br />
a good thing, but t<strong>here</strong> is evidence that whistleblowers<br />
still take genuine risks. For instance, they may not be<br />
sacked or redeployed, but they may experience difficulties<br />
getting employment elsew<strong>here</strong> in the health service. I<br />
know of cases in which genuine whistleblowers have<br />
regretted the professional outcome that has resulted.<br />
Such Government measures are self-evidently to the<br />
good, but they are not the same, equivalent to or a<br />
substitute for a duty of candour. Frankly, not all errors<br />
will be reported and not all complaints will get bottomed<br />
out. As others have said, guidance is ignored, professional<br />
ethics can be flexibly interpreted, and outcomes, whether<br />
published by Dr Foster or others, often come too late or<br />
are too general for individual cases. As I pointed out,<br />
although whistleblowers may have temporary immunity,<br />
that may not last. The Department of Health spoke of<br />
a culture of denial; but if such a culture exists, it needs<br />
to deal with it.<br />
The argument against a statutory duty of candour—that,<br />
in a sense, the simple duty to be open with patients or<br />
relatives when requested is otiose or redundant—is not<br />
sustainable. It cannot be used as a genuine reason for<br />
Government reticence or hesitation. I t<strong>here</strong>fore ask why<br />
the Government are hesitating when they are going<br />
ahead with so much else. A duty of candour is a<br />
disincentive to cover up, and it takes away the risk for<br />
whistleblowers.<br />
Statutory duties are important. I give a parallel example.<br />
Local authority reporting officers, usually directors of<br />
finance, have the job of identifying when a council is<br />
spending money in a reckless and improvident way.<br />
They have always been in that position, but prior to<br />
t<strong>here</strong> being a statutory duty to show the council the red<br />
card they were often bullied by the political establishment.<br />
As a result, they unwillingly had to consent to the<br />
deployment of council resources in ways that were<br />
reckless. Without a statutory duty, the same sort of<br />
thing can happen in health institutions. People can be<br />
put under a lot of pressure, and unless they can say,<br />
“But I have the statutory duty to report this,” they will<br />
find themselves in appreciable difficulties.<br />
If we all believe in transparency—and we do at the<br />
moment—the duty of candour must be part of it. It<br />
keeps patients informed of their genuine situation. It is<br />
entirely in line with what the Secretary of State says<br />
again and again—it is a good quote, which I paraphrase,<br />
about no action being done to me without my consent.<br />
That is the gist of what he says. Why, then, do we<br />
hesitate, given the coalition agreement? The Liberal<br />
Democrats are clearly on board, and many Conservative<br />
Members genuinely support it. Indeed, the coalition<br />
agreement is emphatic.<br />
I have the perception that somew<strong>here</strong> in the background<br />
in the Department of Health the voice of Sir Humphrey<br />
can be heard. Just as the Minister is about to initiate a<br />
statutory instrument on the subject, someone in the<br />
civil service—I do not accuse the Permanent Secretary—<br />
says, “That is a very brave decision, Minister.” The<br />
Minister is thus persuaded that his decision may not be<br />
as positive as appeared at first sight.<br />
If one thinks about it, a candid admission of error or,<br />
worse still, of negligence is intrinsically damaging and<br />
potentially expensive. I have seen stats suggesting that<br />
the potential damage to the NHS, if every person who<br />
had a complaint pursued it legally to the nth degree,<br />
might be a bill of something like £10 billion. That is half<br />
of the internal savings that the NHS needs to make.<br />
However, the stats also show that litigation costs<br />
against the NHS are far less than that. The unnerving<br />
feeling inside the Department of Health is that if it goes<br />
for a statutory duty—I believe that it should—that<br />
picture might change dramatically, as the number of<br />
complaints that end up in successful and expensive<br />
litigation mushrooms.<br />
Tom Brake: Does my hon. Friend agree that, because<br />
the information is now in the public domain, another<br />
consequence might be that the number of accidents will<br />
reduce because people will take the necessary action to<br />
ensure that such things do not happen?<br />
Dr Pugh: One sincerely hopes so. I was a member<br />
of the Committee that considered the NHS Redress Act<br />
2006, which I believe is not yet in force. The sort of<br />
thinking suggested by my hon. Friend was behind that<br />
Act, but the same forces that are delaying the duty<br />
of candour are probably responsible for delaying its<br />
implementation. I cannot recall t<strong>here</strong> being much dissent
281WH<br />
Candour in Health Care<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
Candour in Health Care<br />
282WH<br />
among the parties as to the merits of that legislation.<br />
The idea was that complaint costs would reduce if we<br />
had an open policy of admitting errors, patients<br />
surrendering none of their legal rights but simply being<br />
given the apology and the explanation that they wanted.<br />
As the hon. Member for Poole said, people who wish<br />
to pursue a complaint against the NHS if they believe<br />
that their treatment has gone wrong are not looking for<br />
money. They are looking not only for an explanation<br />
and an apology; they are looking for an assurance that<br />
whatever happened to them or their relative will not<br />
happen to others.<br />
Prior to the NHS Redress Act 2006, we looked hard<br />
at the costs of litigation in the NHS. Yes, it cost the<br />
NHS a lot of money; and, yes, something could have<br />
been done to reduce it. The really depressing thing,<br />
however, was that the bulk of the money went into the<br />
lawyers’ pockets on either side. The NHS is not about<br />
helping to boost lawyers’ profits.<br />
The 2006 Act seemed to offer an alternative to litigation,<br />
which everyone would support, but the nagging fear in<br />
the Department of Health was that it would become<br />
a platform for litigation—that if someone admitted a<br />
fault it might be a sound basis for taking legal action.<br />
Are those fears well grounded? I believe that we do not<br />
precisely know, but we all have our own feelings on the<br />
subject. People cite the Michigan case in the <strong>United</strong><br />
States, w<strong>here</strong> they went outright for a duty of candour,<br />
and litigation costs to the health service have declined.<br />
The duty of candour is not something that can be<br />
piloted, and once it has been done one cannot withdraw<br />
it. To go ahead with it is almost an act of faith. I am<br />
very keen on the concept of evidence-led policy, but I<br />
see evidence-led policy debates taking place in the<br />
Department of Health. If we go ahead with a statutory<br />
duty of candour—and I firmly believe that we should—it<br />
will be a statement about what sort of NHS we want.<br />
I conclude by quoting Sir Liam Donaldson, the former<br />
chief medical officer for England. He said,<br />
“To err is human, to cover up is unforgivable”.<br />
Regardless of the risks, I doubt whether the Government<br />
want to do what is unforgivable.<br />
10.19 am<br />
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab): It is a pleasure to<br />
serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. Every 36<br />
hours, NHS services are used by some 1 million people,<br />
the vast majority of whom receive safe and effective<br />
care. None the less, as in every other health care system<br />
in the world, not all care in the NHS is as safe as it could<br />
be, and too many patients are harmed by it, sometimes<br />
seriously and even fatally.<br />
Modern health services are delivered in a highly<br />
complex, often pressurised, environment, and involve<br />
the care of many vulnerable and seriously ill patients.<br />
More than any other environment in which risks occur,<br />
health care is reliant on people taking difficult decisions<br />
that rely on judgments that are not always straightforward<br />
or clear cut. In such circumstances, things can and do<br />
go wrong. Sometimes, as I know from my own experience,<br />
the consequences can be very serious for the patient,<br />
their family and their carers.<br />
Patients and their families have a right to know if<br />
something has gone wrong, to get an explanation of<br />
what has happened and to receive an apology and,<br />
if appropriate, compensation. As hon. Members have<br />
mentioned, it is also vital that professionals and NHS<br />
organisations learn lessons from mistakes to improve<br />
care for patients and, w<strong>here</strong>ver possible, to save taxpayers’<br />
money by reducing the cost to the NHS from clinical<br />
negligence claims.<br />
During the past decade, important progress has been<br />
made on improving patient safety in the NHS. Last<br />
year, the Health Committee’s report on patient safety<br />
acknowledged that the previous Government became<br />
one of the first in the world to make it a priority to<br />
address patient safety across the whole health care<br />
system. A unified system for reporting incidents and<br />
learning from them was introduced, and it was centred<br />
on the national reporting and learning system and the<br />
National Patient Safety Agency. The creation of this<br />
system was, in a large part, down to the pioneering<br />
work of Sir Liam Donaldson, and I should like to pay<br />
tribute to him for his work on this vital issue.<br />
Since the establishment of the data reporting system,<br />
the number of reported incidents has increased significantly,<br />
which is a good thing. At the last count, more than<br />
3 million incidents had been reported, ranging from<br />
very minor incidents to the more serious ones. The<br />
NPSA has worked hard to improve patient safety, both<br />
nationally and within individual NHS trusts. I personally<br />
experienced such work when I was director of the<br />
Ambulance Service Network at the NHS Confederation.<br />
We set up a programme of work, with patient safety<br />
leads in ambulance service trusts, front-line paramedics,<br />
PCT commissioners of ambulance services and the<br />
NPSA to identify the particular areas of care w<strong>here</strong><br />
mistakes were being made—it is often in the handover<br />
period—and to share best practice to prevent such<br />
mistakes.<br />
I question some of the comments that have been<br />
made this morning about managers wanting to cover up<br />
problems. In my experience, both managers and<br />
professionals have difficulties in blowing the whistle on<br />
their colleagues. I just want to put it on the record that<br />
the ones that I have worked with have wanted to be<br />
open and to learn the lessons.<br />
My experience has shown me that the NHS needs to<br />
do more to improve patient safety. As identified by the<br />
Health Committee’s report and Ara Darzi’s next stage<br />
review, t<strong>here</strong> is still huge under-reporting across the<br />
system, because, as hon. Members have said, t<strong>here</strong> is<br />
too often a “blame culture” in the NHS.<br />
I agree with the hon. Member for Carshalton and<br />
Wallington (Tom Brake) that this is not just an issue<br />
about hospitals. Primary care, which accounts for 95%<br />
of patient contacts with the NHS, accounts for only<br />
0.25% of reported incidents. Although substantial progress<br />
has been made, patient safety is still not always a top<br />
priority for NHS boards. Most importantly, patients<br />
still too often feel that the NHS is not genuinely open<br />
and honest with them when a mistake is made.<br />
In 2005, the National Audit Office’s 2005 report, “A<br />
safer place for patients” found that only 25% of NHS<br />
trusts routinely inform patients when an incident has<br />
taken place, and an astonishing 6% admit to never<br />
informing patients. Like other hon. Members, I have<br />
seen such practice in my own constituency. Patients feel<br />
that mistakes are not promptly or openly admitted to<br />
and they have to battle the system to—in the words of
283WH<br />
Candour in Health Care<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
Candour in Health Care<br />
284WH<br />
[Liz Kendall]<br />
the hon. Member for Poole (Mr Syms)—“get at the<br />
truth”, which, so often, is the start of the healing<br />
process.<br />
Last week, I went to a meeting at the University<br />
Hospitals Leicester NHS Trust with two of my constituents,<br />
Mr and Mrs Harkisan-Hall, who lost their son in the<br />
hospital’s neo-natal unit. It was only at the coroner’s<br />
inquiry that they found out that the two qualified<br />
nurses on the unit were both on a break at the same<br />
time, leaving a nursery nurse in charge of very vulnerable<br />
children. They felt that they had to battle to get that<br />
information, and they still have not seen the full reports<br />
of what the staff said. Like them, I believe that that is<br />
unacceptable.<br />
Mr Syms: The hon. Lady makes a good point. One<br />
point that I meant to make was that if people do not<br />
hear what has happened, coroners can find it difficult to<br />
determine how someone has died. If people are not<br />
honest about what has happened to a particular individual,<br />
coroners do not have the full information.<br />
Liz Kendall: In this particular case, interviews were<br />
conducted with the two qualified nurses. The trust did<br />
not read both transcripts together and did not see that<br />
both nurses were on a break at the same time. People<br />
are astonished that such simple things happen, and it is<br />
vital that we learn from this process.<br />
Before I go on to talk about the duty of candour, I<br />
want to discuss two concerns about the Government’s<br />
policy in relation to patient safety. It is important that<br />
hon. Members do not look just at the duty of candour<br />
in isolation from what is going on in the rest of the<br />
NHS, including on patient safety. My first concern is<br />
the Department of Health’s decision to abolish the<br />
National Patient Safety Agency and to move responsibility<br />
for this issue to the new national NHS Commissioning<br />
Board. T<strong>here</strong> are real concerns about whether the<br />
board will have the necessary skills, experience and time<br />
to focus on such a vital issue when it will also be<br />
responsible for setting NHS outcomes, assessing whether<br />
GP consortiums are delivering on those outcomes,<br />
commissioning a whole range of specialist services and<br />
managing contracts for all primary medical services.<br />
That is a huge agenda for any board, even without<br />
adding responsibility for patient safety.<br />
Will the Minister tell us what resources and how<br />
many staff from the NPSA will be transferred to the<br />
NHS Commissioning Board? Which NPSA activities<br />
will the board take on? For example, will NPSA continue<br />
to publish patient safety alerts and bulletins and other<br />
guidance to identify key problems and help spread best<br />
practice? Will it also run workshops with leads for<br />
patient safety in individual providers, such as those I<br />
was involved with in the Ambulance Service Network?<br />
Will the national Patient Safety First Campaign, which<br />
was launched last year, and the annual patient safety<br />
week, which was held early this month, have the staff<br />
and resources to continue?<br />
My second concern relates to the Government’s<br />
reorganisation of the NHS and fact that the service<br />
needs to make efficiency savings worth some £20 billion<br />
over the next three years, as the NHS chief executive<br />
said. The first report on adverse incidents in the NHS<br />
was drawn up by Sir Liam Donaldson in 2000. Its key<br />
recommendation was that the NHS must be open and<br />
honest and learn from its experiences. To do that, the<br />
NHS must become, as the report’s title suggests, “An<br />
organisation with a memory”. But the Government<br />
plan to abolish many of the very organisations that<br />
have worked hard to build this memory and understanding<br />
of how to improve patient safety.<br />
If the NHS has to make efficiency savings worth<br />
some £20 billion, t<strong>here</strong> will inevitably be job losses and<br />
posts frozen, some of which could include those staff<br />
who have worked hard to learn lessons from the mistakes<br />
that have been made in the NHS. How will the Minister<br />
ensure that the NHS retains its “memory” on patient<br />
safety when PCTs and strategic health authorities are<br />
being abolished, new GP consortiums are being established,<br />
community services are being transferred to different<br />
providers and staff posts are being frozen and reduced?<br />
In particular, what steps has she taken to ensure that<br />
managers and front-line staff who have knowledge and<br />
expertise in patient safety are retained in the NHS at a<br />
time when the Government want to cut management<br />
costs by 45% and make efficiency savings of £20 billion?<br />
Finally, I want to talk about the duty of candour. As<br />
hon. Members have said, the introduction of a statutory<br />
duty of candour was first recommended by Sir Liam<br />
Donaldson in his 2003 report, “Making Amends”. I<br />
agree with hon. Members that t<strong>here</strong> is a strong case to<br />
look again at this issue, as a Health Committee report<br />
recommended in 2009.<br />
I think that it was the hon. Member for Carshalton<br />
and Wallington who said that too often the debate is<br />
split between those who want a statutory duty of candour<br />
and those who think the NHS should instead focus on<br />
creating a culture of candour. Of course, changing the<br />
practice of individual staff and organisations does not<br />
require legislation, but I think that we can see from<br />
existing laws, such as those that helped to reduce drinkdriving,<br />
those that introduced the smoking ban and<br />
others, that legislation often plays a vital role in changing<br />
culture and behaviour.<br />
Some professional bodies are concerned that a duty<br />
of candour would make it less likely that incidents<br />
would be reported. I am not convinced that that would<br />
be the case, particularly if the duty is combined with an:<br />
“exemption from disciplinary action for those reporting adverse<br />
events or medical errors—except w<strong>here</strong> t<strong>here</strong> is a criminal offence<br />
or w<strong>here</strong> it would not be safe for the professional to continue to<br />
treat patients”.<br />
That was the recommendation of Sir Liam Donaldson<br />
back in 2003.<br />
Others question whether a statutory duty could be<br />
imposed when it might be difficult to specify or enforce<br />
sanctions. That concern has not prevented other parts<br />
of the world from introducing legal duties, including<br />
some US states, Sweden, France and Denmark. It is<br />
also worth noting that the Equality Act 2010, which<br />
was introduced by the last Government, imposes a<br />
number of legal duties on public bodies to consider the<br />
impact of their policies and decisions on different groups,<br />
without specifying what the sanctions will be if those<br />
duties are not complied with.<br />
The final argument against a statutory duty of candour<br />
is that patients might end up trusting professionals less,<br />
because they have to report a mistake rather than
285WH<br />
Candour in Health Care<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
Candour in Health Care<br />
286WH<br />
because they want to. I think that the far greater risk for<br />
doctor-patient trust is the perception, and too often the<br />
reality, that professionals do not tell patients when<br />
things go wrong. I know that if a mistake was made in<br />
my own care, or in the care of one of my family or<br />
friends, I would want to know—and indeed I believe<br />
that I have the right to know.<br />
To conclude, I think that the NHS has made important<br />
progress on improving patient safety and it has started<br />
to try to change its culture, to become more open and<br />
honest. However, the evidence shows and hon. Members<br />
have clearly demonstrated in this debate that the NHS is<br />
still not as open as it should be, not only with its own<br />
staff, but—crucially—with patients. The abolition of<br />
the NPSA, the huge reorganisation that the NHS is<br />
about to undergo and the future cuts in numbers of<br />
staff actually make a stronger case for having a duty of<br />
candour in place.<br />
The White Paper, “Liberating the NHS”, says that<br />
the Government will:<br />
“require hospitals to be open about mistakes and always tell the<br />
patient when something has gone wrong”.<br />
It also says that that requirement will be implemented<br />
by summer 2011. So I just want to ask the Minister to<br />
clarify if that means that the Government are proposing<br />
a statutory duty of candour? Also, will she now agree to<br />
bring together patient groups, professional bodies, experts<br />
on the duty of candour in this country and abroad, as<br />
well as those who represent NHS trusts—such as the<br />
NHS Confederation—to discuss how we can all best<br />
move forward on this vital issue?<br />
10.34 am<br />
The <strong>Parliament</strong>ary Under-Secretary of State for Health<br />
(Anne Milton): Thank you very much, Mr Gray. It is a<br />
pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first<br />
time. I also want to congratulate my hon. Friend the<br />
Member for Poole (Mr Syms) on securing this debate.<br />
As Chairman of the Regulatory Reform Committee, he<br />
is no doubt acutely aware of some of the issues that<br />
exist around regulation, not least those that exist around<br />
the duty of candour. His humility and recognition of<br />
the impossible task that we face <strong>here</strong> today—to truly<br />
reflect the pain and suffering of those who have suffered<br />
as a result of medical harm—does him considerable<br />
credit.<br />
We take candour and openness in the NHS extremely<br />
seriously. Everybody does, because it is a vital issue. As<br />
anyone who has ever been treated knows, a health care<br />
system is not just about how quickly someone is seen or<br />
how quickly their stitches come out; it is also about<br />
trust. Trust is fundamental—between patients, the patient’s<br />
family and health care professionals—and we must do<br />
everything we can to ensure that that trust is upheld.<br />
As the hon. Gentleman may be aware, one of the<br />
early references to a statutory “duty of candour” was<br />
included in “Making Amends”, a 2003 report, which I<br />
know hon. Members have referred to. It was a consultation<br />
paper from the then chief medical officer, Liam Donaldson,<br />
and it set out proposals for reforming the approach to<br />
clinical negligence in the NHS, suggesting<br />
“a duty of candour requiring clinicians and health service managers<br />
to inform patients about actions which have resulted in harm”.<br />
The paper also proposed to foster an environment of<br />
openness and honesty among all NHS staff; it encouraged<br />
“integrity”, which is a word that we perhaps do not use<br />
often enough, and it proposed exempting those who<br />
report adverse events or medical errors from disciplinary<br />
action, unless t<strong>here</strong> are serious extenuating circumstances.<br />
It is a key belief of the coalition, and I would hope all<br />
Members of the House, that the focus should be on the<br />
performance of the organisation rather than on penalising<br />
individuals who bring matters of concern out into the<br />
open. The hon. Member for Southport (Dr Pugh) has<br />
already mentioned whistleblowing. I think that the point<br />
is that this debate is not necessarily about the protection<br />
of whistleblowers or a right to whistleblow; it is perhaps<br />
about a duty to whistleblow.<br />
It is important to note the good work that is currently<br />
being done to promote candour. The previous Government<br />
should be congratulated for providing staff with advice<br />
and support to help them to communicate with patients,<br />
their families and carers following harmful incidents.<br />
The Health Act 2009 requires all NHS organisations to<br />
be aware of the NHS constitution, which places a duty<br />
on NHS staff to acknowledge mistakes, apologise for<br />
them, explain what happened and put things right. The<br />
professional codes of practice for doctors and nurses<br />
contain a similar duty.<br />
As somebody who trained as a nurse and worked in<br />
the NHS for 25 years, I think that professional codes of<br />
practice and professional standards are not talked about<br />
often enough. We look for someone to blame: we look<br />
for the organisation to blame; we look for the board to<br />
blame, and we look for the chief executive to blame.<br />
What we do not talk about is individual professional<br />
standards and I feel particularly strongly that we need<br />
to do everything that we can to raise those standards<br />
right up.<br />
The National Patient Safety Agency has been running<br />
its own campaign to promote candour in the NHS, as<br />
the hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) said.<br />
That campaign, entitled “Being Open”, is a long-term<br />
process rather than a short-term push. It encourages<br />
the provision of verbal and written apologies to patients,<br />
their families and carers; it promotes continual<br />
communication with those involved in incidents, and it<br />
requires thorough record-keeping of all “Being Open”<br />
discussions and documents.<br />
However, we all know that still more needs to be<br />
done, as hon. Members have said and as I know myself<br />
from my own constituency casework; I have a number<br />
of people who have continually fought to try to get the<br />
truth about what happened to their relatives. The recent<br />
White Paper, “Liberating the NHS”, states that<br />
“we will require hospitals to be open about mistakes, and always<br />
tell patients if something has gone wrong”.<br />
It is quite simple: we expect the NHS to admit to errors;<br />
apologise to those affected, and ensure that lessons are<br />
learned to prevent errors from being repeated.<br />
In one year, the NPSA receives notification of more<br />
than one million incidents. Most of those incidents<br />
result in no harm and we welcome the high level of<br />
reporting. However, the incidents that result in harm<br />
obviously cause distress and anguish for the patients<br />
and families involved. In those cases, it is even more<br />
important that the lessons are learned and that organisations<br />
are open with those who have been affected.<br />
Dr Pugh: I want to ask about the future of the NPSA.<br />
If it is going to be brought within the national<br />
commissioning body, will a Chinese wall be established
287WH<br />
Candour in Health Care<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
Candour in Health Care<br />
288WH<br />
[Dr Pugh]<br />
between the NPSA and the other operations of that<br />
body? It crosses my mind that risks can allegedly be<br />
increased or decreased by commissioning decisions<br />
themselves.<br />
Under those circumstances, the NPSA has got to be<br />
free to impute itself, as it were, if the national commissioning<br />
body is going to be part and parcel of the same organisation.<br />
So, can the Minister assure me that t<strong>here</strong> will be no<br />
conflict of interest when the NPSA is placed within the<br />
national commissioning body, which may itself—through<br />
its commissioning procedures—be one of the risk factors?<br />
Anne Milton: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right.<br />
That is terribly important. It is not only important to<br />
have Chinese walls and be seen to be separate; it is<br />
important to be separate. I will come to that point in<br />
detail in a minute.<br />
Measuring openness is not as straightforward as<br />
measuring reporting. We welcome high levels of reporting,<br />
as they are an indicator of an open and supportive<br />
culture of patient safety, but t<strong>here</strong> are still reasons why<br />
people within the NHS and organisations shy away<br />
from openness. Without a doubt, professionals who<br />
strive for excellence are reluctant to admit errors. The<br />
higher up the tree one is, the harder it is to say, “I’ve<br />
made a mistake.” All of us face that issue in our<br />
professional lives.<br />
People may have unfounded concerns about possible<br />
admissions of liability, even though apologising when<br />
something has gone wrong is not in any way an admission<br />
of liability. The fine line between the two sometimes<br />
prevents people from saying what relatives want to hear:<br />
“I am so sorry this happened.” That is not necessarily<br />
saying, “I have made a mistake.” It is such a shame<br />
when professionals resort to a defensive stance, often<br />
encouraged by myths about w<strong>here</strong> liability lies. Also, at<br />
times, they may fear reprisal, blame and even bullying.<br />
We are considering options for introducing a requirement<br />
for openness and will make a decision in due course.<br />
The hon. Member for Southport felt that we were<br />
hesitating, and was concerned about possible evidence<br />
of Sir Humphreys in the Department. We are considering,<br />
not hesitating. It is important to get it right. Members<br />
have discussed the three options, but I will run through<br />
them quickly and mention a few relevant issues.<br />
The first option is using what is in the existing Care<br />
Quality Commission registration requirement regulations.<br />
It is already mandatory for NHS trusts to report all<br />
serious patient safety incidents. We could also require<br />
organisations to demonstrate that they have met the<br />
openness requirement, which would not require new<br />
legislation. It makes sense to use existing means to<br />
detect and investigate trusts that are not as open as they<br />
should be. The counterargument is that that approach is<br />
not specific enough, and that the wording of the guidance<br />
would need to be made more explicit. We have seen<br />
many cases in which guidance has failed.<br />
The second option involves introducing a new legal,<br />
statutory duty of openness explicit within the CQC<br />
regulations. That would send a clear signal about the<br />
importance of openness and provide patients and<br />
campaigners with a single clear duty that they could use<br />
to demand full disclosure. However, the Government<br />
want to create new legislation only when absolutely<br />
necessary, although when necessary, it should be done.<br />
We would need to ensure that any new legislation or<br />
new approach was not counter-productive. We want to<br />
make it easier for staff to come forward; we do not want<br />
new legislation to have unintended consequences.<br />
The third option involves incorporating an openness<br />
requirement into the new NHS contractual, performance<br />
and commissioning processes, to which the hon. Members<br />
for Leicester West and for Southport referred. It certainly<br />
appears possible to pursue openness through the new<br />
commissioning arrangements. For instance, it could be<br />
written into standard NHS commissioning board<br />
requirements that providers commit to being open. The<br />
hon. Member for Leicester West asked whether the<br />
NHS commissioning board would have time to take a<br />
role on patient safety. In many ways, safety underpins<br />
all commissioning decisions. Any decision on any service<br />
commissioned should have safety wrapped around it.<br />
That is fundamental.<br />
As with any complex matter, each of the options has<br />
its pros and cons. It is imperative that a decision on the<br />
issue is not rushed. I reassure the hon. Lady that<br />
campaigners and organisations have good access to<br />
officials within the Department, and I am sure that all<br />
their views will have been taken into account when a<br />
decision is made, because we are aware of the importance<br />
of getting it right. It is terrible to think that the first<br />
duty of the NHS is to do no harm. Safety wraps around<br />
everything that we do.<br />
The hon. Lady also mentioned the decision to abolish<br />
strategic health authorities. I understand that SHAs are<br />
the performance managers of trusts, yet that did not<br />
help in Staffordshire. In many ways, bringing commissioning<br />
decisions closer to the patient within general practice<br />
will mean that decisions about care and its consequences<br />
rest w<strong>here</strong> they should.<br />
Liz Kendall: The Minister raises the important issue<br />
of Stafford and the lessons to be learned t<strong>here</strong>, and says<br />
that the SHA did not take action. Obviously, we will<br />
wait for the outcome of the independent inquiry, but as<br />
responsibility will move to GP commissioning consortiums,<br />
can she tell us whether any of the GPs in the area raised<br />
concerns about Stafford, or whether any of them have<br />
submitted evidence to the inquiry? I am not aware that<br />
they have.<br />
Anne Milton: I did not point a finger at the SHA; I<br />
pointed out that SHAs were performance managers.<br />
W<strong>here</strong> performance fails, one must ask oneself what<br />
was happening in the management of that performance<br />
that it could fail so abysmally. The hon. Lady must not<br />
forget that the GP consortiums will involve a much<br />
wider range of professionals in commissioning decisions<br />
than just GPs, including a lot of people involved in care.<br />
They will not necessarily consist only of NHS professionals.<br />
Voluntary bodies and other organisations that provide<br />
care will also have input.<br />
The sad truth is that when things go wrong, relatives<br />
want to know what happened, as my hon. Friend the<br />
Member for Poole pointed out, but they do not always<br />
find out. They want the truth and honesty, but we often<br />
see precisely the opposite. Doors close, the shutters go<br />
down and NHS organisations resort to a defensive<br />
stance, sometimes quite aggressively. My hon. Friend
289WH<br />
Candour in Health Care<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
Candour in Health Care<br />
290WH<br />
mentioned his constituents the Byes and the Powells,<br />
who have campaigned endlessly for the truth and continue<br />
to campaign. I pay tribute to all the people, some of<br />
whom we do not know about, who use their own tragic<br />
circumstances to ensure that the same thing does not<br />
happen to others. Their efforts should never be<br />
underestimated.<br />
Tom Brake: The Minister said that the NHS sometimes<br />
adopts an aggressive stance. I remind her of my question<br />
to her about the possible impact of withdrawing legal<br />
aid in clinical negligence cases. Often, families use such<br />
cases as a way of trying to secure an apology because<br />
one has not been forthcoming. If that option is not<br />
available to them, it reinforces the need for a duty of<br />
candour.<br />
Anne Milton: The hon. Gentleman pre-empts me by a<br />
second; I was about to come to legal aid. My experience<br />
is that even with legal aid, the courts are rarely an<br />
option for most people. Allowing discretion on the<br />
reporting of near misses would, I fear, open another<br />
minefield beyond which people could hide, as he also<br />
mentioned.<br />
I have certainly brokered meetings between NHS<br />
organisations and my constituents to try to bring them<br />
together and make the NHS organisations stop feeling<br />
so defensive. I have been an advocate for people in my<br />
constituency just so they could hear what happened. I<br />
should think that many hon. Members rely on personal<br />
relationships, particularly within hospital trusts, for<br />
such purposes. Maybe they know a supportive medical<br />
director to whom they can say, “Look, this family, this<br />
couple or these relatives just want to know what happened;<br />
this isn’t going to go anyw<strong>here</strong>.” That is a leap of faith.<br />
The NHS organisation has to say, “Fair enough”. When<br />
that happens, closure can follow.<br />
The hon. Member for Southport rightly pointed out<br />
that accidents occur across the NHS and mentioned, in<br />
particular, the failure to diagnose in general practice.<br />
That is an ongoing, rumbling issue that I hear about not<br />
only as a constituency MP, but as a Minister. I thank<br />
him for recognising that the solution to getting to a<br />
situation w<strong>here</strong> we have effective measures in place to<br />
ensure candour is a dilemma. It is not an easy decision.<br />
He is also right to point out that the NHS is not alone in<br />
protecting itself. My goodness me, we know a lot of<br />
professions that close their doors when one of their<br />
members is under attack—the legal profession is one.<br />
People just want the truth, but sadly the shutters go<br />
down and the doors close, and closure cannot be achieved.<br />
Mr Syms: I am pleased with the way the Minister is<br />
responding to the debate and recognise that a statutory<br />
duty of candour is one of a range of measures that the<br />
Government are considering. However, if they decide<br />
not to take that route initially, it is important that they<br />
do not rule it out, because the culture change that is<br />
needed might not come about as a result of what they<br />
are doing, but we will still need to get t<strong>here</strong> at some<br />
point. I still think that a statutory duty of candour<br />
would be the biggest and most successful leap towards<br />
that goal—the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington<br />
made a good point on that—but even if the Government<br />
choose not to go t<strong>here</strong>, they should not rule it out,<br />
because I think that ultimately that is w<strong>here</strong> we will<br />
end up.<br />
Anne Milton: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention<br />
and am sure that the report of this debate will aid<br />
people in making their decisions on the matter.<br />
On the point raised by the hon. Member for Carshalton<br />
and Wallington on legal aid, I understand that the<br />
Ministry of Justice proposal on restructuring and refocusing<br />
the scope of legal aid is currently out for consultation.<br />
T<strong>here</strong> will still be an exceptional funding route for those<br />
not eligible for legal aid, but he might want to raise that<br />
specific point with the MOJ because it is important.<br />
The hon. Member for Southport rightly picked up on<br />
the fact that we included in the White Paper the principle<br />
of “No decision should about me, without me”, and<br />
that probably needs to be extended to situation w<strong>here</strong><br />
harm happens.<br />
A few Members mentioned international precedents,<br />
but we must be slightly careful, because what happens<br />
abroad cannot necessarily be transported to this country.<br />
Those precedents tell us that t<strong>here</strong> can be problems in<br />
adopting a statutory duty of candour. It can be difficult<br />
to measure success and, t<strong>here</strong>fore, find any evidence of<br />
w<strong>here</strong> success or failure has occurred. We must also be<br />
mindful of the differing health care and legislative<br />
environments that exist around the world when looking<br />
at international examples. In Pennsylvania, for example,<br />
we have been told that a complicated set of requirements<br />
makes enforcing its version of a statutory duty particularly<br />
problematic.<br />
In conclusion, t<strong>here</strong> are complex issues at play in<br />
relation to a statutory duty of candour, and views are<br />
held on both sides of the argument for and against such<br />
a duty. What we can say, as has been documented in the<br />
White Paper, is that we are absolutely set on achieving<br />
that change in culture to achieve openness and candour<br />
in the NHS and all organisations that provide care. We<br />
are exploring those complex issues carefully. The culture<br />
of secrecy and denial is a disease that needs to be cured,<br />
but to do so we need to understand and treat its causes<br />
at their source, rather than simply treating the symptoms<br />
with an ineffective plaster.<br />
As my hon. Friend the Member for Poole stated, the<br />
start of the healing process is about learning the truth.<br />
The Government will need to decide how we can provide<br />
the environment, with or without legislation, in which<br />
the truth can come out immediately—in a timely fashion—<br />
and openly. We need inspirational leadership and highly<br />
developed management skills in our NHS leaders to<br />
create that change in culture to create an open atmosp<strong>here</strong><br />
among staff, not the closed culture that we have seen.<br />
We need a culture that replaces the fear of the consequences<br />
of openness with the courage to recognise that openness,<br />
honesty and truth will, ultimately, not only give families<br />
what they need to heal their wounds and achieve closure,<br />
but allow staff to learn from their mistakes, raise their<br />
standards and raise the bar on their professional standards.<br />
The Government will consider all that when making<br />
the decision, but Members should rest assured that<br />
everything that has been said today and all the effort to<br />
highlight the issue will be taken in account to ensure<br />
that we get the right system in place to give people what<br />
works.<br />
10.55 am<br />
Sitting suspended.
291WH<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010 PACE (Stop and Search)<br />
292WH<br />
PACE (Stop and Search)<br />
11 am<br />
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con): I appreciate the<br />
opportunity to have this debate. The shorthand definition<br />
of the code of practice that I wish to consider is “stop<br />
and search”, but it also includes “stop and account”.<br />
The draft guidelines recently issued by the Government<br />
state:<br />
“The primary purpose of stop and search powers is to enable<br />
officers to allay or confirm suspicions about individuals without<br />
exercising their power of arrest.”<br />
We would all recognise that that is an important part<br />
of policing powers, but some issues arise from it and I<br />
have some questions to which I should appreciate a<br />
response from the Minister. My interest arises partly<br />
from my membership of the all-party parliamentary<br />
group on race and community and from conversations<br />
that I have had with the Runnymede Trust and the<br />
StopWatch coalition, both of which have alerted me to<br />
issues of the context in which the proposed changes and<br />
guidelines are being made. The most significant issue is<br />
disproportionality between people of different ethnic<br />
origins.<br />
A black person is at least six times as likely as a white<br />
person to be stopped and searched by the police. It is<br />
twice as likely to happen to an Asian. That is grossly<br />
disproportionate and those ratios have remained stubbornly<br />
constant in the past five years. The report “Stop and<br />
think”, which was produced earlier this year by the<br />
Equality and Human Rights Commission, included<br />
research findings that<br />
“black and ethnic minority youths were over-represented in the<br />
criminal justice system. This over-representation started at the<br />
point of entry into the system, and largely continued as young<br />
suspects and defendants passed through it.”<br />
If the very first part of a person’s interaction with the<br />
criminal justice system is disproportionate, t<strong>here</strong> may<br />
be consequential effects at other stages in that system.<br />
The black population of England and Wales is<br />
approximately 2.6%, but black people represent 14.8%<br />
of incidents of stop and search, 7.6% of arrests and<br />
14.4% of the prison population. I think that anyone<br />
would find those statistics chilling. It is a rare thing for<br />
me to say I agree with Bernie Grant, the former Member<br />
of <strong>Parliament</strong> for Tottenham, but in 1997 he said:<br />
“Nothing has been more damaging to the relationship between<br />
the police and the black community than the ill judged use of stop<br />
and search powers. For young black men in particular, the humiliating<br />
experience of being repeatedly stopped and searched is a fact of<br />
life”.<br />
Of course society has moved on in 13 years, but, as the<br />
statistics have shown, disproportionality is still significant.<br />
Stop and search is not a power that is used occasionally.<br />
Last year, t<strong>here</strong> were more than 2 million instances of<br />
stop and account by police and more than 1 million of<br />
stop and search. That amounts to more than 10,000 a<br />
day, which is not only disproportionate, but shows<br />
widespread and pervasive use in our society.<br />
I accept—and this is probably much of the intent<br />
behind Government moves—that the recording of<br />
information accounts for considerable police time. It is<br />
estimated by the Daily Mail that the proposed changes<br />
will save 450,000 hours of police time by eliminating the<br />
stop-and-account element and 350,000 hours of police<br />
time by reducing stop-and- search forms. Those are<br />
welcome savings in police time, to enable our police to<br />
spend more time in their jobs on the beat, and in<br />
helping citizens by combating crime.<br />
However, against a backdrop of considerable community<br />
concerns, and severely disproportionate impacts, perhaps<br />
the Minister could assist with the answer to some questions.<br />
The first is about the removal of the requirement to<br />
record stop and account. As I have said, that represents<br />
2 million actions by the police each year, so it is certainly<br />
clear that removing the requirement to record stop and<br />
account will save considerable police time. However, as<br />
we have not yet ended disproportionality, is the Minister<br />
concerned that we would lose an important source of<br />
information on fairness?<br />
I understand that it would be possible for chief constables<br />
to re-institute stop-and-account searches if local concerns<br />
were expressed. That is a very welcome part of the<br />
proposals, but how will the local pressure be voiced?<br />
What would constitute a valid local concern and how<br />
would it be differentiated from concerns thought to be<br />
invalid?<br />
I would also appreciate the Minister’s views on the<br />
decision by Suffolk police to de-fund the stop-and-search<br />
reference group. What message does that send to people<br />
who have concerns about disproportionality and the<br />
reliance on the raising of concerns by local voices? On<br />
the same point, what role does the Minister see for the<br />
Equality and Human Rights Commission? Are steps<br />
such as the enforcement action warning that it issued<br />
this week to Thames Valley police and other forces seen<br />
as part of the community response to disproportionality<br />
in stop and account and stop and search?<br />
The Government have—and I welcome this—removed<br />
parts of the justification for section 60 stop and search<br />
on the grounds of race. The National Black Police<br />
Association said the original draft proposal<br />
“opens the door to racial targeting that could be based on gossip,<br />
malice and outright racial prejudice.”<br />
Perhaps I might use this opportunity to thank the<br />
Minister for, and congratulate him on, the changes, and<br />
for his statement:<br />
“Previous guidance did not place any restrictions on use but<br />
now it will make clear than an individual characteristic such as<br />
ethnicity should never be the sole basis for any search.”<br />
That shows the direction of travel of the Government.<br />
They will look at areas w<strong>here</strong> t<strong>here</strong> is disproportionality<br />
and seek to eliminate that. They will look at areas w<strong>here</strong><br />
ethnicity is misused in policing, and ensure that that no<br />
longer happens. I would welcome the Minister’s comments<br />
on the background to the draft guidelines and the<br />
change.<br />
Section 60 stop and search is a very significant power<br />
that we provide to the police. It enables the police to<br />
stop and search an individual w<strong>here</strong> t<strong>here</strong> are no grounds<br />
for suspicion of the particular individual, in a designated<br />
area, for a period of 24 hours. Nationally the black<br />
population of the country, as I said earlier, is about<br />
2.6%, but they represent 32% of stops and searches<br />
under section 60. That means that under the police<br />
power to stop and search with no grounds for suspicion<br />
of the individual concerned, a black person is 26 times<br />
more likely than a white person to be stopped. That is a<br />
shocking statistic and everyone, including members of<br />
the police force, will want that ratio to be changed.
293WH<br />
PACE (Stop and Search)<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
PACE (Stop and Search)<br />
294WH<br />
The usage of this blanket power, which does not rely<br />
on individual assessment or suspicion, has grown over<br />
the past few years. In 2004-05, t<strong>here</strong> were 45,600 incidences<br />
of section 60 stop and search being used. Just three<br />
years later, in 2008-09, the figure had more than trebled<br />
to 149,955. This is a specialised, exceptional power akin<br />
to those available under section 44 of the Terrorism Act<br />
2000. Does the Minister believe that t<strong>here</strong> should be<br />
specialist oversight of the authorisations that chief<br />
constables are using to invoke this power? I am not<br />
aware of any areas w<strong>here</strong> t<strong>here</strong> is currently national<br />
oversight over particular actions by chief constables,<br />
but given that the use of these authorisations is growing<br />
and disproportionate, and given that these very powerful<br />
measures are targeted on an area, not an individual, I<br />
would greatly appreciate it if the Minister could tell us<br />
what oversight, if any, t<strong>here</strong> could be over them.<br />
Other issues are related to the information collected<br />
on the stop-and-search form. Again, I think that the<br />
proposals are being introduced with the good intention<br />
of reducing the amount of police time that is spent on<br />
form filling. The Minister may, in an offhanded way,<br />
have called it box ticking, but I am sure that he accepts<br />
that some of this information is valuable. I want to alert<br />
him, t<strong>here</strong>fore, to some reasons why some of the information<br />
that will be lost from these forms might be valuable, and<br />
he might want to consider how such concerns could be<br />
addressed.<br />
The first piece of information that will be lost from<br />
the stop-and-search form is the name of the person who<br />
has been stopped and searched. How will it be possible<br />
to identify and measure repeat stops and searches that<br />
might amount to harassment? If an individual is stopped<br />
and searched routinely by the police, that will be evident<br />
from the current form because the individual’s name<br />
will have been collected, but it will not be evident under<br />
the proposed change. How might we deal with concerns<br />
about harassment if that information is lost?<br />
Secondly, as a result of the targeting of individuals in<br />
a community, t<strong>here</strong> might be community concerns. How<br />
will the community have the information that it needs<br />
to identify and measure whether particular individuals<br />
are being targeted? T<strong>here</strong> is, t<strong>here</strong>fore, not only the<br />
individual concern; t<strong>here</strong> will also be a community<br />
concern if four or five individuals are routinely stopped<br />
and searched and people feel that their community is<br />
being unfairly targeted.<br />
The second piece of information that will be lost is<br />
whether injury or damage was caused as a result of the<br />
search. If that information is not collected, my concern<br />
is that we might leave the police open to allegations that<br />
some injury or damage was caused. How will it be<br />
possible to identify and account for incidents of the<br />
misuse of force? The corollary of that is the issue of<br />
how the police will be guaranteed protection against<br />
allegations that an injury did occur.<br />
The third piece of information that will be lost relates<br />
to whether anything was found as a consequence of the<br />
search. One of the concerns about the use of stop and<br />
search relates to how effective it is in tackling crime.<br />
With so few stops and searches resulting in an arrest,<br />
how will we know how effective stop and search is likely<br />
to be if we have no information about whether anything<br />
is found as a consequence of a search? Overall, stops<br />
and searches have resulted in an arrest rate of about<br />
10% to 13%, which means that nine out of 10 stops and<br />
searches—3 million in total—do not result in an arrest.<br />
Three million is a widespread trawl through our<br />
communities, and that can have counter-productive effects<br />
by separating the police from the communities that they<br />
serve.<br />
Over the past few years, since the quote from Mr Grant,<br />
progress has been made. Our police have done an<br />
enormously good job of reaching out to communities.<br />
We need to do more of that, but stop and search is not<br />
necessarily one of the main ways to do it. We need look<br />
only at the effectiveness of one of the important powers<br />
in section 60 in tackling knife crime. A review of statistics<br />
from 11 London boroughs with a high incidence of<br />
knife crime showed a broad correlation between the<br />
incidence of knife crime and the number of stops and<br />
searches—when t<strong>here</strong> are a large number of knife crimes,<br />
the police carry out more stops and searches. However,<br />
t<strong>here</strong> is no correlation between the number of stops and<br />
searches and a reduction in knife crime.<br />
Let me give an example. In 2008-09, Tower Hamlets<br />
and Islington both experienced approximately 305 knife<br />
crimes. The police in Tower Hamlets responded with a<br />
stop-and–search rate that was two and a half times that<br />
of Islington. Although knife crime fell by 11% in Tower<br />
Hamlets, it fell by nearly 25% in Islington w<strong>here</strong> such a<br />
large number of stops and searches were not carried<br />
out.<br />
People in those communities want knife crime dealt<br />
with. However, stop and search does not appear to be a<br />
tool that helps and we must look at alternatives. In his<br />
response, perhaps the Minister will talk about initiatives<br />
other than stop and search that can be used to reduce<br />
the disproportionality of the statistics on ethnicity in<br />
our criminal justice system.<br />
For example, the practice-oriented package initiative<br />
that was introduced in Stoke-on-Trent reduced the<br />
disproportionality ratio from six times the national<br />
average to just 1.5 times that average. In Cleveland, the<br />
number of stop and searches was reduced by 80%. That<br />
reduced the disproportionality in stop and search and<br />
also reduced the crime rate. Will the Minister also<br />
endorse police innovations in tackling drugs without<br />
the use of stop and search, which has been done to<br />
good intent?<br />
I understand, appreciate and support the Government’s<br />
efforts to reduce the waste of police time spent collecting<br />
information that is not helpful in tackling crime. I<br />
believe and understand that the Minister shares my<br />
concerns about disproportionality and wishes to ensure<br />
that police powers are used correctly. I welcome the<br />
change to the draft guidelines that have stopped ethnic<br />
profiling from being written into our legislation. That<br />
move is welcome, but considerations and concerns remain<br />
about the continuation of stop and account without the<br />
recording of information, and about the reduction of<br />
information in the stop-and-search forms. I look forward<br />
to hearing the Minister’s response.<br />
11.17 am<br />
The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick<br />
Herbert): First, may I congratulate my hon. Friend the<br />
Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) on securing the<br />
debate and on raising the issues in such a forceful way?<br />
Such matters continue to generate a significant amount<br />
of public interest and highlight some of the concerns<br />
about front-line policing that we are keen to address.
295WH<br />
PACE (Stop and Search)<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
PACE (Stop and Search)<br />
296WH<br />
[Nick Herbert]<br />
We are keen to ensure that officers strike the right<br />
balance between necessary bureaucracy for the sake of<br />
accountability—which is important—and irrelevant form<br />
filling that wastes the time of the police and the public,<br />
and impacts unduly on citizens going about their business<br />
by asking unnecessary questions.<br />
It is important to understand how policing, and the<br />
bureaucracy that surrounds it, impacts on community<br />
relations. Procedures such as stop and account and stop<br />
and search are most effective when local communities<br />
understand them and support their use. T<strong>here</strong> is a<br />
difference between stop and account and stop and<br />
search, and we must be mindful of ensuring that the<br />
processes associated with them are not confused. Stop<br />
and account is w<strong>here</strong> an individual is asked to account<br />
for their presence, actions and so on, but they are not<br />
searched. It can be one step on from the general<br />
conversations that officers have with members of the<br />
public every day. Stop and search clearly goes further<br />
than that. It is an intrusive procedure and t<strong>here</strong>fore a<br />
cause of more concern among local communities.<br />
Many of the proposed changes to the Police and<br />
Criminal Evidence Act 1984 code of practice A are<br />
necessary to reverse the increase in paperwork generated<br />
by the last Government. In our judgment, that paperwork<br />
hampers police operations and leads to encounters with<br />
the public that are ineffective, bureaucratised and poorly<br />
understood. We need officers on the street to record<br />
only information that is of value, and it may differ from<br />
situation to situation and from force to force. I do not<br />
want to see in place measures that discourage proper<br />
interaction between police officers and members of the<br />
public.<br />
Let me explain the rationale behind our stop-and-account<br />
proposals. The abolition of the national recording<br />
requirement for stop and account will potentially free<br />
up around 450,000 hours of police time, allowing officers<br />
to increase the quality—and shorten the duration—of<br />
these brief encounters, and enabling forces to be more<br />
responsive to the communities that they serve.<br />
I share my hon. Friend’s concerns about the level of<br />
disproportionality in the use of police powers. However,<br />
when the statistics for stop and account are examined<br />
more closely, it appears that it is not used in a<br />
disproportionate manner across England and Wales. It<br />
is also fair to say that t<strong>here</strong> is less concern about the<br />
operation of stop and account than t<strong>here</strong> is about stop<br />
and search. That is why we are removing fully the<br />
national requirement for recording stops and accounts,<br />
leaving local recording to a local decision w<strong>here</strong> a local<br />
need is identified.<br />
Individual police forces know their own communities<br />
better than Whitehall. Increasingly, they will be answerable<br />
to their local communities, as we have set out today<br />
with the introduction of the Police Reform and Social<br />
Responsibility Bill. Those forces should know the extent<br />
to which the operation of stop and account is a matter<br />
of particular local concern. They are best placed to<br />
analyse their own statistics and understand how they<br />
use the tactic and how it impacts on ethnic minority<br />
groups locally, and they should be held to account by<br />
their elected police and crime commissioners, with the<br />
scrutiny of new police and crime panels to ensure the<br />
proper use of such procedures.<br />
The Government understand that stop and search is<br />
a very different tool and is far more intrusive. It is right<br />
that its monitoring and use should continue, both nationally<br />
and at a local level. We are reducing the number of<br />
pieces of data to be completed on a stop-and-search<br />
record from 12 to seven, saving more than 300,000<br />
hours of officers’ time every year as well as reducing the<br />
duration of these encounters for those stopped and<br />
searched.<br />
My hon. Friend expressed concern about some of the<br />
pieces of data that will be removed. However, key<br />
information about each encounter will still be recorded,<br />
including the self-defined ethnicity of the person stopped,<br />
which is obviously the critical information, and we<br />
have made minor amendments to code A to encourage<br />
the further use of mobile technology to reduce even<br />
further the time taken to record each stop and search.<br />
The 12 recording requirements used during a stop-andsearch<br />
encounter will be reduced to seven: ethnicity, the<br />
object of the search, the grounds for the search, the<br />
identity of the officer carrying out the stop and search,<br />
the date, the time and the place. Such requirements do<br />
not prevent police officers from recording information<br />
that they feel would be useful intelligence, but it is not<br />
necessary as a Government requirement for such<br />
information to be held in a stop-and-search record.<br />
Our amendments to the guidance on the use of<br />
section 44 stop-and-search powers follow the Home<br />
Secretary’s announcement on 8 July, which curtailed the<br />
use of this power in the light of the judgment of the<br />
European Court of Human Rights in the case of Gillan<br />
and Quinton v. <strong>United</strong> <strong>Kingdom</strong>. My hon. Friend also<br />
raised issues around section 60 stop-and-search powers,<br />
both in terms of the guidance supporting officers’ use<br />
of this power, and the disproportionality figures that<br />
have been reported in the press recently.<br />
Let me assure my hon. Friend and all hon. Members<br />
that t<strong>here</strong> was never any intention on the part of the<br />
Government to encourage the use of ethnic profiling or<br />
unlawful discrimination in the use of this power—far<br />
from it. The original draft of the guidance contained<br />
wording that had been introduced in code A by the<br />
previous Government in 2003 in relation to the police’s<br />
use of section 44 powers. The original draft explained<br />
that all authorisations had to be supported by clear<br />
intelligence and that, on occasion, intelligence could<br />
suggest a possible suspect description that included<br />
characteristics such as race, age, sex and so on. However,<br />
it also stipulated that race should never be the sole<br />
reason for stopping someone under section 60.<br />
The guidance was evidently not clear enough and was<br />
misconstrued. We t<strong>here</strong>fore considered the responses to<br />
the statutory consultation and have redrafted the relevant<br />
paragraphs to include all protected characteristics under<br />
the Equality Act 2010. We have stated clearly that<br />
unlawful discrimination will not be tolerated.<br />
I must, however, warn against judging the use of a<br />
key tool such as section 60 purely on a national statistic.<br />
The figures cited in the press about black people being<br />
26 times more likely than white people to be stopped<br />
and searched under section 60 are potentially misleading<br />
if they are not examined a little more closely. In 2008-09,<br />
76% of all section 60 stops and searches were conducted<br />
by the Metropolitan Police Service in London. T<strong>here</strong>fore,<br />
to assess the use of that power against the national<br />
population’s ethnicity breakdown is deceptive. We need
297WH<br />
PACE (Stop and Search)<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
PACE (Stop and Search)<br />
298WH<br />
to compare that 76% with the ethnicity of the population<br />
of London and the remaining 24% with the rest of the<br />
country. When we do that, we find that the use is not so<br />
disproportionate.<br />
The power is used to tackle specific issues relating to<br />
serious violence and, in particular, knife crime. The<br />
Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department,<br />
my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup<br />
(James Brokenshire), who is responsible for crime<br />
prevention, recently responded to a debate in this Chamber<br />
on youth violence and was very clear about how we<br />
need to protect our communities against violent crimes.<br />
The use of section 60 as one of the many tools that<br />
the Metropolitan police use as part of their continuing<br />
action against knife crime receives significant support<br />
from communities in London. The Metropolitan police<br />
have gone to great lengths since the start of Operation<br />
Blunt 2—their programme of action against knife crime—to<br />
increase community engagement. An example of that is<br />
the young Londoners engagement programme, which<br />
explains why the powers are so important and the<br />
dangers of carrying knives. The Metropolitan police are<br />
in the process of reviewing their operational use of the<br />
power, and all boroughs have been reminded that they<br />
must be proportionate in their use of section 60.<br />
Neighbourhood policing—such a rare thing at the<br />
time of the Macpherson inquiry in the late 1990s—is<br />
now embedded throughout the country in such a way as<br />
to give the public far greater confidence in the way in<br />
which their police service operates. The Government<br />
are determined to do everything that they can to ensure<br />
that neighbourhood policing is protected, despite the<br />
budgetary challenges that confront forces. We are also<br />
determined that the British tradition of policing by<br />
consent should flourish, and that can happen only if the<br />
public understand why the police do what they do and,<br />
just as importantly, if the police understand how their<br />
actions are perceived by the public.<br />
My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford referred to<br />
the role of the Equality and Human Rights Commission.<br />
The commission has praised the “Next Steps” process<br />
developed by the National Policing Improvement Agency,<br />
which is being used by the police in, for example,<br />
Merseyside and Dorset, as well as Lewisham in London.<br />
It helps the police to understand the way in which they<br />
use stop and search and how the population of an area<br />
and the apparent levels of disproportionality might in<br />
some circumstances not present a true picture. The<br />
early feedback on “Next Steps” is positive, and we hope<br />
to be able to expand it to other areas shortly.<br />
I have been impressed by the way in which my hon.<br />
Friend has raised these issues. Since the general election,<br />
t<strong>here</strong> has not been a great deal of debate in the House<br />
about these issues or the changes that we propose to<br />
make. T<strong>here</strong> may be debate in relation to the orders that<br />
we have laid to change the PACE codes, but I would<br />
welcome the opportunity for further discussion with my<br />
hon. Friend and other hon. Members. I would be happy<br />
to convene a meeting with key representatives of the<br />
police, including the deputy commissioner of the police<br />
in London if he would be willing, in order to talk about<br />
their use of stop and search, why they believe that it is<br />
such an important tool in their fight against knife<br />
crime, why they believe that it has public consent and<br />
how they are alive to the important issues of<br />
disproportionality that can be raised.<br />
In summary, stop and search is a vital tool. The<br />
challenge for the Government and the police is to<br />
ensure that the powers are used fairly and with the<br />
support of the community, and it is a challenge that I<br />
am confident we will meet.<br />
11.30 am<br />
Sitting suspended.
299WH<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010 HIV<br />
300WH<br />
HIV<br />
2.30 pm<br />
Mr Edward Leigh (in the Chair): The sitting is resumed.<br />
Hon. Members: Hear, hear!<br />
David Cairns (Inverclyde) (Lab): That might be the<br />
best cheer I get all day. I welcome you to the Chair, Mr<br />
Leigh. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship<br />
in this important debate. I also thank Mr Speaker for<br />
allowing this debate on HIV services in the UK to take<br />
place on world AIDS day. I have been in <strong>Parliament</strong> for<br />
nine years, but I am still ignorant about how debates are<br />
selected—whether t<strong>here</strong> is a lottery or whether Mr Speaker<br />
has a say in the matter. If he does, I thank him; if it was<br />
a lottery, I thank the Fates for timetabling this debate<br />
on 1 December.<br />
I begin with a point of clarification. This is not for<br />
the benefit of hon. Members present in the Chamber, as<br />
they are well aware of the procedures of this place, but<br />
for those who are watching the debate on television or<br />
the internet, and those who will read the account of the<br />
debate in days to come. This debate will focus mainly on<br />
HIV in the UK, but that is not because we think that<br />
HIV outside the UK is not a problem, or because we are<br />
unaware of the scale of HIV in the developing world.<br />
Africa has 10% of the world’s population but 72% of<br />
the deaths from AIDS, and we are aware of that.<br />
However, parliamentary procedure means that different<br />
Departments respond to the debates on different days,<br />
and today it is the turn of the Department of Health,<br />
not the Department for International Development.<br />
T<strong>here</strong>fore, although an enormous number of points<br />
could be raised about the global AIDS epidemic, I will<br />
in the main restrict my comments to HIV in the UK.<br />
With your indulgence, Mr Leigh, I might also sneak in a<br />
few comments about the international scene; I alerted<br />
the Minister about that in advance.<br />
If colleagues are anxious to hear about the international<br />
aspects of the HIV epidemic, I should say that a world<br />
AIDS day reception will be held this evening at 7 pm in<br />
the CPA Room. You are invited, Mr Leigh, as are all<br />
hon. Members, friends and colleagues.<br />
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op): My<br />
hon. Friend is performing a service by raising the issue<br />
of HIV/AIDS in the UK. Does he also recognise that<br />
many people, both inside and outside the country, want<br />
to know what the UK Government intend to do about<br />
the future funding of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS,<br />
Tuberculosis and Malaria? That body has an excellent<br />
record in getting drugs to people with TB, malaria and<br />
particularly AIDS, many of whom are still in desperate<br />
need.<br />
David Cairns: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who<br />
was a distinguished and long-serving Minister at DFID.<br />
In a sense, it is a false dichotomy to say that t<strong>here</strong> is an<br />
AIDS epidemic in the UK and an AIDS epidemic in<br />
Africa and never the twain shall meet. One of the<br />
largest at-risk populations in the UK is the African<br />
community––people who come from Africa and are<br />
HIV positive, or those who contract the disease in the<br />
UK within the African community. I will speak about<br />
that in a moment.<br />
My hon. Friend is correct to highlight the need to<br />
address the problem of the AIDS epidemic in Africa.<br />
Over the past few years, one of the most effective ways<br />
of doing that has been through the Global Fund to<br />
Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. The last<br />
Government had a good record in ensuring that the<br />
global fund was initiated, then adequately resourced.<br />
During the most recent meeting of the fund in October,<br />
high, medium and low targets were set for the level of<br />
replenishment. Unfortunately, the global community<br />
failed to hit the low target, let alone the medium or high<br />
targets.<br />
I understand why the Government do not come forward<br />
and state the exact figures for the replenishment of the<br />
fund. Through DFID, they are conducting a multilateral<br />
aid review, and until they decide their priorities, they<br />
cannot say how much will be made available for the<br />
global fund. Until we can provide a figure, I encourage<br />
Ministers to let the world know, at least with rhetoric,<br />
that we remain committed to the global fund.<br />
Much of the world looks to the UK for an international<br />
lead in tackling AIDS, and other countries will be<br />
looking to our figures for the replenishment of the<br />
global fund before making their commitments. The<br />
Government have an excellent opportunity to set a<br />
global lead. I was going to make those points about the<br />
international community at the end of my speech, but I<br />
have made them now.<br />
Let me return to matters for which the Minister is<br />
responsible—she will be pleased to hear that—rather<br />
than the rest of the world. I will make three points<br />
about how we should respond to the ongoing HIV<br />
epidemic in the UK and our public policy priorities.<br />
First, I will speak a little about prevention, secondly I<br />
will discuss testing and treatment and thirdly I will say<br />
something about care and support. Those three things<br />
do not exist in isolation; they are not, to use fabled<br />
management-speak, in “silos.” One point leads into<br />
another, but for the purposes of the debate I will say a<br />
little about each issue in turn.<br />
The backdrop to this debate is not only the ongoing<br />
financial constraints under which all Governments around<br />
the world are operating, but the NHS reconstruction<br />
and reconfiguration that the Government have embarked<br />
on, as well as the messages contained in the public<br />
health White Paper, launched yesterday by the Secretary<br />
of State. Because the national health service is undergoing<br />
a process of change and transition, t<strong>here</strong> is some uncertainty.<br />
Until we get answers to some of the questions that we<br />
raise, that uncertainty will continue.<br />
As I pointed out in the main Chamber this afternoon,<br />
although the Minister’s responsibility on such matters is<br />
constrained to the NHS in England, the HIV virus does<br />
not respect geographical borders. It is incredibly important<br />
for the Government to work closely with the devolved<br />
Administrations in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast to<br />
ensure a co<strong>here</strong>nt, joined-up approach. That is the only<br />
way to tackle the virus in a way that will see a reduction<br />
in the number of people affected and reverse the rate of<br />
increase in new cases of the disease. T<strong>here</strong>fore, although<br />
I am addressing the NHS in England, the message must<br />
be heard by those who configure the NHS in the devolved<br />
Administrations. I was pleased to hear that the Secretary<br />
of State for Scotland will meet the Minister responsible<br />
for health in Scotland tomorrow, and will put that<br />
important issue on the agenda.
301WH<br />
HIV<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
HIV<br />
302WH<br />
The first issue that I mentioned was prevention. In<br />
the early days of the epidemic, not much was known<br />
about the virus. T<strong>here</strong> were no drugs and no effective<br />
treatment. Messaging was, by necessity, extensive and<br />
untargeted. Those of us old enough will remember the<br />
adverts with the collapsing tombstones and the gravelly<br />
voice telling us about the new virus—AIDS—and how<br />
dangerous it was. We remember the posters and the<br />
radio adverts, which were essentially blanket advertising<br />
for the whole UK. People debate the relative impact of<br />
those messages, but we remember that campaign many<br />
years after it happened, so it did have some impact.<br />
The situation of those who have HIV in the UK<br />
today means that that type of mass media advertising is<br />
not perhaps the best way of getting a message to those<br />
most at risk. That point was made in the foreword to the<br />
“Halve It” document, by Lord Fowler, about which I<br />
will speak shortly. Lord Fowler was a distinguished<br />
former Secretary of State for Health and Social Security,<br />
and he is remembered very fondly by people who work<br />
on behalf of and alongside those with HIV and AIDS<br />
for the forward-looking approach that he took. As he<br />
acknowledges, such mass communication messages are<br />
no longer relevant, and the campaign must be more<br />
targeted.<br />
Will the Minister tell us whether the Government’s<br />
strategies on sexual health and HIV propose to target<br />
messages on specific, at-risk communities, and particularly<br />
but not exclusively on younger gay men, for whom some<br />
of the safe sex messages may have been lost in time, and<br />
the African community? Those communities are not<br />
mutually exclusive, of course, but the messaging to each<br />
will have to be different. Particularly now that more<br />
heterosexual people are contracting the virus, many of<br />
whom are in the African community, t<strong>here</strong> is a pressing<br />
need to develop messaging that speaks to that community<br />
and to its values and structures, whether through Church<br />
or faith networks or whatever, so that we can overcome<br />
some of the ignorance and stigma in the black African<br />
community in this country. I would be grateful for the<br />
Minister’s comments on what she proposes to do about<br />
that.<br />
Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con) rose—<br />
David Cairns: I am happy to give way to a vice-chair<br />
of the all-party group on HIV and AIDS.<br />
Pauline Latham: Does the hon. Gentleman accept<br />
that, in addition, white heterosexual people who perhaps<br />
have got divorced recently, after having had a monogamous<br />
relationship for many years, are now going out into the<br />
world of single dating and getting into a mess because<br />
they do not realise that HIV/AIDS is out t<strong>here</strong> in the<br />
heterosexual community? Is that not an expanding area<br />
that we should also be targeting?<br />
David Cairns: The hon. Lady is right. I was saying<br />
that the messaging should not go exclusively to gay men<br />
and to people in the African community. T<strong>here</strong> must be<br />
a message for everyone, but the messaging needs to be<br />
differentiated. T<strong>here</strong> will need to be different messages<br />
to different people, within relative constraints. I hope<br />
that the Minister will deal with her point.<br />
T<strong>here</strong> is concern. I am of the generation that came to<br />
maturity at the time when the AIDS epidemic—well, I<br />
might not have come to maturity yet; it is probably up<br />
for debate whether I have reached maturity.<br />
Mr Thomas: Don’t do yourself down.<br />
David Cairns: Yes, I am doing myself down <strong>here</strong>. I am<br />
of the generation that came to adulthood when the<br />
virus was making its first big impact, so those messages<br />
really stayed with me. I wonder whether that is the same<br />
today, particularly, although not exclusively, for young<br />
gay men of 17, 18 or 19. We cannot be squeamish about<br />
this issue. We must speak a language that they hear and<br />
will listen and respond to. I do not expect the Minister<br />
necessarily to go into that in detail today, but I want an<br />
assurance from her in that regard. I know, particularly<br />
given her former career, that she is not squeamish about<br />
these things, and we cannot be squeamish when people’s<br />
lives are at stake.<br />
Of course, one way to prevent the spread of the virus<br />
is to ensure that everyone who is HIV-positive knows<br />
that they are HIV-positive—knows their status—and is<br />
receiving the correct drug treatment. It is not widely<br />
appreciated that when someone who is HIV-positive is<br />
on the correct level of antiretroviral drug treatment,<br />
they become significantly less infectious. I had not<br />
appreciated that—I must confess that that was ignorance<br />
on my part—until fairly recently. It means that treatment<br />
for one person is prevention for another.<br />
When an individual is on ARVs and is less infectious,<br />
that helps to constrain the spread of the epidemic and<br />
when people know their HIV status, it alters their<br />
sexual practices. Most of the evidence and studies show<br />
that. The more people we can test and the more HIVpositive<br />
people who know their status and are receiving<br />
the right treatment, the more we will do to prevent the<br />
spread of the virus.<br />
Jenny Willott (Cardiff Central) (LD) rose—<br />
David Cairns: I am happy to give way to another<br />
vice-chair of the all-party group.<br />
Jenny Willott: I have just had a baby and I was tested<br />
automatically for HIV during my pregnancy. Does the<br />
hon. Gentleman agree that extending such automatic<br />
testing could play a valuable role in identifying cases<br />
very early so that people can receive the treatment that,<br />
as he said, will not only help them with their own<br />
medical needs, but prevent them from spreading the<br />
condition?<br />
David Cairns: The hon. Lady makes an excellent<br />
point. I think that it was my right hon. Friend the<br />
Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson),<br />
when he was Secretary of State for Health, who introduced<br />
automatic testing in pregnancy. If we look at the graph,<br />
we see that the tail-off is quite astonishing: once opt-out<br />
testing was introduced for pregnant women, the numbers<br />
of babies being born HIV-positive plummeted.<br />
Of course, the issue is not just about babies. Quite<br />
often when we are talking about the prevention of<br />
mother-to-child transmission, we focus on the baby, but<br />
a woman is involved as well. As the hon. Lady rightly<br />
says, if a woman’s own HIV-positive status has been<br />
diagnosed at the beginning of pregnancy, she can be<br />
put on the correct course of ARVs. That is why, in<br />
the northern world, mother-to-child transmission has<br />
been, if not completely eliminated, massively reduced—<br />
because not only ARVs but the correct education about
303WH<br />
HIV<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
HIV<br />
304WH<br />
[David Cairns]<br />
breastfeeding are making an enormous difference.<br />
However, almost 500,000 babies born in Africa every<br />
year are HIV-positive. That is completely preventable—<br />
entirely avoidable. If pregnant women are tested and<br />
put on ARVs, they do not need to pass on the virus. It is<br />
one of the great scandals of our age that something that<br />
is solvable—we have solved it <strong>here</strong>—could be solved<br />
throughout the world with the correct financial support<br />
and the political will, but it has not been.<br />
Mr Thomas: Is not one of the conclusions that can be<br />
drawn from the comments made by the hon. Member<br />
for Cardiff Central (Jenny Willott), as well as from my<br />
hon. Friend’s point about mother-to-child transmission,<br />
that we need to ensure that the Department of Health<br />
and DFID work closely together so that the lessons of<br />
success in dealing with HIV in this country can be<br />
properly worked into our development policy abroad?<br />
Is it not t<strong>here</strong>fore a concern that DFID’s HIV/AIDS<br />
team seems to have shrunk very small—if indeed<br />
any cadre of skills in this area is left in the Department<br />
at all?<br />
David Cairns: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He<br />
has far greater knowledge of these matters from within<br />
DFID than I have. If what he says is true, clearly it is a<br />
very worrying development. I was fortunate enough to<br />
meet some members of the HIV/AIDS team in DFID a<br />
few weeks ago. Whether or not the team is smaller than<br />
it used to be, it is certainly very committed. I also met<br />
some DFID workers when I was in Kenya a few months<br />
ago, and they are doing a tremendous job.<br />
It is to the credit of the Government that they have<br />
protected the international development budget, but of<br />
course t<strong>here</strong> will be reprioritising within that budget.<br />
Part of what we are doing as an all-party group is<br />
ensuring that these issues are not lost in the reprioritisation.<br />
This is what people find very frustrating about the<br />
international dimension of this issue. Enormous progress<br />
has been made and the tide is beginning to turn. If we<br />
withdrew funding or support or lost the political will at<br />
this stage, it would be a disaster and a tragedy, not least<br />
because in five years’ time we would have to return to<br />
the matter, because we could not let the number of<br />
deaths and new infections let rip as we saw happen in<br />
the 1980s and 1990s.<br />
Mr Thomas: Will the all-party group, as part of its<br />
thinking about the Government’s multilateral aid review,<br />
also consider funding for the new UN women’s agency?<br />
I ask that in the context of the comments from a<br />
previous UN Secretary-General, who said that AIDS in<br />
many parts of the developing world has an increasingly<br />
female face and that we need to ensure that we continue<br />
to champion efforts to tackle issues relating to gender<br />
equality—for many reasons, of course, but in particular<br />
to help with the fight against AIDS.<br />
David Cairns: My hon. Friend makes an excellent<br />
point. The new agency has real potential to make a<br />
difference. We are all relieved that some of the world’s<br />
appalling, oppressive, anti-women regimes that were<br />
muscling in have been set to one side, which will allow<br />
the agency to focus on the issues that he mentioned.<br />
A saying that we hear over and again now in Africa is<br />
that the face of the epidemic is female. That is not just<br />
because of mother-to-child transmissions, but because<br />
of the disempowerment of women and the limiting of<br />
women’s ability to make choices about their own sexual<br />
and reproductive health. Of course, that is not the case<br />
solely in Africa; it is the case elsew<strong>here</strong> in the world as<br />
well. However, it is a particularly pressing problem in<br />
Africa and one that we must not lose sight of.<br />
I was talking about the need to ensure that people<br />
who are HIV-positive know that they are HIV-positive.<br />
That is why the all-party group is pleased to support the<br />
Halve It campaign, which is composed of many agencies,<br />
clinicians and groups advocating on behalf of people<br />
with HIV. It is campaigning to halve the number of late<br />
diagnoses by 2015. That is an ambitious target, but the<br />
document sets out steps that can be taken to meet it,<br />
and I would be grateful for the Minister’s comments on<br />
them.<br />
Yesterday, I was pleased that when I urged the Secretary<br />
of State for Health, while he was making his statement<br />
on the public health White Paper in the House, to look<br />
at the Halve It campaign, he gave an undertaking to do<br />
so and see whether it could form part of the HIV and<br />
sexual health strategy. I would be grateful if the Minister<br />
confirmed that she will look at the campaign’s document,<br />
particularly at the steps that can be taken to halve the<br />
numbers of late diagnoses and of those living with<br />
undiagnosed HIV by 2015.<br />
I shall press on because I know other hon. Members<br />
are keen to take part and I want to hear the Minister’s<br />
reply. Once a person is diagnosed––I shall speak about<br />
some of the hurdles in a moment––the virus changes<br />
from being in its potentially lethal undiagnosed state,<br />
which poses a wide public health risk due to how it can<br />
be transmitted, to being a more normal—I use that<br />
word advisedly—long-term managed condition. That<br />
brings different challenges with it.<br />
One thing that we are looking for in the detail of the<br />
NHS restructuring plan is how people will access services<br />
in the long-term managed phase of the condition. Who<br />
will commission those services, particularly in lowprevalence<br />
areas? Until those questions are answered,<br />
t<strong>here</strong> will be uncertainty in the community. I want the<br />
Minister to answer specifically the question of who will<br />
commission HIV services in the new restructured NHS.<br />
Will it always be the GP? Is the GP the best placed<br />
person to do so? Do GPs have the time and the expertise,<br />
particularly in low-prevalence areas? I am sure that GPs<br />
in much of London, Brighton, Manchester or Glasgow<br />
have the necessary expertise because they have the caseload,<br />
but in other areas that might not be the case. Is a<br />
one-size-fits-all approach across the NHS the right<br />
solution or is something a little more granulated necessary<br />
to deal with the full complexity of the issue?<br />
We have to face up to the fact that a lot of people who<br />
are HIV-positive simply do not want to access services<br />
through their local GP. Whether it is wise or unwise, it is<br />
understandable in some areas, particularly in smaller<br />
towns or villages, w<strong>here</strong> everyone knows everyone else,<br />
and you know who works in your GP’s surgery and they<br />
know everybody and everything about you. Under those<br />
circumstances and given that the stigma prevails, and<br />
the myths, misunderstandings and prejudice that people<br />
with HIV face, it is understandable that t<strong>here</strong> are those<br />
who will not want their status to be known in their own
305WH<br />
HIV<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
HIV<br />
306WH<br />
community. In evidence put forward yesterday by the<br />
National AIDS Trust, we saw how many people face<br />
discrimination in the workplace due to their HIV status.<br />
AIDS is a complex condition. It affects people physically,<br />
emotionally and psychologically. In that complex mix,<br />
it is important that the NHS is responsive to that and<br />
allows people pathways to treatment that might not<br />
always be the same in every place. I would be grateful<br />
for the Minister’s views on that.<br />
Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab): I<br />
congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate.<br />
Because stigma is still attached to this condition, people<br />
in rural localities, such as mine, will seek advice and<br />
help from further afield, t<strong>here</strong>by distorting the figures<br />
on the prevalence of the condition in certain parts of<br />
the country.<br />
David Cairns: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He<br />
represents an area that is not only largely rural but on<br />
the borders of Scotland and England, which brings me<br />
to the point I mentioned at the very beginning. I imagine<br />
that many of his constituents will be accessing HIV<br />
services in Carlisle, for all sorts of reasons, but partly<br />
due to the stigma still associated with the condition.<br />
They do not want to access services in small villages and<br />
towns. Ultimately, we have to get to a situation in which<br />
t<strong>here</strong> is no stigma, prejudice or discrimination and<br />
people can happily access GP services for a long-term<br />
managed condition, as people with diabetes, asthma<br />
and other long-term managed conditions can. Until<br />
such a time, we have to be sensitive to these issues.<br />
Another reason why people are wary about always<br />
accessing services through GPs is the lack of awareness<br />
and understanding that many GPs demonstrate. Part of<br />
the reason why we have so many late diagnoses is that<br />
GPs do not pick up the telltale signs often enough. An<br />
alarming number of people had seen their GP on many<br />
occasions during the 12 months before they were eventually<br />
diagnosed as HIV-positive, and it was not picked up<br />
that they might have been HIV-positive. An astonishing<br />
number of people had been in-patients in the 12 months<br />
preceding their diagnosis; they were almost certainly<br />
HIV-positive while they were in hospital, but it was not<br />
picked up.<br />
A lady recently got in touch with the all-party group—a<br />
middle-aged, professional, white lady—who had suffered<br />
serious recurrent health problems for two years and had<br />
seen numerous clinicians, including a GP on many<br />
occasions, before anyone thought to offer her an HIV<br />
test, which brings me back to the point that the hon.<br />
Member for Cardiff Central made. That lady was a<br />
textbook case: she had every symptom and yet her GP<br />
never thought to offer her an HIV test. That is clearly<br />
happening across the country, which explains why we<br />
have 22,000 people who are HIV-positive, but do not<br />
know it. It is not the case that none of them ever visits<br />
their doctor—they regularly visit their GPs, perhaps<br />
they even go into hospital as in-patients, and yet their<br />
status is not picked up. That is a public health disaster<br />
because the ability of those people to infect others is<br />
much greater than it would be if they were receiving the<br />
correct course of ARVs.<br />
We need assurance that, within the restructuring,<br />
GPs will get very good guidelines and necessary training,<br />
and be encouraged to offer people an HIV test in the<br />
routine manner suggested earlier, to tackle undiagnosed<br />
HIV.<br />
Jenny Willott: Will the hon. Gentleman also suggest<br />
that we need to tackle the stereotypes about the kind of<br />
person who might have HIV? That is one issue for<br />
people who do not go to their doctor, or who do go but<br />
whose GP does not pick up on it. As the hon. Member<br />
for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) mentioned earlier,<br />
GPs may not think that a middle-aged, heterosexual<br />
white woman is likely to be HIV-positive. We need to<br />
tackle those stereotypes.<br />
David Cairns: The hon. Lady is correct. Part of the<br />
education of GPs must be about looking at the symptoms,<br />
not only what the GP imagines a typical at-risk person<br />
would be. Having said that, we need to show that those<br />
within high-risk groups of people are being tested as well.<br />
The tremendous progress that has been made in<br />
testing in the past few years is truly astonishing. Someone<br />
can be tested and have the result in less than a minute. I<br />
hope that he will not mind me mentioning it, but the<br />
hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Simon Kirby)<br />
saw this first-hand last night when he received a test<br />
through the services provided by the Terrence Higgins<br />
Trust in the House, and he had the result in less than a<br />
minute. Testing is not the long drawn-out process it was<br />
years ago, but can be done much more quickly.<br />
Finally, on care and support, people are living longer<br />
with the virus, which is a very good thing, but it brings<br />
with it challenges and complications—physical, emotional<br />
and mental. It is very important that we understand the<br />
need to have a strategy for people living longer with<br />
HIV. The AIDS support grant is no longer ring-fenced,<br />
and I am not arguing that it should be re-ring-fenced,<br />
but I am arguing strongly for it to stay within the grants<br />
that go to local government as a specified budget line.<br />
In that way, local people can hold their local authority<br />
to account in exactly the way that the Secretary of State<br />
outlined yesterday. It is his belief that local people<br />
should be able to see the services being provided for<br />
them, and argue for services. If the AIDS support grant<br />
disappears as a title altogether and is subsumed into the<br />
general pot of money that local government gets, local<br />
people will not be empowered to come forward and<br />
demand the kind of services for which money is being<br />
made available.<br />
In conclusion, I hope that the Minister will address<br />
some of the concerns about the AIDS support grant<br />
and the Government’s vision for it. I hope too that she<br />
will be able to calm some of the fears and uncertainties<br />
out t<strong>here</strong> on how HIV services are to be commissioned,<br />
how they will be accessed, and how they will be supported<br />
under the new NHS that the Government have in mind.<br />
Mr Edward Leigh (in the Chair): Order. Five Back<br />
Benchers have intimated that they wish to take part. I<br />
intend to call the wind-ups at about 3.30 pm. Hon.<br />
Members can do the maths, so I ask for brief speeches<br />
from now on.<br />
3pm<br />
Mike Weatherley (Hove) (Con): I congratulate the<br />
hon. Member for Inverclyde (David Cairns) on securing<br />
this important debate, whether by skill or fortune.<br />
The Hove and Brighton area has one the highest rates<br />
of HIV in the UK. Many of my constituents live with<br />
the virus, and others have friends and colleagues that do<br />
so. It is a great privilege to speak up for them on any<br />
day, but especially on world AIDS day.
307WH<br />
HIV<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
HIV<br />
308WH<br />
[Mike Weatherley]<br />
I wish to make two clear points. First, HIV does not<br />
always conform to stereotypes. HIV does not affect<br />
only young men on the gay scene, or people in or from<br />
Africa. As we heard earlier, it also affects white, middle-aged<br />
and older straight men and women. Until politicians,<br />
policy makers, doctors and the general public take that<br />
fact on board, dealing with HIV will continue to be<br />
hard work. Secondly, 26% of all who live with HIV in<br />
the <strong>United</strong> <strong>Kingdom</strong> are undiagnosed. Tackling this<br />
must be a priority.<br />
In Brighton and Hove City primary care trust, about<br />
450 people are HIV positive without knowing it. The<br />
Government and local services must do everything that<br />
they can to bring the number down, and I am determined<br />
to do what I can to support the NHS at the local level in<br />
this task.<br />
My two earlier points are linked, because it is precisely<br />
those who are not in what are known as high-risk<br />
groups who get diagnosed the latest. Heterosexual men<br />
have the worst rates of late diagnosis, at 65%. That is<br />
possibly because they are less likely to consider themselves<br />
at risk, as we heard earlier, and unlike women they will<br />
never be tested in ante-natal settings. It could also be<br />
because clinicians may not consider them to be at risk.<br />
Heterosexual men over 50 years old have the worst rates<br />
of diagnosis; 73% of those not diagnosed until over the<br />
age of 50 are diagnosed late.<br />
HIV comes in many shapes and sizes. At 54%, more<br />
than half of new diagnoses in 2009 were among<br />
heterosexuals, something that surprised me when<br />
researching for the debate. At 51%, more than half of<br />
HIV-diagnosed individuals accessing HIV care in 2009<br />
were infected through heterosexual sex. The proportion<br />
of heterosexual diagnoses in which people are believed<br />
to have been infected in the UK has risen year on year<br />
throughout the epidemic. From 2003 to 2007 it doubled<br />
from 12% to 24%, and it continues to rise. It is now<br />
about 32%. The over-50s represent one in five of all<br />
adults seen for HIV care in 2009. That is due to an<br />
ageing cohort of people diagnosed previously, as well as<br />
an increase in new diagnoses among older people.<br />
I dwell for a moment on the growing cohort of people<br />
of more than 50 years of age that live with HIV. This<br />
cohort will be bringing new needs to the NHS, and it<br />
should be ready for them. As people get older, they see<br />
more of their GPs. Many older people living with HIV<br />
suffer side effects from treatment; overall, they report<br />
twice as many other long-term non-HIV conditions as<br />
their non-HIV positive peers. As a consequence, they<br />
need to spend more time in health care, including<br />
primary health-care settings, than their peers. That makes<br />
their relationship with non-HIV specialist doctors almost<br />
as important as their relationship with HIV doctors.<br />
The Terrence Higgins Trust surveyed about 400 people<br />
aged over 50. It found that<br />
“respondents repeatedly told stories of discrimination, ignorance<br />
and poor clinical treatment in generalist healthcare, particularly<br />
in primary settings.”<br />
The survey concluded that t<strong>here</strong> was important work to<br />
be done to address HIV discrimination in primary care<br />
settings, as doctors t<strong>here</strong> may not be so familiar with<br />
people that have the virus.<br />
In Hove and in Brighton, we have some of the most<br />
HIV-aware clinicians in the country, and our specialists<br />
are among the best in the world. However, we must not<br />
be complacent, as parts of the NHS in our area will be<br />
less HIV-aware, as we heard earlier. I urge the Minister<br />
to work with her colleagues, the all-party group on HIV<br />
and AIDS and charities such as the Terrence Higgins<br />
Trust to tackle the problem. Training for GPs and<br />
surgery staff could be one way to do so.<br />
Medical care is not the only service needed by older<br />
people. In the same Terrence Higgins survey, fewer than<br />
one in 12 older people with HIV said that they would<br />
approach a mainstream organisation for older people<br />
for support. Age UK and the Terrence Higgins Trust<br />
are working to change attitudes and to improve<br />
understanding of HIV in mainstream social care and<br />
social networks for older people. Again, I hope that the<br />
Minister will listen to the views of people living with<br />
HIV as her Department moves to create a social care<br />
system fit for the 21st century.<br />
I turn next to late and undiagnosed HIV. Of all adults<br />
diagnosed with HIV in 2009, 52% were diagnosed late,<br />
when their CD4 count dropped below 350. People with<br />
the worst rates of late diagnosis are over the 50s. Recent<br />
research suggests that the majority of those people will<br />
have had previous contact with their doctors. Late<br />
diagnosis, whatever the age, is a problem; if treatment is<br />
not started promptly, it can do serious damage to the<br />
body and severely cut life expectancy.<br />
HIV treatment is excellent, and if diagnosed promptly,<br />
one can live to an old age. It is not right that some of my<br />
constituents will not have this opportunity by being<br />
diagnosed too late to benefit from it. It even makes<br />
financial sense to treat people early; it is much cheaper<br />
to have people someone stable on HIV treatment than it<br />
is to treat them for the endlessly recurring serious<br />
conditions that can result from undiagnosed HIV. HIV<br />
treatment also reduces viral load; as a result, those who<br />
are diagnosed and on treatment are less likely to pass on<br />
the virus.<br />
Now is the time, while we are focusing on public<br />
health and while we are worrying about public finances,<br />
to take action to tackle late diagnosis and undiagnosed<br />
HIV. I am proud to say that people in Brighton and<br />
Hove are not sitting back waiting for someone to come<br />
up with a solution but are already working hard to<br />
tackle the problem. T<strong>here</strong> have been two pilot studies in<br />
our area looking into ways of reducing undiagnosed<br />
HIV, using clinicians in the area. Of 596 people tested,<br />
only two positives were found. However, even more<br />
people were identified through an anonymous survey<br />
done by the university of Brighton. I urge as many<br />
people as possible to be tested, because of the 3,872<br />
anonymous tests 54 were positive.<br />
My constituency is proof that HIV can affect anybody,<br />
whatever their background, age or sexuality. As more<br />
people with HIV grow to old age, we must ensure that<br />
they receive services of which we can be proud. Such<br />
services should include prompt diagnosis.<br />
3.6 pm<br />
Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab): I am delighted to<br />
take part in this debate. First, it gives me the opportunity<br />
to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde<br />
(David Cairns) not only on securing the debate but on<br />
the important work that he does in chairing the all-party<br />
group on HIV and AIDS. Secondly, it gives me the
309WH<br />
HIV<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
HIV<br />
310WH<br />
opportunity to recommend to the Minister the work of<br />
Summit House Support. It is a fantastic charity, led by<br />
its chair Claire Pennell and its chief executive Suzanne<br />
Callen; for the last 18 years, the organisation has provided<br />
phenomenal services and support for people with HIV<br />
and AIDS in Dudley and Sandwell.<br />
Thirdly, it gives me the opportunity to thank the<br />
Minister and her Department for the support that Summit<br />
House receives from the Department of Health through<br />
the Dudley and Sandwell primary care trusts. Finally, it<br />
gives me the opportunity to raise a number of points<br />
that I know are of interest to the staff at Summit House<br />
Support and those who work in the field.<br />
I am delighted that the Secretary of State for<br />
Communities and Local Government has written to<br />
local authorities promising to increase spending on<br />
AIDS support over the next 10 years—I understand by<br />
£10.5 million. Is the Minister able to tell us how<br />
organisations in the HIV sector such as Summit House<br />
Support can safeguard the way in which local authorities<br />
decide to spend their grants? Will t<strong>here</strong> be criteria for<br />
allocation, a needs assessment or some sort of ring-fencing<br />
process that considers the real needs of those with HIV?<br />
We have heard that is often a hidden group, so it needs<br />
to be done through specialist agencies, and it is fair to<br />
say that some of those working in the field are extremely<br />
concerned that money could be sidelined for other uses<br />
by local authorities if things are not monitored correctly.<br />
As my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde said,<br />
people living with HIV are worried about the GP<br />
commissioning proposals now being considered. HIV is<br />
clearly a specialist area, and GPs historically have not<br />
had much interaction with those who have to live with<br />
it. In some cases, t<strong>here</strong> is not the relationship of trust<br />
that should exist. Many people living with HIV are<br />
genuinely frightened or concerned about the proposals.<br />
The current sexual health strategy will end shortly.<br />
What plans do the Government have to write a new<br />
strategy, given that the sexual health agenda has changed<br />
since 2004? Has the Minister also considered the extent<br />
to which NHS employees are routinely trained in HIV<br />
routes of transmission? I understand from the service<br />
users I met at Summit house that staff who have received<br />
such training and who understand the facts about<br />
transmission and infection are likely to be able to deal<br />
with people infected with HIV more effectively than<br />
those who have not had such training. Does the Minister<br />
think that training in HIV routes of transmission should<br />
be incorporated into employees’ standard training if is<br />
not already part of it?<br />
Finally, would the Minister be prepared to visit Dudley<br />
to see first hand the fantastic work done at Summit<br />
house? If her diary does not allow her to do that, would<br />
she be prepared to let me bring people from Summit<br />
house to meet her in London?<br />
3.10 pm<br />
Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con): May I say what a<br />
pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship,<br />
Mr Leigh? I congratulate the hon. Member for Inverclyde<br />
(David Cairns). I am rather reassured that, after seven<br />
years, he does not know how these debates are chosen,<br />
because I certainly do not have a clue after seven<br />
months.<br />
This is a significant day. It is a day to remember those<br />
who are no longer with us, it is a day to acknowledge<br />
and pay tribute to those who have worked so hard on<br />
this issue and, crucially, it is a day to raise awareness.<br />
On the first of those issues, the scars on those who have<br />
lost people, particularly in the early years, are clearly<br />
raw. Thankfully, I do not know anybody who has died<br />
from AIDS, but I have friends who do, and they recall<br />
the pain and suffering vividly.<br />
It is important that we remember those who have<br />
died and acknowledge their suffering. T<strong>here</strong> is a wonderful<br />
quote in the film “Philadelphia”, w<strong>here</strong> someone says<br />
that social death precedes physical death. That was<br />
certainly true in the early days, but I hope that things<br />
will get a lot better as time goes on. It is important,<br />
however, to look at how far we have come.<br />
This is also a day to acknowledge those who have<br />
done so much. I pay tribute to each and every person<br />
and organisation for their work. T<strong>here</strong> are too many<br />
organisations to mention, but I would like to pay tribute<br />
to the National AIDS Trust and the Terrence Higgins<br />
Trust. I would also like to mention two individuals. The<br />
first is the chief executive of the Terrence Higgins Trust,<br />
Sir Nick Partridge, who is <strong>here</strong>. He has done a tremendous<br />
amount of work over the years, and he should be<br />
acknowledged. The second is Lord Fowler, and I was<br />
pleased last night when he was acknowledged for the<br />
work that he did in the very early years.<br />
Perhaps most importantly, today gives us an opportunity<br />
to raise awareness of HIV and AIDS <strong>here</strong> and abroad.<br />
I know that we are concentrating on the UK today, but<br />
I hope that we will have an opportunity to talk about<br />
the issues abroad, because they are significant.<br />
The latest figures from the Health Protection Agency<br />
show that more people than ever are living with HIV.<br />
Last year, t<strong>here</strong> were more than 6,000 new diagnoses,<br />
which is fewer than the year before, but only slightly.<br />
That emphasises that this is still a major problem. As<br />
many Members have mentioned, statistics also show<br />
that slightly more than half of new diagnoses are among<br />
heterosexuals, but the rate of infection in the gay community<br />
is still very high. Worryingly, t<strong>here</strong> is an increase in<br />
diagnoses among those over 50, as my hon. Friend the<br />
Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) rightly<br />
said. We have also heard about the quarter of people<br />
with HIV who are undiagnosed. That is a huge problem,<br />
which really needs addressing.<br />
I represent a constituency in Leeds, w<strong>here</strong> the prevalence<br />
of HIV cases is average for England, with about 850<br />
people receiving treatment and care in the city. Again,<br />
however, many of those people have been diagnosed<br />
very late, which highlights the need for early diagnosis.<br />
We also have a growing African population in the city,<br />
and t<strong>here</strong> is a real link between HIV abroad and in the<br />
UK, as more and more people move around the world.<br />
In addition, we have one of the most vibrant gay scenes<br />
in Yorkshire, and I hope that we can encourage as much<br />
focus as possible on those two groups, because prevention<br />
really is the key.<br />
It is important to mention the campaigns of the<br />
1980s. The Conservative Government of the mid-1980s<br />
faced a massive challenge on an emerging issue, and<br />
even the best experts were learning day to day. Those<br />
campaigns were scary. I was at school at the time, but I
311WH<br />
HIV<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
HIV<br />
312WH<br />
[Stuart Andrew]<br />
remember them, and they still have an impact on me. As<br />
the hon. Gentleman said, those old campaigns were not<br />
exactly targeted, but they were highly effective.<br />
Developments in medicine these days mean that people<br />
with HIV can expect to live well into old age. This<br />
generation could be forgiven for thinking that the problem<br />
has gone away, and that is a big problem, particularly in<br />
the young, at-risk groups. In the 1980s, HIV had already<br />
taken root among gay men in this country. Meanwhile,<br />
a devastating HIV/AIDS epidemic was about to take<br />
off in Africa, with inevitable consequences for this<br />
country and others. It is now estimated that, by 2012,<br />
t<strong>here</strong> could be close to 100,000 people with the virus in<br />
this country. That is a tenfold increase on the 1980s<br />
figures, so the problem has not gone away.<br />
I pay tribute to groups such as CHAPs, which have<br />
worked with community groups all over the country,<br />
and I am lucky that we have such groups in my constituency.<br />
[Interruption.] I notice, however, that I need to get a<br />
move on, so I will get rid of some of the pages of my<br />
speech.<br />
Let me quickly say that I am delighted that we are<br />
highlighting some of the work that has been done over<br />
the past few years, although I should emphasise that<br />
work still needs to be done to save lives. T<strong>here</strong> needs to<br />
be foreign aid, education and greater testing. Let me<br />
also say how happy I am that HIV and sexual health<br />
have featured highly in the public health White Paper,<br />
and that is important. It is also important that we<br />
acknowledge the problem in socially disadvantaged cases.<br />
Finally, t<strong>here</strong> is no one silver bullet when it comes to<br />
preventing HIV transmission, but we can, through a<br />
range of interventions, start to reverse this epidemic.<br />
Like the Government of the 1980s, the coalition faces a<br />
considerable challenge in tackling HIV. Unlike that<br />
Government, however, the coalition can draw on 25 years<br />
of experience in dealing with the epidemic and in<br />
understanding what works and what does not. I wish<br />
them well.<br />
3.17 pm<br />
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab): I<br />
congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde<br />
(David Cairns) on securing a debate on such an important<br />
topic. HIV policy has long been close to my heart, and<br />
it is a pleasure to be able to speak in the debate. It is<br />
important that I can speak on an issue that affects my<br />
constituency so greatly. Although we are discussing the<br />
effects of HIV in the UK, we cannot do so in isolation;<br />
we need to discuss many global issues as well, and I am<br />
sure that we will have an opportunity to do so. Today,<br />
however, I want to address issues relating to the UK<br />
and particularly to my constituency.<br />
Ealing primary care trust has the seventh highest<br />
prevalence of HIV in a country that has more people<br />
living with the disease than ever before. Rates of new<br />
infections in the UK remain high, and, as my hon.<br />
Friend said, the number of over-50s infected with HIV<br />
trebled between 2000 and 2009. It is obvious that a new<br />
policy has to be developed to deal with these pressing<br />
new issues.<br />
One of the most important factors in this complex<br />
issue, which we must acknowledge straight away, is<br />
diagnosis. Roughly one in four people with HIV in<br />
Ealing do not even know that they have it. That is<br />
roughly the same ratio as at the national level. When<br />
HIV is discovered early, people can be treated and go on<br />
to live normal lives with near-normal life expectancies.<br />
On the other hand, late diagnosis leads to more AIDSrelated<br />
illnesses, increased pressure on the NHS and a<br />
higher rate of onwards transmission. We have too high<br />
a rate of diagnoses being made at a point when treatment<br />
should already have started. As hon. Members have<br />
said, in 2009 52% of people diagnosed with HIV were<br />
diagnosed too late, and 73% of those who died were<br />
diagnosed too late as well.<br />
What can we do to ensure early diagnosis for all cases<br />
of HIV? The Health Protection Agency believes that all<br />
new members of GP surgeries in PCTs with high prevalence<br />
rates, including Ealing, should be offered an HIV test.<br />
We need to go further, and provide incentives to GPs<br />
and other health care workers to encourage HIV testing.<br />
We also need to improve antenatal testing. We already<br />
have good provision for HIV testing of unborn babies.<br />
Even though one in 450 women who give birth is<br />
HIV-positive, only 30 babies born last year had the<br />
virus. However, we could go further.<br />
I want to comment briefly on the growing link between<br />
HIV cases and mental health. Obviously, meeting the<br />
mental health needs of a population is important in<br />
itself, but concentrating on people with HIV can have a<br />
particularly beneficial effect, both clinically and in costeffectiveness.<br />
People with depression have a more adverse<br />
reaction to their HIV treatment in general. It is cheaper<br />
for the NHS to invest in 10 sessions with a clinical<br />
psychologist than to pay for costly treatments further<br />
down the line because someone did not take the initial<br />
treatment properly.<br />
Those sufferers receiving the right psychological support<br />
are less likely to miss their medication, more likely to<br />
react positively to treatment, and less likely to pass on<br />
the disease by engaging in unsafe sex; such aspects of<br />
the matter can cost more in the long run if the right<br />
support is not established immediately on diagnosis. It<br />
is t<strong>here</strong>fore important for the Department of Health to<br />
integrate HIV sufferers into long-term mental health<br />
strategies.<br />
Although I am pleased that drugs for HIV sufferers<br />
will be ring-fenced in the health budget, social care and<br />
protection for HIV sufferers, which is often provided<br />
through local authorities, will not be. Social services are<br />
hugely important for people with HIV, and a squeeze<br />
on their budget is likely to have a detrimental effect on<br />
the mental health status of many HIV sufferers and cost<br />
much more in the long term. I am aware that through<br />
the CSR an announcement was made of an increased<br />
allocation to social care for people with HIV.<br />
I now want the Department of Health to inform local<br />
authorities of their likely budgets as soon as possible, so<br />
that councillors can start to plan a thorough care plan<br />
for people living with HIV. Only through that long-term<br />
planning for mental health cases, more social care and a<br />
greater push for early diagnosis can we really start to<br />
tackle the problem of HIV in this country, and ensure<br />
that nothing stops people with HIV living normal lives.<br />
3.23 pm<br />
Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con): I am delighted<br />
to be speaking under your chairmanship, Mr Leigh,<br />
and I congratulate the hon. Member for Inverclyde
313WH<br />
HIV<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
HIV<br />
314WH<br />
(David Cairns) on obtaining this timely debate on world<br />
AIDS day. What is good about the debate is the unanimity<br />
between the parties. We often have heated debates, but<br />
we all appreciate the importance of today’s debate for<br />
people suffering from HIV/AIDS.<br />
Now that the recent tough economic choices have<br />
been laid on the table, we are able to take an opportunity<br />
to review what is and is not working in the UK and try<br />
to make improvements. HIV/AIDS is a serious virus<br />
that poses a risk not only for those who are already<br />
suffering from it but also those around them. The ease<br />
of transmission of the disease means that, if we do not<br />
bring the number who have it back down from 83,000<br />
or so, we run the possibility of letting the virus dictate<br />
our actions, instead of taking pre-emptive measures.<br />
Unfortunately, as a member of the Select Committee on<br />
International Development, I have seen at first hand<br />
that once the virus gets into sections of society w<strong>here</strong> it<br />
becomes more prevalent, it can, left unchecked, destroy<br />
countless lives and families.<br />
Britain is a world-leader in international development,<br />
and central in the international community’s voice and<br />
actions against HIV/AIDS worldwide. However, to be a<br />
credible voice and to make an inroad into the virus<br />
worldwide we need a credible tactic of beating the virus<br />
at home. Funding has been flatlining in recent years and<br />
we risk, if we are not careful, losing more than two<br />
decades of progress that has been made in fighting the<br />
epidemic.<br />
The White Paper offers more flexibility to the health<br />
service, by offering GPs more control over the budgets<br />
that they inherit and how they spend the money allocated<br />
to them. Perhaps outlining the financial rewards of<br />
early screening will help to strengthen the argument.<br />
The Health Protection Agency recently estimated that<br />
the prevention of one new HIV infection saves the<br />
public purse between £280,000 and £360,000 in direct<br />
lifetime health care costs. That is a staggering amount<br />
per new diagnosed case. In 2008, had all of the UK’s<br />
3,550 acquired infections been prevented it would have<br />
saved approximately £1.1 billion in direct health care<br />
costs.<br />
Alternatively, we can look at the money that could be<br />
made, not saved, by early diagnosis. People living with<br />
HIV who have an early diagnosis can contribute wealth<br />
to the nation by staying in work for longer and t<strong>here</strong>fore<br />
paying more in taxes; they are able to manage their<br />
health better, which results in their taking fewer days off<br />
sick. They can plan for their financial future so as not to<br />
require incapacity benefit in such large numbers, and by<br />
having quick access to antiretroviral drugs they can<br />
ensure that they do not require full-time carers, who are<br />
often family members, for so long. That means that<br />
their family can go out and work and contribute to the<br />
national purse.<br />
Of course, financial reward is not the only benefit<br />
of diagnosing HIV early. The significant social benefits<br />
to early diagnosis are equally if not more important.<br />
For instance, a 35-year-old male diagnosed early with<br />
HIV, and with quick access to antiretroviral therapy,<br />
would now be expected to live to 72—only a few years<br />
less than someone who would be deemed a perfectly<br />
healthy man.<br />
Early diagnosis enables people who are HIV-positive<br />
to take positive steps in protecting others through safe<br />
sex. A recent study of newly diagnosed HIV-positive<br />
men who have sex with men reported that 76% had<br />
eliminated the risk of onward transmission three months<br />
after diagnosis. If the test comes back negative, of<br />
course, it allows the recipient a wake-up call and a<br />
chance to change their habits and think about the risks<br />
that they have been taking. In that way they are more<br />
than likely to help to prevent a future case of HIV in<br />
the UK.<br />
Early diagnosis also allows the correct antiretroviral<br />
drugs to be prescribed. That in turn reduces the viral<br />
load and subsequently reduces the chances of transmitting<br />
HIV. By giving people the opportunity to take quick<br />
and effective measures against the virus we are putting<br />
them back in charge of their lives; they are not having<br />
their lives dictated by HIV. I should like the Minister to<br />
take note that women, and indeed men, who have been<br />
raped should automatically be monitored to ensure that<br />
if they suffer from HIV/AIDS it will be diagnosed<br />
extremely early; that is not something that they have<br />
chosen.<br />
The truth of the matter is that the male gay community<br />
and the black African community are most susceptible<br />
to HIV infection owing to cultural sexual practice.<br />
T<strong>here</strong> is a role for civil society in bringing UK levels of<br />
HIV down by bringing early diagnosis to those groups<br />
and deconstructing the stigma attached to screening for<br />
the virus. Everyone gets scared, intimidated and<br />
embarrassed from time to time and those natural feelings<br />
might be a barrier, preventing people in those at-risk<br />
communities from seeking early diagnosis.<br />
Coming out of the financial turmoil of the past few<br />
years, it is important that we should take every opportunity<br />
that is given to us to make positive changes to the<br />
previous norm. We have the opportunity to put early<br />
screening at the heart of the public health White Paper<br />
and to create a social practice in which the stigma of<br />
screening is broken down through the participation of<br />
civil society. However, I believe that t<strong>here</strong> is only one<br />
mention of HIV/AIDS in the White Paper. I simply ask<br />
that we do not let the opportunity slip away. Positive<br />
changes to the current HIV strategy can and should be<br />
made: most importantly, they need to be made.<br />
3.29 pm<br />
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington)<br />
(Lab): I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in<br />
this important debate on world AIDS day, and I<br />
congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde<br />
(David Cairns) on securing the debate.<br />
Let us remember that some people who are suffering<br />
from HIV/AIDS, or suspect that they are, will have<br />
supportive partners, be in supportive communities and<br />
face the future with some positivity. Many, however,<br />
will be very frightened and very alone. It is a good thing<br />
that we in this Chamber can openly debate this issue<br />
and its ramifications, because it will reassure not just<br />
communities, activists and lobbyists but individuals who<br />
may read and see the debate this afternoon.<br />
We must remember that we have moved some way<br />
since the early frightening adverts in the 1980s. No one<br />
who saw those adverts, with the tombstones collapsing<br />
and the voice of doom, has ever forgotten them. We<br />
should congratulate Norman Fowler on taking up the<br />
cause and using the power of his Department to put it<br />
in front of the public.
315WH<br />
HIV<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
HIV<br />
316WH<br />
[Ms Diane Abbott]<br />
When we look at some of the indices around HIV/AIDS,<br />
we see that t<strong>here</strong> has been an increase in HIV testing<br />
among gay men. Testing rose from 58% in 1997 to 72%<br />
in 2008. We have seen a plateau in new diagnoses<br />
among gay men, and we now see a consistently high rate<br />
of condom use among them—at least nine out of 10<br />
now use condoms. The fact that we have seen such<br />
progress is partly a tribute to the people who took up<br />
the issue all those years ago. It is also a continuing<br />
tribute to the communities, activists and health providers<br />
who provide both care and commitment, and we need<br />
to acknowledge that today in this debate.<br />
However, t<strong>here</strong> is still some way to go. How we go<br />
forward on HIV/AIDS will be a test of the reorganisation<br />
of both the NHS and public health that has been<br />
announced in recent months. In principle, I do not<br />
think that anyone in this Chamber is opposed to the<br />
reorganisation, but it is just this sort of issue, which is<br />
not consistent across the country, that is not necessarily<br />
well represented in GPs’ lists and has different levels of<br />
information across the country; t<strong>here</strong> may not be as<br />
much information in rural areas as t<strong>here</strong> is in Brighton<br />
and London. That will be a test of the reorganisation’s<br />
effectiveness.<br />
We know that AIDS can affect anyone, and that<br />
apart from the gay community the largest community<br />
affected by HIV/AIDS is that made up of black African<br />
men and women; currently, 38% of new HIV diagnosis<br />
is among that group. The stigma attached to HIV in<br />
that community cannot be overstated, and it very much<br />
hampers efforts to reach out to people and achieve early<br />
diagnosis.<br />
The problem among black African men and women—<br />
and among other groups, as well—is that they present<br />
late and are t<strong>here</strong>fore diagnosed late. That not only<br />
gives them a poor prognosis; it means that the cost of<br />
treatment is much more expensive than it need be. That<br />
is true of any individual or any group that presents late.<br />
Another issue with black African men is that even<br />
though they may be having sex with men, they refuse to<br />
consider themselves as gay. They think that HIV is<br />
something for the gay community and not for them, so<br />
they end up presenting very late indeed. They are more<br />
likely to be undiagnosed and to live in areas in which a<br />
relatively high proportion of the population are not on<br />
their GP’s list, so they are not really interacting with the<br />
authorities.<br />
I should like to use this debate to stress the importance<br />
of educational and informative work generally and with<br />
the black and African community in particular. We<br />
must do more with the Churches, because that is probably<br />
the most effective way to reach those groups. Any<br />
Sunday morning, t<strong>here</strong> will more people in African-led<br />
churches in Hackney than at any political party meetings<br />
for 12 months of the year.<br />
We need to normalise testing and offer it in a much<br />
wider range of settings—not just for black and African<br />
men and women, but for the population as a whole. I<br />
was routinely tested when I had my son 19 years ago<br />
and thought nothing of it. We need to make testing<br />
more routine so that people do not think, “If I go for<br />
this test, it will badge me as someone at risk.” Universal<br />
testing may well be a step too far, but we need to make<br />
testing available in a wider range of contexts.<br />
My hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde said that<br />
he did not want to talk about international issues, but<br />
given that 38% of new HIV diagnosis is among black<br />
African men and women, I do not apologise for raising<br />
the issue of funds for the Global Fund to fight AIDS,<br />
Tuberculosis and Malaria. I know that that is not a<br />
matter for the Minister and I do not expect her to<br />
respond on the specific point. None the less, will she<br />
pass on to her colleagues the very concerning fact that<br />
the global fund is £13 billion short of what it needs? If<br />
the UK was to raise its pledged amount in line with<br />
France and other western European countries, the fund<br />
would be able to go to private sector donors such as the<br />
Gates Foundation and reach the amount of money it<br />
needs.<br />
In that context, I should like to mention—again, I do<br />
not expect the Minister to respond on this point—that<br />
in the next few weeks we will have EU trade talks with<br />
India in Brussels. T<strong>here</strong> is a great concern that as a<br />
consequence of the trade talks, India might not be able<br />
to produce the cheap generic drugs that have played<br />
such a huge role in the fight against AIDS in Africa.<br />
That would be a blow not so much for Indian industry,<br />
but for the millions of people in Africa who have<br />
benefited from access to cheap generic drugs.<br />
HIV/AIDS is no longer a death sentence, which is<br />
good news. Thanks to new drugs, research and greater<br />
understanding, people are now living with HIV. As one<br />
of my hon. Friends said earlier, we have 65,390 people<br />
in the community living with HIV. In fact, it is increasing<br />
faster among the over-50s than among any other group,<br />
which raises new issues that were not considered in the<br />
era of the adverts with the crashing tombstones and the<br />
voice from above.<br />
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall<br />
(Mr Sharma) mentioned the issue of depression and<br />
how that interconnects with sufferers of HIV/AIDS<br />
and the support that they need in relation to that. T<strong>here</strong><br />
are ongoing concerns about care and support that were<br />
not an issue 20 years ago. If we are to offer sufferers<br />
from HIV/AIDS equity of health care and, as far as<br />
possible, a good quality of life, we must consider care<br />
and support, within the new health service and local<br />
authority structures, as we have not in the past.<br />
As I said at the start of my remarks, the reorganisation<br />
of the commissioning of health care and of the public<br />
health service will be tested by this issue. Many ordinary<br />
people on the ground will judge the reorganisation by<br />
how issues such as this are dealt with. I stress, as my<br />
hon. Friends have stressed, the importance of a national<br />
strategy. We need to consider how it can go forward<br />
under the new arrangements. Will the Minister tell us<br />
who will be responsible for commissioning and funding<br />
the information work that is needed now more than<br />
ever—in particular, the specific education work that<br />
goes into the communities that I have mentioned? Who<br />
will be responsible for commissioning preventive work,<br />
care, treatment and support? I will listen with interest to<br />
the Minister’s responses to those questions.<br />
I welcome the new public health arrangements in<br />
principle. Public health has been a core activity of local<br />
government since the 19th century and so, as a former<br />
local councillor, I am glad that public health has “come<br />
home” to local authorities. However, because I know
317WH<br />
HIV<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
HIV<br />
318WH<br />
local authorities and how they work, I want to be<br />
convinced that it is possible effectively to ring-fence the<br />
public health funds that they will receive.<br />
I imagine that what some local authorities will do—or<br />
will be tempted to do, conceiving themselves to be<br />
under financial pressure—is to rebadge existing work in<br />
the areas of social care and environmental health as<br />
public health expenditure, and the new funds that all of<br />
us in Westminster Hall imagine are t<strong>here</strong> for public<br />
health will melt away in the current climate. So this will<br />
be a test, as much as anything else, of how far it is<br />
possible effectively to ring-fence public health funds<br />
once they fall to local authorities.<br />
Then t<strong>here</strong> is GP commissioning, and the issue of<br />
HIV/AIDS will be a test of that system. The important<br />
thing with GP commissioning is that GPs should<br />
commission for their community and not for their list.<br />
As an east end Member of <strong>Parliament</strong>, I know that<br />
t<strong>here</strong> are many public health issues that manifest themselves<br />
more extensively among people who are not actually on<br />
GPs’ lists, for a whole number of reasons. Tuberculosis<br />
is a case in point. A disproportionately high number of<br />
people who suffer from TB are not on a GP’s list, for a<br />
number of reasons. HIV will be a test of the extent to<br />
which GP commissioning consortia will commission for<br />
the community as a whole and not just for the people<br />
who are on GPs’ lists and present themselves for treatment.<br />
It will be important to know what will happen to<br />
some of the survey work that is carried out by organisations<br />
such as the London Health Observatory; I had a meeting<br />
with representatives of that organisation this morning.<br />
That survey work is the only way of seeing what the<br />
trends are in issues such as HIV. It is easy for us to say<br />
this afternoon that 43% of HIV/AIDS sufferers are in<br />
London, many more are in Brighton and so on. However,<br />
we live in a globalised environment and t<strong>here</strong> are trends<br />
and changes. Only survey work—not only national<br />
survey work, but sometimes precise survey work—can<br />
track what is really happening with HIV/AIDS.<br />
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP): I understand that<br />
some of the figures that have been released in the past<br />
year for those who have just been diagnosed with HIV<br />
show that it is not just a young person’s disease any<br />
more; it also affects those who are 50-plus or 55-plus. I<br />
wonder whether the hon. Lady is aware of that. If she<br />
is, what does she feel should be done to address that<br />
issue of those in an older age bracket who are now<br />
succumbing to the disease?<br />
Ms Abbott: That is an important point, and it is one<br />
that I touched on earlier. It shows that anyone can find<br />
themselves—<br />
3.42 pm<br />
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.<br />
3.51 pm<br />
On resuming—<br />
Ms Abbott: In conclusion, I congratulate all those<br />
who have campaigned, worked and raised consciousness<br />
on this issue over 20-odd years. Improvements have<br />
been made, partly through the efforts of communities<br />
and campaigners and partly through the commitment<br />
of people in the House, but we face new challenges due<br />
to the reorganisation of the NHS and the fact that a<br />
generation of people are now living with AIDS.<br />
I look to the Minister to answer some of the questions<br />
asked in this debate, particularly about how the<br />
reorganisation will affect the treatment of HIV/AIDS,<br />
and to reassure us that the information needed in a<br />
range of communities will be publicised. I will listen<br />
with interest to her response.<br />
3.52 pm<br />
The <strong>Parliament</strong>ary Under-Secretary of State for Health<br />
(Anne Milton): It is a pleasure to serve under your<br />
chairmanship, Mr Leigh; I do not believe that I have<br />
been in this position before. I am grateful to the hon.<br />
Member for Inverclyde (David Cairns) for securing this<br />
debate. I congratulate him on his chairmanship of the<br />
all-party parliamentary group on HIV and AIDS, and I<br />
congratulate the group itself on continuing to raise<br />
awareness in <strong>Parliament</strong>, in the UK and internationally.<br />
Today, as we all know, is world AIDS day, so this<br />
debate is timely; I believe that Mr Speaker has some<br />
influence over when debates occur. It is an opportunity<br />
to reflect on what we have achieved, w<strong>here</strong> we stand and<br />
the challenges ahead, many of which have been mentioned.<br />
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart<br />
Andrew) for his gracious comment that this is a chance<br />
for us to pay tribute to those whom we have lost along<br />
the way to the present improvements in life expectancy<br />
for those with HIV/AIDS. A dear friend, Eric, with<br />
whom I worked in the 1980s, died from AIDS; I am sure<br />
that many of us know people who lost their lives. It is so<br />
tragic when we consider the advances made.<br />
The hon. Member for Inverclyde focused on the<br />
situation in the UK. The hon. Member for Hackney<br />
North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) mentioned<br />
the global situation. It is important to note that the<br />
number of new infections decreased by 19% between<br />
2009 and 2001. Today, more than 5 million people have<br />
access to life-saving antiretrovirals. That is more than a<br />
thirteenfold increase in five years, but significant challenges<br />
remain. More than 33 million people are living with<br />
HIV, 2.1 million children are infected and the World<br />
Health Organisation estimates that at least 10 million<br />
people still need treatment. T<strong>here</strong> is a great deal more to<br />
be done, and no room for complacency.<br />
I would like to mention my noble Friend Lord Fowler,<br />
and welcome the announcement of next year’s inquiry<br />
into HIV and AIDS. Like the hon. Member for Inverclyde,<br />
I am old enough to remember when the disease came on<br />
the scene. A great friend of mine, a professor of virology<br />
who went over to the States, came back and said that it<br />
was extraordinary to see an acquired deficiency, as the<br />
disease’s name suggests. He talked about a curious<br />
illness that people were getting.<br />
At that time, a tremendous amount of work was<br />
being done by many people, not least my noble Friend,<br />
to fight HIV/AIDS. It is still a powerful model for<br />
public health campaigns; we cannot forget those<br />
tombstones. Such images enabled a lot of the preventive<br />
work from which we still benefit. I reassure the hon.<br />
Member for Inverclyde that mass communication had<br />
an effect. The rate of sexually transmitted diseases<br />
decreased across the board. However, he also mentioned<br />
targeted messages, which is w<strong>here</strong> we need to focus<br />
our efforts.
319WH<br />
HIV<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
HIV<br />
320WH<br />
[Anne Milton]<br />
Although prevalence is relatively low in the UK<br />
population as a whole, some groups are disproportionately<br />
affected, including men who have sex with men, and<br />
black African communities. In 2009, they accounted for<br />
42% and 36% respectively of the 65,000 individuals<br />
living with diagnosed HIV infection. However, as my<br />
hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mike Weatherley)<br />
rightly pointed out, stereotypes are dangerous, and the<br />
figures that I have quoted must be used with caution.<br />
3.56 pm<br />
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.<br />
4.4 pm<br />
On resuming—<br />
Anne Milton: My hon. Friend the Member for Hove<br />
also mentioned the specific problems with late diagnosis,<br />
which I shall return to. The outlook for most people<br />
with HIV in the UK is more positive than it used to be,<br />
and the vast majority can now plan for their future with<br />
a great deal more certainty, which is to be welcomed.<br />
We must not forget that we have the dedicated work of<br />
many scientists around the world to thank for that,<br />
along with action from Governments from both sides of<br />
the House.<br />
However, challenges remain. As Members have pointed<br />
out, despite our successes, a quarter of people with HIV<br />
do not know that they are infected and so are unable to<br />
benefit from the treatment available, and they can<br />
unwittingly infect others. Around half of the newly<br />
diagnosed infections are diagnosed late, after the point<br />
at which people should have started treatment. The<br />
hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) raised<br />
that as an ongoing and growing problem, along with the<br />
fact that many of the people affected have serious<br />
mental health problems. The mental health and well-being<br />
of people with HIV and AIDS is seldom mentioned,<br />
but it is extremely important to recognise.<br />
I share the concerns raised in the debate about the<br />
need to reduce the number of people with HIV who are<br />
undiagnosed or diagnosed late. We need to increase<br />
testing, especially in those areas that have a higher<br />
prevalence of HIV. We have seen a good uptake of HIV<br />
testing in sexual health clinics and antenatal settings,<br />
but all health care professionals need to be alert to the<br />
importance of offering appropriate HIV tests.<br />
Ms Abbott: Does the Minister have any practical<br />
proposals for increasing testing, such as different contexts<br />
in which it can occur?<br />
Anne Milton: I thank the hon. Lady for raising that<br />
point, which is important. I will return to it later in my<br />
remarks. The hon. Member for Cardiff Central (Jenny<br />
Willott) mentioned the automatic testing when she had<br />
her baby. The Department of Health has funded eight<br />
pilot projects, which have now been completed, that<br />
looked at the feasibility and, importantly, acceptability<br />
of providing an HIV test as part of routine services<br />
offered to newly registered adults. I am encouraged by<br />
the findings from those projects, which confirm that<br />
offering HIV tests in GP practices, hospitals and community<br />
settings is acceptable to patients.<br />
The pilots picked up a significant number of previously<br />
undiagnosed people in high prevalence areas. It is good<br />
news that people are happy to be tested, because it<br />
means that we can pick up cases of HIV that would<br />
otherwise be missed. We are working on the best approaches<br />
to expand HIV testing in a variety of settings and, as<br />
the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington<br />
said, that is really important. If a wide variety of<br />
settings was available, a GP practice is not necessarily<br />
w<strong>here</strong> people would go for a test—far from it, I would<br />
say.<br />
I am also pleased to note that, thanks to the leadership<br />
and drive of local HIV clinicians and others, findings<br />
from the pilots in Brighton, Lewisham and Leicester<br />
have now been embedded in local practice, which is to<br />
be congratulated. The Health Protection Agency will<br />
publish its final report on the pilots early next year,<br />
which many people will look forward to seeing. We<br />
need to see what we can do to put into practice what we<br />
have learnt. It is vital to increase testing for HIV, as it is<br />
for a number of sexually transmitted diseases, so we<br />
continue to fund targeted programmes for the groups<br />
most at risk from HIV in the UK. We have also funded<br />
the Medical Foundation for AIDS and Sexual Health<br />
to provide training resources for health care professionals<br />
in secondary care.<br />
I would like to thank the hon. Member for Dudley<br />
North (Ian Austin), who kindly sent me a note to<br />
explain that he has had to leave the debate, for raising<br />
the work of Summit House Support. We will be looking<br />
at the findings of the pilots I have mentioned, and I<br />
would certainly not like to miss an opportunity to go to<br />
Dudley, should the opportunity arise, to have a look at<br />
what Summit House Support is doing.<br />
For HIV, as for all STIs, prevention remains the most<br />
important response. In the UK, the majority of HIV<br />
infections are sexually transmitted, and the vast majority<br />
of those could have been prevented; that is a message<br />
that we really must hang on to.<br />
4.9 pm<br />
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.<br />
4.15 pm<br />
On resuming—<br />
Anne Milton: We need to ensure that safer sex messages<br />
are clearly communicated and understood by all.<br />
I think that we also have to clamp down a bit on<br />
irresponsible marketing. I have been approached by<br />
those who are unhappy about the promotion of DVDs<br />
and other material promoting “bareback” sex. We need<br />
to address such issues and I know that a lot of people<br />
and organisations, such as the Terrence Higgins Trust,<br />
are doing all they can to stop the promotion of such<br />
material. To those who are most at risk of HIV in the<br />
UK, I say that the Government work very closely in<br />
partnership with the Terrence Higgins Trust, the African<br />
Health Network and a huge number of other voluntary<br />
and community groups.<br />
Yesterday we published a White Paper on public<br />
health and later this month we will publish a number of<br />
supporting documents, including a public health outcomes<br />
framework. We will be thinking about what the best<br />
outcomes might be for HIV and they will be included in
321WH<br />
HIV<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
HIV<br />
322WH<br />
that document. I know that Members will look at that<br />
document with care and feed back to us their feelings<br />
on it. In the spring, we will publish a position paper on<br />
sexual health which will, of course, include HIV. That<br />
paper will take into account many of the issues that<br />
have emerged this afternoon.<br />
David Cairns: I will let the Minister catch her breath<br />
and I appreciate that we are really up against the clock.<br />
She says that t<strong>here</strong> will be a position paper in the spring.<br />
Does she envisage that that will lead to a full new HIV<br />
strategy, or will it just remain a position paper?<br />
Anne Milton: No, it will be a sexual health strategy.<br />
The Government and the NHS need to play their part,<br />
and we need to support individuals to make responsible<br />
lifestyle choices. We continue to provide the very best<br />
HIV treatment services, but others have a role to play<br />
and they are often better placed than the Government<br />
to make a difference. The hon. Member for Hackney<br />
North and Stoke Newington mentioned the role of<br />
churches in that regard and they can have a significant<br />
impact.<br />
Voluntary community groups, industry, responsible<br />
media, churches and faith groups all have a part to play.<br />
That collaboration is so important in tackling stigma<br />
and discrimination, which is still a very real issue for<br />
many people affected by HIV. That is particularly important<br />
within those communities who find sexual health issues<br />
more challenging than other communities.<br />
Stigma means that people refuse tests, do not take<br />
precautions and do not go for treatment. I was delighted<br />
to see that the Prime Minister highlighted the issue of<br />
stigma in his world AIDS day podcast. Tackling HIV is<br />
everyone’s business and we can all make a difference to<br />
reduce stigma, reduce new infections and enable people<br />
living with HIV to lead full and productive lives.<br />
The hon. Member for Inverclyde raised issues about<br />
global funds. I am sure that he will also raise those<br />
issues with my colleagues in the Department for<br />
International Development. However, as my ministerial<br />
brief also covers EU health, it may be of note for him to<br />
realise that such issues are recognised by many people<br />
within Europe and across the world, and we continue to<br />
work both nationally—within our own member states—and<br />
internationally, because collectively we can do a great<br />
deal to help each other.<br />
The hon. Gentleman also said that generally a onesize-fits-all<br />
approach does not work and, as my hon.<br />
Friend the Member for Hove said, anonymous testing<br />
and treatment is often crucial. We will announce our<br />
commissioning intentions soon. However, the hon.<br />
Gentleman’s point is well made.<br />
I think that it was the hon. Member for Dumfries and<br />
Galloway (Mr Brown) who mentioned the issue of<br />
commissioning services in rural areas, which poses particular<br />
challenges and very real problems. It is absolutely crucial<br />
that we get that commissioning right. We will announce<br />
our intentions soon and I hope that they will address<br />
some of the points that he raised.<br />
We need to talk about sex. We need to talk about<br />
people’s sexual health. We need to talk about people’s<br />
responsibilities in looking after their sexual health, and<br />
we all have something to offer and we all have something<br />
that we can do personally, particularly those of us<br />
who are Members of <strong>Parliament</strong>. As MPs, we have<br />
unprecedented access to media, particularly in our local<br />
areas. We need to do everything that we can to express<br />
the fact that this is everybody’s business and that people<br />
need to take responsibility for their sexual health. Their<br />
sexual health not only affects them; it affects the others<br />
around them and their families too. Only then will we<br />
be able to see a future for people living with HIV/AIDS<br />
that we all want to see.
323WH<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010 Metal Theft<br />
324WH<br />
Metal Theft<br />
4.20 pm<br />
Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab): It is a<br />
pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Leigh.<br />
You remain the fastest voter I have ever seen, so if t<strong>here</strong><br />
is another Division I will attempt to keep up with you.<br />
I am <strong>here</strong> to talk about<br />
“the second biggest threat to our infrastructure after terrorism”.<br />
Those are the words that Paul Crowther, of the British<br />
Transport Police, used to describe the growing problem<br />
of metal theft in the UK. It is my contention that, if<br />
al-Qaeda or militant student demonstrators perpetrated<br />
some of the attacks to critical UK infrastructure on the<br />
scale and frequency that we are currently seeing, the<br />
Home Office would be taking this matter far more<br />
seriously than it currently appears to be taking it.<br />
4.21 pm<br />
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.<br />
4.28 pm<br />
On resuming—<br />
Mr Watson: Whether it is copper from the side of a<br />
railway line, broadband cable, a drain gully or lead<br />
flashing from a school roof, not a day goes by when<br />
metal theft does not feature in the daily crime roster for<br />
police in the UK’s towns and cities. I seek to make the<br />
case to the Minister that metal theft is a national<br />
problem needing urgent attention. It is eroding our<br />
critical infrastructure and t<strong>here</strong>fore the economic capacity<br />
of the nation. After outlining the issues, I will make the<br />
case for the need to collect more accurate data on metal<br />
theft incidents, for amending the Scrap Metal Dealers<br />
Act 1964 and for protecting uniformed British Transport<br />
police. I will also make the case for new regulations to<br />
deal with the rise of unscrupulous dealers in precious<br />
metals.<br />
The Minister has gained a reputation for being hardworking<br />
and fair-minded. I hope to convince him to<br />
focus in the coming months on the increasing problem<br />
of metal theft. Many businesses and police officers to<br />
whom I have spoken are frustrated with the progress<br />
made in the past, including—dare I say—under my own<br />
Government. Six months into the coalition Government,<br />
I hope that he has found his feet and will be able to<br />
move up a gear in that policy area.<br />
The Home Office line appears to be that the police<br />
have the necessary tools and powers to tackle metal<br />
theft: I will make the case that they do not. The problem<br />
is great for two important reasons: soaring commodity<br />
prices and the ineffectiveness of the Scrap Metal Dealers<br />
Act 1964. In the past two years, for example, the price of<br />
refined copper has more than doubled on international<br />
markets. Part of the problem faced by the Minister is<br />
that his Department has found it difficult to understand<br />
the scale of the problem because it has not collected the<br />
appropriate data.<br />
Using the Freedom of Information Act, I have<br />
undertaken a comprehensive assessment into the effects<br />
of metal theft in local authorities up and down the<br />
country in 2007, 2008 and 2009. It is not an exact<br />
picture, but it provides a more comprehensive view of<br />
the scale of misery caused by metal theft throughout<br />
the country. The results are shocking, but since a number<br />
of authorities have not responded to my FOI request, I<br />
fear that my newly compiled figures are just the tip of<br />
the iceberg.<br />
We found 1,873 reported instances of schools being<br />
targeted by metal thieves, predominantly for the lead<br />
from their roofs. We know that 185 leisure centres and<br />
156 community centres have been targeted, as have—<br />
shockingly—71 cemeteries and crematoriums. Thirty-three<br />
local authorities told me that metal theft has cost them<br />
more than £100,000 in insurance claims and repair<br />
costs. My borough of Sandwell has suffered the highest<br />
losses of any authority—more than £720,000. It is<br />
closely followed by Leicester, which lost £530,000, and<br />
Greenwich, which lost more than £470,000.<br />
Last October alone, Sandwell council lost £20,000.<br />
Such thefts have cost Sandwell, and councils in Birmingham,<br />
Wolverhampton and Walsall, nearly £1.6 million over<br />
the past three years. The scale is huge and it is getting<br />
bigger. It is not taking place just in the country’s metalbashing<br />
heartlands: the London boroughs of Greenwich,<br />
Sutton, Bexley, Bromley, Barking, Dagenham, Enfield,<br />
Havering and Redbridge estimate that between them,<br />
they have lost £1.9 million as a result of metal theft.<br />
Anything can go. Three stainless steel slides were<br />
stolen from Birmingham, and the city also lost £30,000<br />
worth of goal posts. Durham council raised 97 repair<br />
orders for its schools, and admitted that that may not<br />
even begin to dig into the problem. Sheffield lost a<br />
swimming pool roof that cost £200,000, and Thurrock<br />
council lost the eternal flame from the East Tilbury war<br />
memorial. The cost of replacement was so great that a<br />
fibreglass replica had to be made.<br />
More worryingly, I have uncovered an increasing<br />
problem of thieves targeting our key infrastructure<br />
networks. The most recent police estimate of the cost of<br />
such thefts to communication, energy, transport and<br />
water industries is £770 million per annum. This year<br />
alone has seen more than 5,000 reported thefts from the<br />
railway, gas and electricity networks. Such thefts have<br />
resulted not only in the loss of services to vulnerable<br />
customers, but have included attacks on 999 services<br />
and communication services that are provided to the<br />
various police forces and military establishments.<br />
In the past six months, BT has seen more than 900<br />
attacks on its network, which has affected more than<br />
100,000 customers. It has lost more than £5 million in<br />
the past year, and on current trends, it looks as if it will<br />
lose £6 million in the current financial year. In one<br />
attack in Scotland last week, 32 tonnes of copper cable<br />
were stolen in a single night. Energy company E.ON<br />
faces similar problems. Last year, substation theft cost<br />
the company £1.3 million, and by the end of May it had<br />
already seen 175 reported incidents. The figures speak<br />
for themselves. It is not just the monetary cost that is<br />
worrying, but the danger in which the thieves are putting<br />
both themselves and the engineers who work for companies<br />
such as BT and E.ON, through their illegal activities.<br />
Today, Gwent police superintendent Harry Gamlin,<br />
head of the taskforce that deals with metal theft in<br />
Wales, said that the problem is now so bad that it<br />
threatens to “fracture social cohesion.” He added:<br />
“T<strong>here</strong> is a common perception of metal thieves being loveable<br />
rogues, old-man-Steptoe-type characters...People need to wake<br />
up to the fact that they are in fact highly organised and skilled<br />
gangs of criminals who more than likely have links to other forms<br />
of serious and organised crime.”
325WH<br />
Metal Theft<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
Metal Theft<br />
326WH<br />
The taskforce in Wales is a welcome step, but tougher<br />
laws are needed.<br />
It is not just the seasonal “wrong type of snow” and<br />
leaves on the track that are holding up our train network:<br />
commuters now have to contend with the regular misery<br />
of year-round signalling thefts. Network Rail tells me<br />
that commuters and operators have lost 19,417 hours in<br />
delays since 2006-07. Overall, it estimates that it has<br />
spent £35 million since then on metal theft-related<br />
crime. That includes £25 million of schedule 8 costs.<br />
That is £25 million that could have been spent on<br />
improving the railway network that has been diverted to<br />
essential maintenance because of metal theft alone.<br />
I travel to Westminster from Sandwell and Dudley<br />
station every week. Between September 2009 and this<br />
October t<strong>here</strong> have been five serious incidents of cable<br />
theft in the Tipton area alone and I have been late for<br />
meetings and nearly missed votes. These incidents in<br />
Tipton caused £485,000 worth of damage to the rail<br />
network causing hundreds of hours of delays for<br />
commuters. I find these figures staggering. Across the<br />
whole of the west midlands in the last 18 months t<strong>here</strong><br />
have been 52 cable thefts on the railway causing 1,500<br />
trains to be cancelled. I am told by Network Rail that<br />
the route between London and Scotland up the east<br />
coast is by the far the worst affected, especially in<br />
Yorkshire and the north-east. That route has recorded<br />
days on which up to 40 thefts have taken place. Commuters<br />
and British business are the people who are really losing<br />
out as metal theft soars.<br />
I have unearthed other examples that are shocking in<br />
their scale and audacity. T<strong>here</strong> are the thieves who cut a<br />
heavy copper cable used to link an MRI scanner to the<br />
main electricity supply in Northamptonshire. Thieves<br />
stole cable twice in a week meaning 70 patients had to<br />
have their diagnostic appointments rearranged. Lives<br />
could have been lost. I have been told of the sick thieves<br />
who stole two brass plaques listing the names of the<br />
Blackley men who fell during the first world war in<br />
Manchester. The community had to unite to make sure<br />
that the 215 war heroes could be honoured on<br />
Remembrance Sunday.<br />
Just as sickening was Linda Smith’s story. Linda<br />
contacted me to tell me about the theft of metal containers<br />
for holding flowers from graves from Abney park in<br />
Stoke Newington. The Minister may not be aware that<br />
the Ecclesiastical Insurance Group, the leading church<br />
insurers, report that they have received more than 7,000<br />
claims for metal theft since the start of 2007 at an<br />
estimated total cost of £23 million.<br />
Councillor David Sheard of Kirklees council has<br />
been in touch. He told me about the £18,000 worth of<br />
litter bins that the council had stolen in a single week.<br />
The case of Tom Berge who escaped a jail sentence for<br />
stealing lead worth £100,000 from some of the most<br />
historic properties in Sutton in Croydon has also been<br />
brought to my attention. He used Google Earth to<br />
identify listed buildings, churches and schools that he<br />
could target. In Sandwell, two people have already lost<br />
their lives trying to steal cabling from a disused factory<br />
after an explosion.<br />
Five-year-old Keanu Jones of Dudley road in Tipton<br />
could so nearly have been the third life lost last week.<br />
He fell down an exposed drain when out with his mum.<br />
The cover had been stolen. It left him shaken and<br />
covered in bruises. Keanu’s case is important. It highlights<br />
the fact that thieves do not just target high-value, precious<br />
and commodity metals. The resale value of what can be<br />
stolen can often be minimal. To quote Tony Glover,<br />
spokesman of the Energy Networks Association:<br />
“It is pathetic, quite frankly. As a crime it is sometimes as little<br />
as £5, £10 or £20… But its impact is enormous—it’s almost like<br />
an act of vandalism. Some of our equipment is oil-insulated and<br />
a £5 brass valve—that’s all they stole— resulted in 30,000 litres of<br />
oil coming out of some equipment.”<br />
Just to illustrate the point, this week I was visited by<br />
my constituent Ravi Kumar who told me that thieves<br />
had stolen his old, rusty metal table from his front<br />
garden. Ravi had put the table out for collection by<br />
Sandwell council. Thieves looking to make a quick cash<br />
return made off with the table before the council van<br />
arrived. T<strong>here</strong> is a black market price list for this<br />
stuff—£10 for Ravi’s table, £20 for a stolen manhole<br />
cover, £80 for a catalytic converter. These items are<br />
being stolen because they are easy prey to thieves to sell<br />
on to rogue scrap metal dealers.<br />
More worryingly, West Midlands police and the Black<br />
Country chamber of commerce continue to alert me to<br />
the rise in the number of burglary dwelling offences<br />
across the country in which the offenders are stealing<br />
the victim’s gold or silver jewellery. T<strong>here</strong> is currently no<br />
legislation covering the buying and selling of gold and<br />
silver by independent retailers, which are becoming<br />
increasingly common in most towns and cities. Despite<br />
some franchises still following good practice, in which<br />
no transaction can take place without a series of identity<br />
checks, some of the rogues are beginning to make an<br />
impact on communities.<br />
I would like to see two minor changes to the law to<br />
tackle the problems that I have outlined. One change<br />
would deal with commodity metals such as copper, lead<br />
and brass, and the second change would deal with<br />
precious metals such as gold and silver. The Scrap<br />
Metal Dealers Act 1964 needs to be made fit for the<br />
modern age. It is outdated, it is not well understood,<br />
and, in its current form, it simply fails in its purpose.<br />
Many hon. Members may not be aware of the legislation<br />
to which I refer. As it stands, the Act requires dealers to<br />
keep a simple book detailing all scrap metal received at<br />
the place of purchase. The book must also show that all<br />
scrap metal is either processed at or dispatched from<br />
that place. That is inadequate.<br />
In the Sandwell area, and across the country, I repeatedly<br />
hear stories of some unscrupulous scrap metal dealers<br />
opening as early as 5 am. Cash in hand is given to the<br />
seller, and it is not unusual for them to turn up with a<br />
wheelie bin full of manhole covers. The unscrupulous<br />
scrap metal dealer, who does not check too closely<br />
w<strong>here</strong> the metal has come from or who the seller is, then<br />
sells it on to legitimate dealers, who have no idea that<br />
they are buying stolen metal. In some cases, the metal is<br />
exported to the far east due to global demand. Some<br />
dealers will let sellers get away with giving their name as<br />
Joe Bloggs or Mr Smith. Scrap metal is big business,<br />
and the record keeping among rogue dealers can be very<br />
poor or even non-existent. One police force has told me<br />
that records kept by metal merchants do not always<br />
provide them with a good enough audit trail to track<br />
back such thieves, and I know police forces across the<br />
country feel the same.<br />
Although I appreciate that recent dialogue between<br />
the British Metals Recycling Association and ACPO<br />
has resulted in the development of a code of practice,
327WH<br />
Metal Theft<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
Metal Theft<br />
328WH<br />
[Mr Watson]<br />
which includes measures that go beyond those prescribed<br />
by the 1964 Act—including requesting proof of identity,<br />
limits on cash payments and guidance on best practice<br />
for deploying CCTV—I have real doubts that those go<br />
far enough. Unscrupulous metal dealers have already<br />
made it clear that they are unwilling to abide by good<br />
practice, and a voluntary code is extremely unlikely to<br />
change the mindsets of those people in the industry. My<br />
preferred option would be to make scrap metal dealers<br />
operate under a cashless system. If thieves cannot make<br />
a quick profit, the incentive to steal in the first place<br />
would be dramatically reduced. I draw the Minister’s<br />
attention to the state of Oregon, which did that in 2009.<br />
All the signs from Oregon suggest that the beefed-up<br />
regulations have caused a drop in the number of people<br />
looking to sell stolen materials. Many police forces are<br />
also seeking powers to close down suspected rogue<br />
dealers on the spot, and they want metal users to<br />
consider embossing their metal to make it less attractive<br />
to steal. I hope that the Minister will seek ways to make<br />
that happen.<br />
It strikes me that t<strong>here</strong> is a need for precious metals,<br />
such as gold and silver, to be brought within the scope<br />
of the 1964 Act. We cannot allow the situation to<br />
continue in which t<strong>here</strong> is no legislation covering the<br />
buying and selling of such metals. The Black Country<br />
chamber of commerce tells me that it would like precious<br />
metal dealers to register their business with the local<br />
authority every three years; it would like to see registered<br />
dealers required to keep a written record at each precious<br />
metal store of all items received, processed and dispatched<br />
from that store; and it would like deeper proof of<br />
identity from those who sell precious metals. I support<br />
the Black Country chamber of commerce in its call, and<br />
I hope that the Minister will take its suggestions seriously.<br />
Based on new figures that I have made public today, I<br />
believe that the Government should arrange for data on<br />
metal theft to be better collected and to be presented in<br />
a clearer format. The failures of local authorities and<br />
police forces to accurately chronicle every incident make<br />
contributions to public policy and finding solutions on<br />
this subject more difficult for Ministers and stakeholders.<br />
It is time for the courts to get tough. The Home Office<br />
should ask the Ministry of Justice to issue specific<br />
guidance on metal theft to magistrates, as the Ministry<br />
of Justice did with home repossessions.<br />
Analysts tell me that they expect a 62% rise in copper<br />
prices over the next few years. Coupled with the<br />
Government’s announced cuts to policing budgets and<br />
the fact that the future budget of the British Transport<br />
police is in doubt, that could see a further rise in metal<br />
thefts. If the UK adopted a cashless approach to scrap<br />
metal sales, I am certain that thieves would be deterred.<br />
T<strong>here</strong> would simply be no quick cash incentive for them<br />
to steal commodity metals and t<strong>here</strong> would be a proper<br />
audit trail. I hope that the Minister will look seriously<br />
at the proposals of the Black Country chamber of<br />
commerce on precious metals. Metal thieves erode UK<br />
resilience. They undermine communities and threaten<br />
businesses. They have to be stopped.<br />
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Tony Baldry)<br />
rose—<br />
Mr Edward Leigh (in the Chair): Order. This is a short<br />
Adjournment debate. Does the Second Church Estates<br />
Commissioner, the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony<br />
Baldry), have the permission of the Minister and the<br />
hon. Gentleman to speak?<br />
Mr Watson: Yes.<br />
4.45 pm<br />
Tony Baldry: I sought the permission of everyone,<br />
Mr Leigh, including Mr Speaker. The hon. Member for<br />
West Bromwich East (Mr Watson) has done the House<br />
an enormous service and what he has had to say is truly<br />
shocking. I am grateful to him and to the Minister for<br />
allowing me to intervene briefly in this debate. I do so in<br />
my capacity as the Second Church Estates Commissioner.<br />
Lead theft is one of the most serious threats at<br />
present to the Church of England’s 1,600 churches,<br />
many of them grade I listed buildings. Indeed, 45% of<br />
all grade I listed buildings are churches, and other faiths<br />
have similar concerns. Night after night, lead is being<br />
stolen from church roofs, and thieves now use Google<br />
Earth to identify targets, including church roofs.<br />
Since 2007, the main insurer of ecclesiastical churches<br />
has received 8,000 claims for lead theft, at a cost of<br />
about £23 million. That represents only the insurance<br />
claims; the total cost, including damage to churches, is<br />
much greater. In many instances, churches that have<br />
replaced their roofs at considerable expense have been<br />
repeatedly targeted—14 times, in the case of one church.<br />
Of course, if they have had the lead stripped from their<br />
roofs, it is often difficult, if not impossible, to get<br />
re-insured. As the House can imagine, the effect on the<br />
morale of parishioners and communities is devastating.<br />
In spite of that, t<strong>here</strong> have been very few prosecutions.<br />
Congregations feel that the police regard metal theft as<br />
a victimless crime and that they are reluctant to investigate<br />
or take action, even when t<strong>here</strong> is an established pattern<br />
of theft taking place on consecutive nights. I understand<br />
that the Home Office does not even record the theft of<br />
lead as a separate offence. Although some of the thefts<br />
may be opportunistic, t<strong>here</strong> is growing evidence that<br />
organised gangs are involved, and the graph of the<br />
incidence of theft mirrors, with remarkable consistency,<br />
the price of lead on the world metal markets. The<br />
higher the price of lead, the more churches are stripped<br />
of it.<br />
A number of things need to be done. Scrap metal<br />
yards need to be more regularly spot-checked by local<br />
authorities and the police. Local authorities have a<br />
responsibility to inspect the registers of scrap metal<br />
yards. The hon. Gentleman’s suggestion of a cashless<br />
transaction is interesting, and I hope that the Minister<br />
will take it seriously. This is a crime that has to be taken<br />
seriously. I am sure that Home Office Ministers take it<br />
seriously and that they will ensure that it is consistently<br />
taken seriously by police forces and local authorities<br />
throughout the country.<br />
The Church of England’s Church Buildings Council,<br />
chaired by Anne Sloman, has set up a working group to<br />
address the problem urgently. It is taking evidence from<br />
police, scrap metal merchants, the legal profession and<br />
other interested parties. When it reports early next year,
329WH<br />
Metal Theft<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
Metal Theft<br />
330WH<br />
I hope that the Government will consider its conclusions<br />
carefully and endorse what it has to say as a way<br />
forward.<br />
4.48 pm<br />
The <strong>Parliament</strong>ary Under-Secretary of State for the<br />
Home Department (James Brokenshire): May I thank<br />
you, Mr Leigh, for ensuring that this debate started<br />
promptly despite all of this afternoon’s Divisions? May<br />
I also congratulate the hon. Member for West Bromwich<br />
East (Mr Watson) on securing this Adjournment debate<br />
about the important subject of preventing and tackling<br />
metal theft, and on the measured and detailed way in<br />
which he has rightly highlighted the issues? I am sure<br />
that the House will appreciate the information that the<br />
hon. Gentleman has advanced. I assure him that I<br />
regard the issue as serious. I take a personal interest in it<br />
because of my own experiences as a constituency MP. I<br />
know the impact that metal thefts can have.<br />
May I also thank the Second Church Estates<br />
Commissioner, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury<br />
(Tony Baldry), for his speech on churches and the<br />
challenges facing the Church community? I hope that I<br />
will be able to comment on that in the time remaining.<br />
Metal theft is an issue about which I am concerned,<br />
and I give the assurance that the Government take it<br />
seriously. The need to reduce this crime is important,<br />
and I thank hon. Members for raising the issue. Let me<br />
be clear: we recognise the serious consequences of metal<br />
theft. It is not a victimless crime. We have seen the<br />
significant disruption that metal theft causes to critical<br />
national infrastructure throughout the <strong>United</strong> <strong>Kingdom</strong>.<br />
That includes power and transport networks, with<br />
the stealing of live copper cable, which has resulted in<br />
death and serious injury for people involved. In addition,<br />
as hon. Members highlighted, a number of historic<br />
buildings, including churches, are being targeted for<br />
their lead roofs and damaged. Many other examples<br />
were given, but the time available means that I must try<br />
to deal with the relevant points that have been highlighted<br />
this afternoon.<br />
I recognise that the constituency of the hon. Member<br />
for West Bromwich East has a specific issue. I was<br />
recently in Sandwell, talking to the community safety<br />
partnership and the police. They underlined to me the<br />
importance that they place on dealing with and responding<br />
to metal theft. I congratulate them on the work that<br />
they are doing in dealing with the problem.<br />
The police, other law enforcement agencies and industry<br />
are making efforts to tackle metal theft, providing a<br />
strong foundation on which to build a future partnership<br />
approach. T<strong>here</strong> are excellent examples of effective<br />
multi-agency partnerships that have come together in<br />
affected areas to tackle their local metal theft problem. I<br />
am keen to ensure that the practical impact of that<br />
work, which shows how much difference can be made<br />
by motivated and committed partnerships that take the<br />
problem seriously, is shared more widely. We need to<br />
build on it. Many scrap metal dealers are doing excellent<br />
work in supporting law enforcement activity and reporting<br />
suspicious behaviour. We need to support their efforts,<br />
while bearing down on those who operate outside the<br />
law.<br />
At national level, the Association of Chief Police<br />
Officers metal theft working group, chaired by Deputy<br />
Chief Constable Paul Crowther, provides leadership to<br />
police forces and a forum in which industry and the<br />
police can share information and good practice, which<br />
is extremely valuable work. I welcome the recent distribution<br />
of the ACPO tactical guidance to police forces. That<br />
provides, in clear detail, examples of effective practice<br />
in tackling metal theft.<br />
The nature of metal theft means that joint working is<br />
just as important at national level as at local level. That<br />
is why the recent work by the telecommunications and<br />
utilities industries, in working on joint enforcement<br />
operations with local police forces, is so important.<br />
I particularly welcome the efforts of industry in designing<br />
out this crime. For example, BT has been working to<br />
improve the protection of metal assets through improved<br />
security at storage sites. T<strong>here</strong> are other examples of<br />
industry partners reviewing and tightening up their<br />
planned disposal of waste metal through the use of<br />
approved contractors and scrap metal dealers.<br />
On the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964, I am grateful<br />
to the hon. Gentleman for bringing to the House’s<br />
attention the issue regarding the effectiveness of the<br />
existing legislation. The Act contains a number of<br />
requirements relating to the regulation of the scrap<br />
metal dealer industry—namely, the requirement for each<br />
dealer to register with their local authority; the fact that<br />
all seller details are to be recorded; and the fact that<br />
metal cannot be accepted for sale from the under-16s.<br />
We have seen excellent examples in Avon and Somerset<br />
and elsew<strong>here</strong> of how the existing legislation can be<br />
used.<br />
I note and welcome the British Metals Recycling<br />
Association code of practice, which it has recently<br />
issued to its members and to which the hon. Gentleman<br />
referred. However, although we welcome such attempts<br />
at self-regulation, we are also seeking to join up the<br />
existing regulatory framework better by contributing to<br />
the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs<br />
review of waste policies—due to report in the summer<br />
of next year—to see what changes, if any, need to be<br />
made to legislation in this area.<br />
Environmental and waste regulations cover the operation<br />
of the scrap metal dealer industry, as well as the<br />
transportation and storage of waste materials. Those<br />
regulations are mostly enforced by the Environment<br />
Agency. T<strong>here</strong>fore it is vital that the police and the<br />
Environment Agency continue to work together to ensure<br />
that all the existing legislation is used effectively.<br />
The hon. Gentleman will no doubt appreciate that<br />
the lead on funding for the British Transport police is<br />
the Department for Transport, rather than the Home<br />
Office. I know that Westminster Hall debates are not<br />
the arena in which to make party political points about<br />
the economic situation, but I note what the hon. Gentleman<br />
said and I am sure that colleagues at the Department<br />
for Transport will note it when they refer to the report<br />
of the debate.<br />
As the Minister responsible for crime prevention, I<br />
am determined to develop a joint plan of working with<br />
law enforcement agencies, Departments and industry to<br />
tackle metal theft at every stage, from theft to disposal.<br />
Because joint working is so important, I want the plan<br />
to be jointly owned by the Home Office and the Association<br />
of Chief Police Officers multi-agency metal theft working<br />
group. We also need to consider the intelligence arena.<br />
We are looking at how regional intelligence units can
331WH<br />
Metal Theft<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
332WH<br />
[James Brokenshire]<br />
share intelligence effectively on the more serious organised<br />
thefts of metal. That is an important subject that needs<br />
further examination.<br />
On the cashless model, I share the concern that<br />
criminals are able to turn up at scrap-metal yards and<br />
walk away with unlimited sums of cash in exchange for<br />
metal. We will examine that in developing our work<br />
plan in this arena, including establishing a cashless<br />
model. As part of a review of the industry standards, it<br />
requires further examination.<br />
I believe that the Church Buildings Council is producing<br />
a report on metal theft, and I would welcome sight of<br />
the report once it is complete. I hope that we will be able<br />
to incorporate its recommendations, when appropriate,<br />
in our forthcoming work plan.<br />
I apologise that my comments have been so brief, but<br />
I reiterate the importance that I place on this matter. We<br />
are committed to preventing and tackling metal theft. I<br />
am certain that we have a real opportunity to tackle this<br />
crime by working together in partnership with law<br />
enforcement agencies and the industry. By working<br />
together and having a joint working plan, I am sure that<br />
we will be able to tackle all aspects of metal theft and<br />
provide the catalyst for a concerted effect by all agencies<br />
to reduce this crime.<br />
Health Care (North Yorkshire and York)<br />
4.56 pm<br />
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con): It is a pleasure,<br />
Mr Leigh, to serve under your chairmanship. Naturally,<br />
I am grateful to those hon. Members attending this<br />
debate and to the Minister.<br />
More than 800,000 people are fortunate enough to<br />
live in our beautiful part of the country, the North<br />
Yorkshire and York region. It is part of God’s own<br />
county, as some would say. Quality of local health care<br />
is of the utmost importance to many, if not all. Local<br />
health care provision is often viewed alongside other<br />
criteria such as employment and crime. It is a measure<br />
of the local community’s economic well-being and<br />
happiness—a word that seems to be floating around in<br />
many debates at the moment.<br />
It is in our moral and economic interests to ensure<br />
the widest availability of health services, the shortest<br />
waiting lists and the most impressive health outcomes,<br />
and they should be implemented in each and every<br />
region. Ensuring such health care standards for all is<br />
truly one of the most essential roles of Government.<br />
Indeed, I am sure that all those Members <strong>here</strong> today<br />
will agree that health-related concerns crop up frequently<br />
in our constituency mail. That is certainly so in my<br />
constituency of York Outer.<br />
When it comes to health, I often have nothing but<br />
sympathy with the majority of my constituents who are<br />
affected. Many of them feel betrayed by the system,<br />
weighed down by the bureaucracy, frustrated by the<br />
delays and ultimately let down by those supposedly in<br />
charge. In my experience, it is easy to comprehend such<br />
frustration. After all, our national health service is a<br />
national treasure. We champion it, and rightly so. However,<br />
when patients report negative experiences and local<br />
health funding concerns, our national treasure is in<br />
danger of being tarnished, to the detriment of health<br />
care users and service deliverers. That, in my view,<br />
should not be allowed to happen.<br />
The health service has some of the most caring,<br />
compassionate and hard-working nurses and doctors in<br />
the world. That is certainly true in North Yorkshire and<br />
York. Our health care personnel carry out tremendous<br />
work, often in tough circumstances, and they do so out<br />
of a sense of public duty, kindness and compassion. I<br />
cannot commend these individuals highly enough. However,<br />
I am concerned about health care provision in North<br />
Yorkshire and York because of the representations that<br />
I have received from NHS employees and local patients.<br />
The region faces some real health care difficulties. In<br />
truth, extremely serious concerns are growing about the<br />
capability and performance of the region’s primary care<br />
trust and related bodies. Local residents have good<br />
reason to believe that a huge range of treatments will be<br />
withdrawn, if they have not been withdrawn already.<br />
For example, I have received letters regarding the future<br />
of IVF treatments, counselling services, broken voluntary<br />
sector contracts and the withdrawal of pain relief injections.<br />
It also appears that about £2 million will be cut from<br />
GPs’ budgets for prescribing medications, and that some<br />
physio services are at risk.<br />
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con): I congratulate<br />
my hon. Friend on securing this debate. He might be<br />
about to discuss this, but my experience from my
333WH<br />
Health Care (North Yorkshire and<br />
York)<br />
constituency is that North Yorkshire and York PCT’s<br />
way of dealing with voluntary organisations in the past<br />
few months has been a disgrace, breaching the voluntary<br />
compact between those organisations and the PCT. It<br />
has caused problems for those important parts of the<br />
big society that have been operating in North Yorkshire<br />
for so long.<br />
Julian Sturdy: Absolutely. I agree entirely with my<br />
hon. Friend. The time limit given by the PCT to those<br />
voluntary organisations is despicable, and it has caused<br />
fear and concern in the sector. Not only that, if the<br />
organisations lose funding for six months, which might<br />
be seen as only a short period, the problem is that they<br />
might not start up again. That is my concern, and I will<br />
go on to discuss it in more detail.<br />
Local residents have good reasons to believe that a<br />
huge range of treatments will be withdrawn, as I said. If<br />
the truth be told, the status quo is not only unacceptable<br />
but frightening, particularly for the most vulnerable<br />
members of our communities. Even describing the current<br />
situation as a postcode lottery is too generous. I fear<br />
that our patch is in danger of becoming an area of<br />
health deprivation.<br />
Several different factors require deep consideration<br />
as we piece together this somewhat depressing picture.<br />
First, we must accept that the region has to some extent<br />
been underfunded in the past. Before 2008, the North<br />
Yorkshire and York PCT did not exist. Instead, four<br />
separate PCTs covered the area. Nevertheless, for the<br />
purposes of this debate, I have amalgamated funding<br />
data to show the PCT’s current funding allocation and<br />
the annual figures stretching back to 2003-04. For 2010-11,<br />
our region’s PCT received just over £1.1 billion, an<br />
allocation that places it in the lowly position of 140th<br />
out of 152 PCTs. From a starting point of 127th in<br />
2003-04, it has dropped down the funding table each<br />
year. The current funding level is the lowest allocation<br />
per head of all Yorkshire and Humber PCTs.<br />
PCT funding is currently allocated according to a<br />
complex funding formula, often referred to as the weighted<br />
capitation formula. In essence, the formula determines<br />
the target share of resources to which PCTs should<br />
theoretically be entitled, based on a broad range of<br />
criteria including population, the local cost of health<br />
care provision and the level of need and health inequality<br />
in the area. Unfortunately, most PCTs never receive an<br />
allocation equal to their deemed target share according<br />
to the formula. Rather, they move towards it over time,<br />
some faster than others.<br />
Personally, I am slightly critical of the current formula.<br />
It often results in greater funding disparities between<br />
different regions, which provoke a profound sense of<br />
unfairness. Less deprived areas often seem to get a<br />
certain tag as well. For example, according to the formula,<br />
North Yorkshire and York does not have adequate need<br />
for additional resources, particularly compared to the<br />
needs of more urban areas such as Hull. I am not<br />
convinced that approaching regional health funding<br />
consideration with that mentality—judging whether areas<br />
are deprived enough—is a sufficiently robust methodology<br />
in current circumstances. We must look more deeply at<br />
the funding stream.<br />
I agree that the funding shortfall has increased the<br />
strain on our local PCT and its ability to deliver the best<br />
possible health outcomes and equity access for local<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
Health Care (North Yorkshire and<br />
York)<br />
334WH<br />
residents. I would appreciate the Minister’s comments<br />
on whether the coalition Government will review the<br />
funding formula at some future date. However, I also<br />
suggest that excusing our health care failings in our<br />
region on past funding alone would be somewhat naïve.<br />
Over the past few years, North Yorkshire and York PCT<br />
has accumulated an overspend of some £17.9 million.<br />
Thus, despite the coalition’s welcome commitment to<br />
protect the wider health budget, services are being cut<br />
in our region to pay for the fiscal irresponsibility of the<br />
PCT. Moreover, the PCT seems to be intent on resolving<br />
this deficit immediately because the previous Government<br />
imposed a statutory obligation on all primary care<br />
trusts to break even by the beginning of 2011. Such a<br />
target-focused piece of bureaucracy has now resulted in<br />
the PCT cutting too many services too quickly, possibly<br />
leading to a diminished health care package for our<br />
local residents.<br />
I have already listed some of the services that are<br />
under threat of withdrawal. My hon. Friend the Member<br />
for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) has named the<br />
services in the voluntary sector as well. I shall expand<br />
on a few examples. First, t<strong>here</strong> is the withdrawal of the<br />
pain relief injections. As Members from neighbouring<br />
constituencies know—my hon. Friend the Member for<br />
Selby and Ainsty (Nigel Adams) has campaigned with<br />
me on this—the PCT’s decision to restrict the provision<br />
of back pain relief injections has provoked a huge<br />
reaction from both patients and health care professionals<br />
alike.<br />
Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con): I, too,<br />
congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. I<br />
am not sure whether I should declare an interest, having<br />
received several back pain relief injections in the past.<br />
The injections are a big issue in the north Yorkshire<br />
area, as evidenced by the huge postbags that my hon.<br />
Friend and I receive, and we have spoken to the Secretary<br />
of State on the matter. Can my hon. Friend recall a<br />
discussion with the Secretary of State in which he said<br />
that one of his officials would look into the York PCT’s<br />
interpretation of the NICE guidelines on back pain<br />
relief injections? Has he received any notification<br />
of those discussions or heard from the Secretary of<br />
State’s office?<br />
Julian Sturdy: My hon. Friend makes a valid point.<br />
We did indeed meet, and I have not yet received a<br />
response from the Secretary of State. I hope that the<br />
Minister will hear our message <strong>here</strong> and chase up that<br />
response, because it is important that we get an answer<br />
to our question.<br />
My hon. Friend mentioned the back pain relief<br />
injections, and the issue is causing real concern among<br />
our constituents. Members of the public came to my<br />
last surgery to discuss the matter. The PCT, as my<br />
hon. Friend said, based its decision to cut back pain<br />
injections on its interpretation of the NICE guidelines.<br />
Unfortunately, almost every other PCT interprets the<br />
same guidelines in a different way. As such, countless<br />
local people are being forced to suffer enormous and<br />
unnecessary levels of pain.<br />
Alongside other hon. Members from the region, I<br />
have lobbied the Secretary of State. Campaign groups<br />
such as York and District Pain Management Support<br />
Group have been leading the way on this as well. I have
335WH<br />
[Julian Sturdy]<br />
Health Care (North Yorkshire and<br />
York)<br />
also received representations from concerned health<br />
professionals. Only last week, Dr Peter Toomey, a consultant<br />
anaesthetist at York hospital wrote to me, stating:<br />
“I consider that the PCT have made serious errors of judgement<br />
in coming to their decision to restrict access to spinal injections<br />
for the relief of pain. The PCT will not reimburse York Hospital<br />
for any injection into any part of the spine for any diagnosis<br />
unless it has been approved by the PCT’s Funding Request<br />
Panel.”<br />
We know—my hon. Friend the Member for Selby and<br />
Ainsty will back me up on this—that many people are<br />
being refused by that request panel. Dr Toomey and a<br />
number of his colleagues have fought hard to challenge<br />
the PCT’s policy, but—alas—their medical expertise<br />
seems to have fallen upon deaf ears.<br />
Patients and medical professionals are united in the<br />
view that this pain relief service should not have been<br />
withdrawn. It has been taken away for the wrong reasons<br />
and should be reinstated without delay. The withdrawal<br />
of such vital services is causing me great concern, as is<br />
the withdrawal of funding for numerous voluntary services.<br />
My hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon<br />
touched on that matter earlier. The York Council for<br />
Voluntary Service has been informed of a 37% in-year<br />
cut, which has been issued by the PCT with just one<br />
month’s notice. Angela Harrison, the chief executive of<br />
the YCVS, summed up the whole situation quite aptly<br />
when she said:<br />
“These cuts have already had a disastrous effect on front-line<br />
voluntary groups who serve some of the most vulnerable members<br />
of society. At the same time, the infrastructure groups who<br />
support them have had their funds withdrawn at very short<br />
notice, reducing their capacity at a time when it is most needed.”<br />
One specific voluntary case vividly highlights the<br />
poor management of the way the PCT has handled this<br />
situation. On 19 October, Yorkshire MESMAC received<br />
a letter from the PCT, informing the organisation that<br />
its contracted health care funding was to be withdrawn<br />
within one month. Such blunt and definitive notice is<br />
absolutely outrageous. Not only has an agreement been<br />
broken, but no consultation took place with the<br />
organisation, which—knowing the PCT’s overspend—<br />
would have been happy to sit down and reach a more<br />
amicable agreement. As Tom Doyle, the director of<br />
Yorkshire MESMAC, said:<br />
“I want to express my deep frustration at how the process has<br />
been handled, which was, in my opinion, unlawful, disrespectful<br />
and showing an arrogant disregard for the PCT’s own agreements<br />
and processes.”<br />
It is now feared that Yorkshire MESMAC will be forced<br />
to close.<br />
On a wider note, the voluntary services budgets are<br />
expected to lead to a saving of some £150,000 for the<br />
PCT this year. Given that that is a small drop in the<br />
£17 million overspend, I would urge the PCT to look<br />
internally for structural and efficiency savings, rather<br />
than merely reducing the funding of voluntary groups,<br />
whose work often plays such as vital role in our health<br />
service. If our voluntary health services are forced to<br />
close, I predict that far greater numbers of patients will<br />
actually require more hospitalised, long-term and expensive<br />
treatments through the NHS, thus undermining the<br />
PCT’s initial savings.<br />
Due to the overspend and service reductions, t<strong>here</strong><br />
now exists a lack of trust in the PCT and a complete<br />
absence of confidence over its future intentions, and I<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
Health Care (North Yorkshire and<br />
York)<br />
336WH<br />
fear that local people are simply paying too high a price<br />
for that. In the long term, I am more optimistic about<br />
health care provision in north Yorkshire and York,<br />
largely due to the contents of the health White Paper.<br />
The localised drive to ensure that PCTs are, at some<br />
point, abolished altogether and replaced by GP-led<br />
commissioning bodies, which are influenced by local<br />
patients, is a measure that I wholeheartedly welcome.<br />
At long last, local patients will have a say in their<br />
local services, holding the decision makers to account<br />
and freeing up our nurses, doctors and health providers<br />
from the red-tape that so often binds them and takes<br />
them away from the front line. I hope that the Minister<br />
can reassure me that the transition from PCTs to GP-led<br />
commissioning will be carried out swiftly to ensure that<br />
the interim transitional period will not see a lack of<br />
leadership or direction for local health care services—<br />
especially in our area.<br />
I believe that the PCT will continue to operate until<br />
2013, and I plead with the Minister to review to the<br />
situation in north Yorkshire and York in the mean time.<br />
Our constituents simply cannot afford to wait three<br />
years for the situation to be remedied. Most specifically,<br />
I would welcome any comments from the Minister on<br />
the previous Government’s imposition of a statutory<br />
obligation on PCTs to break even by the end of this<br />
year. Could that deadline be extended to soften the<br />
blow of the cuts over a greater time period?<br />
The people of north Yorkshire and York depend<br />
upon their health care services, and many are extremely<br />
worried at present. I hope that hon. Members from the<br />
region—I was going to say “regardless of political<br />
allegiances”, but as we only have coalition Members<br />
<strong>here</strong> I will not say that. To give the hon. Member for<br />
York Central (Hugh Bayley) credit, he did say that he<br />
would try and be at the debate today.<br />
We must protect the essential health care services and<br />
funding that our region deserves. I ask and urge hon.<br />
Members to fight and to campaign for that. We must<br />
ensure that, before GP-led commissioning starts, the<br />
PCT delivers the best service that it can within its<br />
budget. It must focus on service delivery and the outlying<br />
services to our communities, rather than cutting.<br />
I hope that the Minister will give serious consideration<br />
to the issues that I have raised. I am grateful for his time.<br />
I know that it has been a hectic day thanks to the<br />
Divisions, but I am grateful to him for giving us the<br />
time, and I hope that he will give the matter serious<br />
consideration.<br />
5.15 pm<br />
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con):<br />
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for York<br />
Outer (Julian Sturdy) on securing this important debate,<br />
and I add my support to his recognition of the excellent<br />
work that the health care professionals do in our area.<br />
He has highlighted that our health grant in North<br />
Yorkshire is low, which impacts on the services that we<br />
receive.<br />
When facing the challenge of low funding, the PCT<br />
has to look hard at its priorities, particularly with<br />
regard to mental health services. I am always concerned<br />
about mental health provision, because I think that<br />
for far too long in our country it has been a bit of a<br />
Cinderella service. In my constituency, the community
337WH<br />
Health Care (North Yorkshire and<br />
York)<br />
mental service has closed the Hawthorn day unit, which<br />
was extremely popular with its service users and well<br />
respected across the community. It is claimed that the<br />
closure is temporary, but the reasons for its closure run<br />
on and on, and it seems endless.<br />
While the excuses mount up, some of the most vulnerable<br />
people in my constituency—many of whom I have<br />
met—have seen their contact time with counsellors, or<br />
their time in respite care, decrease from three or four<br />
days a week to half an hour a fortnight. I am worried<br />
about the impact of the change on some of the most<br />
vulnerable members of the community. In some cases,<br />
those constituents have severe mental health problems<br />
and can periodically be a danger to themselves. I hope<br />
that our PCT will consider that and, even at this late<br />
stage, find a way to reopen the Hawthorn day unit at the<br />
earliest opportunity.<br />
5.16 pm<br />
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Paul<br />
Burstow): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member<br />
for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) on securing this debate,<br />
and I note the cross-party support that he has gained,<br />
with the arrival of the hon. Member for York Central<br />
(Hugh Bayley). I note the presence of my hon. Friends<br />
the Members for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith), for<br />
Selby and Ainsty (Nigel Adams) and for Scarborough<br />
and Whitby (Robert Goodwill), and I know that they<br />
are all interested in and concerned about the issues that<br />
my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer has raised.<br />
He has made a powerful case for why we need the<br />
radical reforms across the NHS to which the Government<br />
are committed.<br />
Before I turn to the points that my hon. Friend has<br />
raised, I join him in praising the work of NHS staff<br />
across Yorkshire. They do an excellent job, often in the<br />
most trying circumstances, and he is right that the NHS<br />
is a national treasure. Our White Paper reforms are, first<br />
and foremost, about freeing those hard-working<br />
professionals from the bureaucracy that stands in the<br />
way of good patient care.<br />
We will be cutting management costs by a third,<br />
moving decisions closer to patients through new GP<br />
consortia and giving local councils more responsibility<br />
for the health of their communities. All those will help<br />
to create a more flexible, efficient, interconnected and<br />
accountable health service.<br />
We are now entering a transition to the new system,<br />
which brings its own challenges for all parts of the<br />
NHS. The descriptions that my hon. Friend has given of<br />
circumstances in his constituency demonstrate the challenge<br />
that is exacerbated by the fragile state of the local NHS<br />
finances. The Government have inherited that fragility<br />
and they will have to address it.<br />
I understand from the strategic health authority that<br />
the North Yorkshire and York PCT is likely to end the<br />
year with a significant deficit unless it takes drastic<br />
action of the sort that my hon. Friend has described,<br />
and to which others have referred in this debate. That<br />
process clearly involves some tough decisions, which<br />
will have a distressing impact on his constituents, and I<br />
will return to those in a moment. I want to answer his<br />
concerns about funding allocations for the NHS in this<br />
part of the country.<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
Health Care (North Yorkshire and<br />
York)<br />
338WH<br />
At present, as my hon. Friend has described, the<br />
NHS uses a funding formula based on objectives set by<br />
the previous Government and developed by the independent<br />
Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation. I know<br />
that one of the big frustrations for North Yorkshire is<br />
whether its rural nature is taken fully into account in<br />
the funding formula, and my hon. Friend has alluded to<br />
that. As a Government, we have asked for that formula<br />
to be examined. The Secretary of State has asked ACRA<br />
to review how NHS resources are distributed, and has<br />
explicitly requested that consideration be given to the<br />
issues that face rural communities.<br />
Looking ahead, from 2013-14 we will have moved to<br />
the new system of the independent NHS commissioning<br />
board allocating resources to general practice consortiums.<br />
How it does that will be up to the commissioning board<br />
itself, but we are clear that it must do it fairly and<br />
consistently across the country. For places such as his<br />
constituency, my hon. Friend the Member for York<br />
Outer is right—real pace and purpose are vital to getting<br />
the NHS on to a more stable financial footing. I can<br />
assure him that we are keen to make fast progress on<br />
GP commissioning consortiums taking on responsibilities.<br />
In that regard, shadow allocations for GP consortiums<br />
will be published late next year for 2012-13, giving the<br />
new organisations the time and space to test financial<br />
plans before the full system goes live in 2013-14.<br />
My hon. Friend asked whether GP consortiums would<br />
have to take on PCT debt. I have heard that anxiety<br />
expressed around the country. The NHS operating<br />
framework, which we will publish in a few weeks, will<br />
set out the rules on legacy debt to ensure that no debts<br />
carry forward into the new system. That is challenging,<br />
and we are keen to work through it effectively.<br />
I shall now come back to the present and say a few<br />
words about the current financial position in North<br />
Yorkshire and York. The strategic health authority tells<br />
me that the local PCT has had a problematic financial<br />
history stretching back many years, which may be an<br />
understatement. [Interruption.] I can see colleagues<br />
nodding.<br />
Over the past 12 months, its situation has deteriorated<br />
due to a number of factors, including a significant<br />
overspend on community services and the fact that its<br />
QIPP programme has not delivered the expected savings.<br />
As a result, the trust is having to take radical steps to<br />
put its finances in order, including temporary reductions<br />
to some non-urgent health services. I very much regret<br />
that.<br />
I regret that the fragility of the organisation has<br />
placed my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer’s<br />
constituents in a position w<strong>here</strong> they face these service<br />
changes. I hope he will understand that it is not for me<br />
to give a running commentary on every aspect of what<br />
the PCT is doing. On the issues that he highlights—<br />
particularly about the QIPP programme implementation,<br />
which I have looked at carefully—t<strong>here</strong> are lessons for<br />
how we ensure that we get a proper grip on financial<br />
management in local NHS organisations.<br />
It is striking, for instance, that the neighbouring<br />
PCTs with similar populations to North Yorkshire’s<br />
and York’s are not facing the same financial challenge,<br />
nor are they having to resort to the desperate actions<br />
that the trust is taking. My hon. Friend is right to say
339WH<br />
[Paul Burstow]<br />
Health Care (North Yorkshire and<br />
York)<br />
that the trust should not seek excuses in how the funding<br />
formula works. None the less, we need to look at the<br />
formula.<br />
Equally, it is important to bear in mind that the QIPP<br />
programme in North Yorkshire and York has not delivered.<br />
I understand that it set some ambitious and challenging<br />
plans; the problem was that the implementation has not<br />
been as robust as the plans. I understand that one issue<br />
appears to be a failure to bring on board the full range<br />
of stakeholders to deliver on the improvement plans.<br />
That is a significant failing, because w<strong>here</strong> the PCT is<br />
doing that, the signs are extremely positive. For instance,<br />
local GPs are working with the trust on prescribing<br />
practices—together they are looking to cut costs by<br />
more than £1 million, while protecting quality and<br />
service. I highlight that because it shows the power of<br />
GPs in managing efficiencies, and is a sign of how our<br />
reforms will help in the future.<br />
Perhaps most troubling of all is the fact that the PCT<br />
has slammed the brakes on funding for the voluntary<br />
sector in a way that may have serious consequences for<br />
the future. The PCT may, technically, be within its<br />
rights to give the minimum of notice to providers, but<br />
pulling the plug on small organisations with just a<br />
month’s notice—or in some cases, less—is alien to the<br />
spirit of collaboration and partnership that we want<br />
the NHS to cultivate. As my hon. Friend the Member<br />
for Skipton and Ripon said, it seems to be against the<br />
notion of the compact.<br />
T<strong>here</strong> is an important general point <strong>here</strong>. As we move<br />
through transition t<strong>here</strong> will be difficult choices, and<br />
the NHS needs to be clear about what it needs to<br />
protect and how best to maintain vital voluntary community<br />
services. T<strong>here</strong>fore, in response to this debate, I have<br />
asked the NHS chief executive, Sir David Nicholson, to<br />
consider how to ensure that local NHS organisations<br />
act responsibly towards voluntary sector organisations<br />
during any period of retrenchment. My hon. Friend is<br />
right: we need candour and early discussion. Discussions<br />
about w<strong>here</strong> t<strong>here</strong> are cost pressures are in the system,<br />
because, given the opportunity, the voluntary sector can<br />
contribute to managing them.<br />
Reference has been made to the issues of pain relief<br />
injections and of treating chronic back pain. The hon.<br />
Member for Selby and Ainsty (Nigel Adams) asked a<br />
question about the discussions that he has had with the<br />
Secretary of State, as did the hon. Gentleman who<br />
secured this debate. I am not cited in regard to those<br />
discussions, but I will undertake to ensure that we look<br />
very carefully at the issue and come back to both hon.<br />
Members who raised it, to satisfy them and ourselves<br />
that NICE guidance is being followed properly.<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
However, I believe that the PCT understands that its<br />
decision has affected a significant number of patients<br />
with chronic back pain, and that it has written to a<br />
number of those patients, commissioned a series of<br />
initiative clinics w<strong>here</strong> patients are fully assessed and<br />
given new treatment options to manage their pain.<br />
Nigel Adams: Just on that point, it is worth remarking<br />
that the reason given by the PCT for the withdrawal of<br />
the procedure is not a financial one, which is very<br />
difficult for colleagues to comprehend. Apparently, it is<br />
based on medical advice via the NICE guidelines, but<br />
the PCT seems to be the only one in the country that<br />
has adopted that stance. Does the Minister agree that<br />
that sort of logic is a perfect reason why our reforms<br />
must come through in terms of GP commissioning, so<br />
that decisions can be made by health professionals<br />
rather than bureaucrats?<br />
Paul Burstow: T<strong>here</strong> is no doubt in my mind that<br />
getting clinicians far more engaged in commissioning<br />
will be a key driver to a significant improvement in<br />
quality and outcomes in the system in future. I certainly<br />
undertake to ensure that we have a proper look at this<br />
issue of the guidance, and I will come back to both the<br />
hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend, the hon. Member<br />
for York Outer, on that point.<br />
I certainly share the belief that those reforms are<br />
needed to ensure that the NHS in north Yorkshire, and<br />
Yorkshire in general, moves in the positive direction<br />
that we all want to see it move in. Our proposals will<br />
bring the right leadership and purpose to sustain and<br />
improve the services that the constituents of the hon.<br />
Member for York Outer, and those of the other hon.<br />
Members who have come to support him in this debate,<br />
expect the NHS to deliver.<br />
Decisions that are made much closer to the patient<br />
will ensure that health care is shaped in the best interests<br />
of the community and the general population. By<br />
introducing greater transparency and democratic<br />
accountability, we will ensure that the local NHS is far<br />
more answerable to the people whom it serves and that<br />
t<strong>here</strong> will be much more scrutiny and community<br />
involvement in the decisions that it takes.<br />
That is something that I am sure all hon. Members<br />
want to see. It is how we can move our NHS forward,<br />
maintaining it as a national treasure but one that really<br />
delivers the best possible outcomes—outcomes that are<br />
among the best in the world. That is what we really<br />
want to see.<br />
Question put and agreed to.<br />
5.27 pm<br />
Sitting adjourned.<br />
Health Care (North Yorkshire and<br />
York)<br />
340WH
73WS<br />
Written Ministerial Statements<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
Written Ministerial Statements<br />
74WS<br />
Written Ministerial<br />
Statements<br />
Wednesday 1 December 2010<br />
TREASURY<br />
Fair Pay in the Public Sector<br />
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne):<br />
Will Hutton has today published the interim report of<br />
his review of Fair Pay in the Public Sector. The Government<br />
welcome the publication of this report and will give<br />
careful consideration to the findings so far. The Government<br />
look forward to the outcome of the final report in<br />
March and will respond in more detail once they are in<br />
receipt of this.<br />
The report is available in the Vote Office and in the<br />
Printed Paper Office and it has been deposited in the<br />
Libraries of both Houses.<br />
Periodic updates of the review’s work will be made<br />
available through the website located at: http://www.hmtreasury.gov.uk/indreview_willhutton_fairpay_tor.htm.<br />
BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND SKILLS<br />
Telecoms Council<br />
The <strong>Parliament</strong>ary Under-Secretary of State for Culture,<br />
Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey): Iam<br />
pleased to confirm the agenda items for which BIS has<br />
responsibility at the forthcoming Telecommunications<br />
Council in Brussels on 3 December 2010. I intend to<br />
represent the UK at this Council.<br />
T<strong>here</strong> are four substantive agenda items:<br />
1. Proposal for a decision of the European <strong>Parliament</strong><br />
and of the Council establishing the first Radio Spectrum<br />
Policy Programme (RSPP): A Progress Report and<br />
Exchange of Views.<br />
This item is an exchange of views on the presidency<br />
report and questions for the discussion in relation to the<br />
Commission’s proposed RSPP (EM 13872/10). This is a<br />
proposal for draft legislation which codifies policy and<br />
legislative actions necessary for the efficient management<br />
of spectrum in the EU up to 2015.<br />
The RSPP is seen by the Commission as a necessary<br />
key contributor towards broadband targets, especially<br />
for those geographically rural and remote areas that<br />
would rely on wireless technology to receive broadband<br />
services. This view is generally shared by the Council<br />
and the European <strong>Parliament</strong>. It follows on from<br />
the agreements reached on spectrum during the<br />
communications framework review.<br />
Progress had been made in debating the draft legislation<br />
in the Council but the European <strong>Parliament</strong> is yet to<br />
start deliberations.<br />
The questions tabled for discussion range from how<br />
spectrum management contributes to economic growth<br />
through issues related to a proposed inventory of spectrum<br />
in the EU to the deadlines related to the release of<br />
certain spectrum.<br />
As efficient spectrum management is a key component<br />
of the Coalition’s broadband strategy, the main points<br />
of my intervention, taking into account the questions<br />
posed, will be:<br />
to broadly welcome the proposals from the Commission<br />
which we do indeed think are important in terms of economic<br />
growth within the EU and for the development of mobile<br />
broadband services;<br />
to welcome the breadth of the proposal but to caution any<br />
legislation mandating the use of spectrum for particular<br />
social or community purposes;<br />
to welcome the approach by Commission of ensuring that<br />
spectrum for mobile broadband is made available as early as<br />
possible but caution on the imposition of rigid timelines that<br />
may not be realistic or match national circumstances; and<br />
to wish the Hungarian presidency well in their deliberations<br />
on this important dossier with a hope that we might see an<br />
agreement before the summer of next year.<br />
2. Proposal for a Regulation amending Regulation (EC)<br />
No 460/2004 establishing the European Network and<br />
Information Security Agency (ENISA) as regards its<br />
duration—A Progress Report<br />
Proposal for a Regulation concerning the European Network<br />
and Information Security Agency (ENISA)—A Progress<br />
Report<br />
These two items are progress reports from the<br />
Commission on the current status of the above two<br />
recently issued documents. (EM 14322/10)<br />
The first progress report covers the proposal to amend<br />
the existing regulation, which established ENISA, in<br />
order to extend its duration for 18 months. (The purpose<br />
of the extension is to allow the continued operation of<br />
ENISA under its current remit whilst the new regulation<br />
is negotiated).<br />
The second progress report covers the new regulation<br />
that renews and updates the mandate of ENISA.<br />
As these items are progress reports and it is anticipated<br />
that no debate will take place, I am not planning an<br />
active intervention. However, should t<strong>here</strong> be a debate;<br />
my intervention will reaffirm Her Majesty’s Government’s<br />
(HMG) current policies that are detailed in the relevant<br />
EM noted above.<br />
3. Cross-fertilisation between the Europe 2020 flagship<br />
initiatives “A Digital Agenda for Europe” and “Innovation<br />
Union”—Adoption of Council Conclusions<br />
This item covers the adoption of the above Council<br />
conclusions. These conclusions are member states’ views<br />
on the synergies between two of the EU Commission<br />
flagship agendas, namely the Innovation Union (EM14035/<br />
10) and the European Digital Agenda (EM 9981/10).<br />
Thus, the conclusions contain elements of both flagship<br />
agendas, including stressing the need for accelerating<br />
the roll out of high-speed broadband which will help<br />
drive innovation, as well as recognising the importance<br />
of increasing EU spend on ICT research and development.<br />
In the main, HMG welcomes these conclusions, and I<br />
intend to make the following comments:<br />
welcome the adoption of these conclusions and pleased to<br />
see joined up thinking in linking together these two critical<br />
flagship agendas;
75WS<br />
Written Ministerial Statements<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
Written Ministerial Statements<br />
76WS<br />
pleased to see that these conclusions recognise the importance<br />
of digital technologies as one of the key economic drivers<br />
for Europe’s future prosperity;<br />
welcome the emphasis on the re-use of public sector data as<br />
a potential driver of private-sector led innovation; and<br />
welcome the “active and healthy ageing” EIP pilot that will<br />
be jointly developed by DG-INFSO and DG-SANCO (the<br />
latter being the part of the Commission that deals with<br />
health issues).<br />
4. European Broadband: investing in digitally driven growth—<br />
Adoption of Council conclusions<br />
The last substantive item on the agenda is the adoption<br />
of the Council conclusions that specifically cover the<br />
European broadband strategy (EM 13874/10). This strategy<br />
is another component of the Commission’s “Broadband<br />
Package”.<br />
The importance of broadband roll-out is noted under<br />
item 1 above and I plan to make the following interventions<br />
during the planned discussion on these conclusions:<br />
HMG welcomes the adoption of these conclusions and hope<br />
that they will be taken note of by member states and the<br />
Commission to aid them in the rollout of super-fast broadband;<br />
The UK recognises the value of these conclusions and will<br />
shortly publish a UK-wide broadband strategy, detailing<br />
HMG’s plan to ensure every UK citizen is able to access<br />
broadband; and<br />
The EU broadband objectives are challenging, but by working<br />
together, and alongside the private sector, we can achieve<br />
them.<br />
I will inform the House of the outcome of the discussion<br />
on this, and the preceding item in my post-Council<br />
statement.<br />
This concludes the formal substantive business items<br />
for Council. However, t<strong>here</strong> are three items that are<br />
covered by “Any Other Business”.<br />
They are:<br />
A. A report on the state of development of roaming<br />
services within the European Union—Presentation by the<br />
Commission.<br />
This item will be coupled with a discussion over<br />
lunch preceding the Council. These items will be centred<br />
around the Commission’s recent Interim Report on the<br />
State of the Roaming Market (EM11711/10)<br />
During the lunch, Ministers have been asked to consider<br />
and discuss three questions. In summary they cover<br />
issues relating to stimulating competition, the impact of<br />
technological change and the introduction of a price<br />
cap on the retail price of data while roaming.<br />
During my lunch time discussion and any debate<br />
following the presentation from the Commission, I intend<br />
to make the following points:<br />
we look forward to proposals from the Commission on how<br />
they intend to deal with the roaming issue when the current<br />
regulation expires in June 2012;<br />
we fully support the call by the Commissioner for a functioning<br />
single market in mobile roaming services; especially with<br />
respect to data (which is of increasing importance for EU<br />
citizens); and<br />
we would welcome high-level but detailed discussions between<br />
all interested parties on this issue to try—possibly using the<br />
same format as the recent meeting on net neutrality—and<br />
find a way forward that benefits consumers but also does not<br />
undermine competition, investment or innovation in the<br />
mobile sector.<br />
B. Internet Governance Forum (IGF)—Briefing by the<br />
Commission and the Presidency.<br />
I do not plan an intervention on this item but if the<br />
opportunity arises, I will reaffirm HMG’s policy lines<br />
that:<br />
supports the multi-stakeholder approach on internet governance;<br />
welcomes the agreements reached at the recent ITU<br />
plenipotentiary; and<br />
anticipates a positive outcome to a vote in the UN General<br />
Assembly later in December to extend the mandate of the<br />
IGF for another five years.<br />
C. The next presidency’ programme and events—Briefing<br />
by the Hungarian delegation<br />
This item is a presentation from the Hungarian delegation<br />
on their plans once they assume the presidency of the<br />
EU (1 January 2011 to 30 June 2011).<br />
I do not plan an intervention for this item but you<br />
may wish to note that my officials are in the final stages<br />
of planning a bilateral meeting with Hungarian officials<br />
so that we are able to capitalise upon any opportunities<br />
that may be presented by Hungary assuming the presidency.<br />
COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT<br />
London Reforms and the Localism Bill<br />
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local<br />
Government (Mr Eric Pickles): I am today announcing<br />
a new settlement for London which includes a package<br />
of measures to be included in the forthcoming localism<br />
Bill.<br />
These far reaching proposals include measures which<br />
will significantly devolve power to the Greater London<br />
Authority, London boroughs and beyond and they will<br />
streamline the plethora of agencies in London’s public<br />
sector landscape. They are based on proposals put<br />
forward by the Mayor and London boroughs themselves.<br />
We have listened to key players in the capital and<br />
responded to their ideas.<br />
The measures include:<br />
The devolution of executive powers over housing investment<br />
from the Homes and Communities Agency to the GLA so<br />
that t<strong>here</strong> is more decentralised control over housing investment<br />
decisions in the capital.<br />
The abolition of the London Development Agency, with its<br />
city-wide roles on regeneration and management of European<br />
funding to be transferred to the GLA so that the mayor is<br />
directly accountable.<br />
New powers for the Mayor of London to create Mayoral<br />
Development Corporations to focus regeneration w<strong>here</strong> it is<br />
needed most, such as to help secure East London’s Olympic<br />
legacy, in partnership with London boroughs.<br />
London boroughs will be given greater control over key local<br />
planning decisions that affect their local communities. The<br />
mayor will only consider the largest planning applications in<br />
future.<br />
A more streamlined approach to mayoral strategies and<br />
increased powers of scrutiny for the London Assembly over<br />
these strategies, including the power to reject final strategies<br />
by a two thirds majority.<br />
A new requirement for the GLA Group to publish details of<br />
all expenditure over £500 and openness rules will be extended<br />
to Transport for London.
77WS<br />
Written Ministerial Statements<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
Written Ministerial Statements<br />
78WS<br />
These reforms will drive decision making back into<br />
the hands of the mayor and locally elected London<br />
leaders, streamlining the way London is run and paving<br />
the way for further devolution to London boroughs.<br />
CABINET OFFICE<br />
Diamond Jubilee Civic Honours Competitions<br />
The <strong>Parliament</strong>ary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Mark<br />
Harper): I am pleased to announce that the Government<br />
are today launching UK-wide competitions for a grant<br />
of city status and a grant of Lord Mayoralty (or Lord<br />
Provostship) to mark Her Majesty the Queen’s Diamond<br />
Jubilee in 2012. Local authorities throughout the <strong>United</strong><br />
<strong>Kingdom</strong> who believe that their district, borough, town<br />
or city deserves consideration for either of these rare<br />
honours are invited to apply by the closing date of<br />
27 May 2011.<br />
Entry guidelines have been posted on the Diamond<br />
Jubilee section of the Department for Culture, Media<br />
and Sport’s website, www.culture.gov.uk. Copies have<br />
also been placed in the Libraries of both Houses, the<br />
Vote Office and the Printed Paper Office. The document<br />
provides guidance on the contents of applications, as<br />
was the case for the competitions held for Her Majesty’s<br />
Golden Jubilee, as well as full details on the submission<br />
of entries.<br />
In addition, for the first time in such competitions,<br />
the entry guidelines specify a standard format for entries.<br />
Local authorities are urged to use the standard format,<br />
which is intended to limit the costs of entering the<br />
competition and to introduce a fair basis for comparison<br />
between entries.<br />
The honours will, however, continue to be rare marks<br />
of distinction conferred, on ministerial advice, under<br />
the royal prerogative, rather than rights to be earned by<br />
the meeting of specific criteria. All valid entries will<br />
receive individual consideration on their merits and the<br />
Government look forward to announcing the results of<br />
the competitions in the early months of 2012.<br />
ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS<br />
Single Payment Scheme<br />
The Minister of State, Department for Environment,<br />
Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice): The Rural<br />
Payments Agency (RPA) will today begin payments<br />
under the 2010 single payment scheme (SPS). Over the<br />
next few days payments totalling over £1 billion are<br />
expected to be made to some 80,000 claimants. This<br />
represents over 75% of eligible claimants.<br />
Further progress towards the agency’s 2010 SPS payment<br />
targets—to pay 85% of eligible SPS claimants by the<br />
end of December 2010 and to pay 95% of the value of<br />
SPS payments by the end of March 2011—is being<br />
closely monitored by the RPA oversight board which I<br />
chair. Against the background of the additional workload<br />
created by the update last year to Rural Land Register<br />
and reduced staff numbers, it is clear that meeting those<br />
targets represents a significant challenge.<br />
Farmers may be assured that outstanding payments<br />
will be made as individual claims are verified. But that<br />
will not mean cutting corners: I am determined to bring<br />
a renewed focus on accuracy to the administration of<br />
the scheme so that legacy issues are addressed once and<br />
for all and the agency is then able to deliver a better<br />
quality of service to farmers in the medium term.<br />
Equally, we need to ensure taxpayers, interests are<br />
safeguarded by ensuring our actions represent good<br />
value for money and further discussions will take place<br />
with the National Audit Office to that end.<br />
As we progress through the payment window, I will<br />
keep the House informed on the agency’s progress towards<br />
its targets and any related decisions by the RPA oversight<br />
board. At an individual level, the RPA are writing to<br />
farmers w<strong>here</strong> it appears unlikely that payment will be<br />
made during the course of December.<br />
HEALTH<br />
Stem Cell Transplant Services<br />
The <strong>Parliament</strong>ary Under-Secretary of State for Health<br />
(Anne Milton): As part of the Government’s desire to<br />
see improved services for NHS patients, the Department<br />
asked the NHS Blood and Transplant Authority to lead<br />
a review of stem cell transplant services.<br />
The authority duly established the UK Stem Cell<br />
Strategic Forum, an advisory group of national and<br />
international experts, service providers, clinicians, patients<br />
and charities which has now reported on its findings.<br />
The report, “The Future of Unrelated Donor Stem Cell<br />
Transplantation in the UK”, contains 20 recommendations<br />
on how we can better deliver this type of stem cell<br />
technology for the benefit of NHS patients.<br />
The Department welcomes the report. We will now<br />
begin work, in collaboration with the NHS, NHS Blood<br />
and Transplant and the Anthony Nolan Trust to develop<br />
improved partnership working and consider how the<br />
findings and recommendations in the report can be best<br />
translated into real service improvements.<br />
A copy of the report has been placed in the Library<br />
and copies are available to hon. Members in the Vote<br />
Office.<br />
HOME DEPARTMENT<br />
Local Licensing Act<br />
The <strong>Parliament</strong>ary Under-Secretary of State for the<br />
Home Department (James Brokenshire): Today, alongside<br />
the publication of the Police Reform and Social<br />
Responsibility Bill, we are publishing the Government’s<br />
response to the Rebalancing the Licensing Act consultation<br />
which was conducted earlier this year and includes the<br />
full analysis of consultation responses. Our response<br />
sets out which proposals we will be taking forward from<br />
the consultation document, and how; explains why we<br />
have decided not to proceed with some proposals; and<br />
outlines new proposals that we have introduced in response<br />
to suggestions received during the consultation.<br />
The Government believe that local communities should<br />
have a greater role in determining local licensing. The<br />
package of measures that we are introducing through<br />
the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill and<br />
the additional changes we will make through secondary<br />
legislation and guidance will rebalance the Licensing
79WS<br />
Written Ministerial Statements<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
Written Ministerial Statements<br />
80WS<br />
Act in favour of local communities, ensuring that local<br />
residents’ views and concerns are heard and considered<br />
and they get the type of night-time economy they want.<br />
The measures being introduced will also provide the<br />
police and licensing authorities with the tools they need<br />
to more effectively address alcohol-related crime and<br />
disorder in the night-time economy. Tackling alcohol-related<br />
crime and disorder is not something that can just be<br />
done centrally. These measures will enable issues to be<br />
addressed at a local level, with local communities taking<br />
greater responsibility for tackling problems in their own<br />
areas.<br />
The full Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill<br />
is today being published on the <strong>Parliament</strong> website:<br />
http://services.parliament.uk/bills/. The Government<br />
response to the Rebalancing the Licensing Act consultation<br />
will be available on the Home Office website: http://<br />
www.homeoffice.gov.uk/drugs/alcohol/rebalancingconsultation<br />
and copies will be placed in the House<br />
Library.<br />
Policing in the 21st Century<br />
The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick<br />
Herbert): Today, alongside the publication of the Police<br />
Reform and Social Responsibility Bill, we are publishing<br />
the Government’s response to the “Policing in the<br />
21st Century” consultation, which set out the most<br />
radical reforms to policing in at least 50 years, putting<br />
the public at the heart of policing.<br />
Directly-elected Police and Crime Commissioners<br />
are central to our proposals to replace bureaucratic<br />
accountability with democratic accountability. The<br />
Government are confident that Police and Crime<br />
Commissioners will make forces truly accountable to<br />
the communities they serve, ensuring that resources are<br />
properly targeted to w<strong>here</strong> they are needed and giving<br />
the public a greater say in measures to reduce crime and<br />
improve community safety.<br />
We are also clear that the long held principle of<br />
operational independence, w<strong>here</strong> those operating in the<br />
office of the constable are able to make independent<br />
decisions on how to use their legitimate coercive powers<br />
on behalf of the state will continue to remain the<br />
cornerstone of the British policing model.<br />
We received approximately 900 responses to the<br />
consultation and we are grateful to all those who responded.<br />
The response document we are publishing today summarises<br />
the views that we received and sets out next steps in<br />
implementing our reforms, which include:<br />
replacing existing police authorities with directly elected<br />
Police and Crime<br />
Commissioners (PCCs), who will hold forces to account and<br />
strengthen the bond between the police and the public;<br />
new police and crime panels to provide important scrutiny<br />
of PCC functions, with membership including both top-tier<br />
and district councils—giving district councils formal involvement<br />
in the governance of policing for the first time;<br />
a framework of checks and balances to scrutinise PCCs and<br />
a more independent Inspectorate of Constabulary;<br />
strengthening professional discretion, cutting bureaucracy<br />
and freeing up police officers’ time;<br />
greater collaboration between police forces to increase public<br />
protection and save money; and<br />
phasing out the National Policing Improvement Agency and<br />
creating a powerful new National Crime Agency to lead the<br />
fight against organised crime and strengthen our border<br />
security. This will be supported by a clearer framework for<br />
local PCCs and their forces, set out in a new strategic<br />
policing requirement (in response to some of the feedback<br />
we received during the consultation).<br />
We have listened closely to what people have had to<br />
say and our final proposals take this in to account. For<br />
example, the Police Reform and Social Responsibility<br />
Bill that we are also publishing today provides more<br />
detail on the powers and duties that PCCs and police<br />
and crime panels will have and how PCCs will work<br />
with their force and other local providers.<br />
The full Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill<br />
is published on the <strong>Parliament</strong> website. The Government<br />
response to the “Policing in the 21st Century”consultation<br />
will be available on the Home Office website and will be<br />
placed in the House Libraries.<br />
Justice and Home Affairs Pre-Council Statement<br />
The Secretary of State for the Home Department<br />
(Mrs T<strong>here</strong>sa May): The Justice and Home Affairs<br />
Council is due to be held on 2 and 3 December in<br />
Brussels. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State<br />
for Justice and I intend to attend on behalf of the<br />
<strong>United</strong> <strong>Kingdom</strong>. As the provisional agenda stands, the<br />
following items will be discussed:<br />
The Council, beginning in Mixed Committee with<br />
Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland (non-EU<br />
Schengen States), will receive an update from the presidency<br />
on the state of play of the Schengen Information System<br />
II (SIS II) project.<br />
Next t<strong>here</strong> will be a discussion of the Commission<br />
report on the implementation of the Council conclusions<br />
on 29 measures for reinforcing the protection of the<br />
external borders and combating illegal immigration.<br />
The UK has not yet received a copy of the report;<br />
however, we expect that the Commission will use this<br />
item to inform member states of progress regarding<br />
these measures. The measures include: Frontex working<br />
arrangements; exchange of relevant information between<br />
FRONTEX, other EU agencies and member states;<br />
development of the European Surveillance System—<br />
EUROSUR; exchange of information on illegal<br />
immigration, trafficking in human beings and falsification<br />
of documents; and solidarity and the integrated<br />
management of external borders by member states.<br />
After Mixed Committee the Council will receive an<br />
update from the presidency on the progress being made<br />
on asylum and legal and illegal migration and seek to<br />
ensure that the following four presidencies (Hungary,<br />
Poland, Cyprus and Denmark) remain on course to<br />
meet the Commission’s 2012 deadline for delivery of the<br />
Common European Asylum System (CEAS). The UK<br />
Government believe that the challenges that Europe<br />
faces on asylum and illegal immigration are better<br />
addressed by practical co-operation than by further<br />
legislation. We do not consider the adoption of a common<br />
EU asylum policy to be right for Britain. But we do<br />
believe t<strong>here</strong> are many issues in the area of asylum and<br />
migration on which all EU member states have much to<br />
gain by working together. We will be active in promoting<br />
effective cooperation, and will consider participation in
81WS<br />
Written Ministerial Statements<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
Written Ministerial Statements<br />
82WS<br />
legislative proposals on their merits in consultation with<br />
our European partners and relevant EU institutions.<br />
The Council will then receive updates from the<br />
Commission on the Mediterranean Office for Youth,<br />
the Greek national action plan on asylum and migration<br />
and a legal migration conference held on 26 November.<br />
The Mediterranean Office for Youth supports circular<br />
migration for educational purposes. The UK is not a<br />
participant in the Mediterranean Office for Youth, which<br />
is restricted to members of the Union for the<br />
Mediterranean. The UK considers the Greek national<br />
action plan on asylum and migration (the “Greek Action<br />
Plan”) to be key in increasing the ability of Greece to<br />
act as an efficient partner in countering illegal migration.<br />
Alongside other EU member states we have offered<br />
practical assistance to Greece, however we would like to<br />
see the establishment of an effective Commission-led<br />
process to ensure co-ordination and prioritisation; avoid<br />
duplication of member states’actions; ensure the availability<br />
of clear, accessible funding streams to support the<br />
action plan; and the setting of clear timescales for<br />
action and milestones for progress. The presidency will<br />
also present their conclusions following the conference<br />
on legal migration.<br />
Over lunch Interior Ministers will be asked to agree a<br />
regulation to create an agency for large-scale IT systems<br />
in the JHA field. This would be accompanied by a<br />
Council decision ensuring full UK participation in the<br />
agency, which was a Government priority as the agency<br />
will manage a number of existing systems in which we<br />
participate (Eurodac and the second generation of the<br />
Schengen Information System). While the Government<br />
are content with the text as drafted some member states<br />
have maintained reserves which will need to be resolved<br />
before the Council, in particular concerning the location<br />
of the agency. Also during lunch Ministers will discuss<br />
alternatives to detaining children for immigration purposes.<br />
The UK Government are committed to ending the<br />
detention of children in the UK and a review is currently<br />
underway to consider how this can be done in a way<br />
which protects the welfare of children and ensures that<br />
families leave when they have no right to be in the UK.<br />
This will be an opportunity to share experience and<br />
ideas with other member states who are also dealing<br />
with this difficult issue.<br />
After lunch, the Commission will present their draft<br />
action plan on combating heavy arms trafficking. Should<br />
this plan be endorsed during this Council, the EU will<br />
have an integrated approach to combating arms trafficking,<br />
and more particularly heavy fire arms.<br />
Next the presidency will present for agreement Council<br />
conclusions on itinerant gangs which seek to define the<br />
problem of itinerant crime groups and agree an<br />
administrative approach to tackle the problem, including<br />
increased cross-border co-operation. The Council will<br />
also be asked to agree draft Council conclusions on<br />
preventing and combating identity related crimes and<br />
on identity management.<br />
The Council will be asked to agree negotiating mandates<br />
which will authorise the start of negotiations between<br />
the EU and the <strong>United</strong> States, Canada, and Australia<br />
for the transfer and use of passenger name records<br />
(PNR) to prevent and combat terrorism and other<br />
forms of serious cross-border crime. Clear PNR agreements<br />
between the EU and Australia, Canada and the US will<br />
play a vital role in removing legal uncertainty for air<br />
carriers flying to those third countries. It will also help<br />
ensure that, w<strong>here</strong> appropriate, PNR data can be shared<br />
quickly and securely with all necessary data protection<br />
safeguards in place. The Government are content with<br />
the proposed negotiating mandates but has yet to take a<br />
decision on whether or not to opt in. The Government<br />
strongly believe that early publication of an EU PNR<br />
Directive covering intra-EU as well as external flights is<br />
vital to the safety and security of EU citizens.<br />
Next the EU CT co-ordinator will present a discussion<br />
paper to Council on an EU CT strategy which covers<br />
transport security, terrorist travel, cyber threats, the<br />
external dimension of CT and fighting discrimination<br />
and social marginalisation of Muslims.<br />
The UK welcomes the paper as a useful starting<br />
point for further policy discussions. The EU CT<br />
co-ordinator will also provide an update on progress<br />
against the EU action plan on combating terrorism to<br />
date.<br />
The presidency will seek agreement on a paper on a<br />
system for sharing information on terrorist threat levels<br />
in the member states. The UK supports improvements<br />
to the information sharing mechanisms on terrorist<br />
threat levels at the EU level while maintaining that<br />
changes to threat levels remain a member state competence.<br />
The Council will also be asked to reach agreement on<br />
a paper recommending proposals to strengthen aviation<br />
security following the incident at East Midlands airport.<br />
This paper will go jointly to the Transport and JHA<br />
Councils on 02 December for agreement. The UK<br />
welcomes this report and will press for early, effective<br />
and co-ordinated action.<br />
Commissioner Malmström will present her EU Internal<br />
Security Communication, which looks to translate the<br />
Council’s EU internal security strategy into action points<br />
and will seek initial views from member states. The text<br />
was published on 23 November. The Government are<br />
t<strong>here</strong>fore considering the detail of what is proposed and<br />
will set out their initial views at the Council.<br />
On the justice day, the Council will be asked to agree<br />
the text of the EU directive on human trafficking. In<br />
June, the Government made a decision not to opt in to<br />
the directive, but to review its position after adoption,<br />
at which point the UK could apply to opt in retrospectively.<br />
The directive is in its final stages of negotiation; t<strong>here</strong><br />
is a qualified majority in the Council and should the<br />
European <strong>Parliament</strong> also agree the text in December<br />
adoption will follow.<br />
The presidency will then seek a general approach on<br />
the draft directive on combating sexual exploitation<br />
and abuse of children and child pornography. This draft<br />
directive aims to update existing EU legislation in the<br />
area of combating child sexual exploitation and<br />
pornography in line with technological developments<br />
such as the use of webcams to bully children into sexual<br />
posing (a pornographic performance). The Government<br />
are seeking scrutiny clearance to enable the UK to<br />
support the presidency in reaching a general approach.<br />
T<strong>here</strong> will be a state of play report on the European<br />
Investigation Order (EIO), which is a draft directive<br />
aimed at streamlining the system of mutual legal assistance<br />
between participating EU member states. The presidency<br />
will report progress on negotiations but is not expected<br />
to seek agreement on any issues at this time. The<br />
Government will take the opportunity to press for<br />
further detailed work on the grounds for refusing assistance.
83WS<br />
Written Ministerial Statements<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
Written Ministerial Statements<br />
84WS<br />
The presidency will also seek a general approach on<br />
the right to information in criminal proceedings. This is<br />
the second measure in the roadmap to strengthen procedural<br />
rights in criminal proceedings. It aims to set common<br />
minimum standards and improve the rights of suspects<br />
and accused persons by ensuring that they receive<br />
information about their rights. The presidency has taken<br />
on board the Government’s concerns in relation to<br />
article 7 of the draft directive. The Government are<br />
seeking scrutiny clearance to enable it to agree to the<br />
general approach.<br />
The presidency will then seek agreement among<br />
participating member states on the regulation implementing<br />
enhanced cooperation in the field of law applicable to<br />
divorce—Rome III. The European <strong>Parliament</strong> will adopt<br />
its opinion by the end of the year. The UK is not<br />
participating in this measure.<br />
The presidency held a seminar on 14 October to<br />
discuss issues around resolving child abduction disputes<br />
by mediation. At the end of the seminar the presidency<br />
produced conclusions aimed at encouraging EU law<br />
makers and member states to consider promoting mediation<br />
in such cases. The presidency is seeking agreement to<br />
these conclusions at the Council.<br />
T<strong>here</strong> will be a discussion on the Commission’s<br />
communication on “A comprehensive approach on personal<br />
data protection in the European Union”. The<br />
Communication is intended to serve as a basis for<br />
further discussions between the Commission, other<br />
European institutions and interested parties with a view<br />
to developing a new data protection legislative framework.<br />
It is anticipated that the Commission will publish a<br />
legislative proposal in mid-2011.<br />
The presidency will seek agreement to the adoption<br />
of a negotiating mandate for an EU-US Agreement on<br />
data protection. The agreement would clarify data<br />
protection safeguards for the transatlantic exchange of<br />
personal data for law enforcement purposes.<br />
Ministers will then be provided an information point<br />
on the outcomes of and proposed follow up to the<br />
EU-Russia Permanent Partnership Council (PPC) (freedom,<br />
security and justice) (18-19 November), and the Western<br />
Balkans Ministerial Forum (23-24 November). The PPC<br />
agreed steps forward on visa liberalisation (the top<br />
priority for Russia). They agreed to work on a list of<br />
common steps towards negotiations on an EU-Russia<br />
visa waiver agreement. This does not directly affect the<br />
UK as we are not part of the Schengen visa arrangements.<br />
The UK did not attend the Western Balkans Ministerial<br />
Forum. Ministers will be updated at the JHA Council.<br />
Ministers will then be presented with a report on the<br />
activities of the e-justice working party during the<br />
Belgian presidency. The main focus of this work so far<br />
has been the development of a European e-justice portal<br />
which is a website (launched at the July Informal JUA.<br />
Council) that acts as a point of access to a range of<br />
information on justice matters across the EU.<br />
Over lunch, t<strong>here</strong> will be a discussion about the<br />
forthcoming directive, access to a lawyer. This is the<br />
third measure on the roadmap to strengthening criminal<br />
procedural rights, which is likely to be published in June<br />
2011. The Commission is still in the early stages of<br />
drafting the proposal. It is considering provisions on<br />
the right to waiver legal advice, consequences of violations,<br />
the competence and quality of lawyers and provisions<br />
for European arrest warrant proceedings.
799W<br />
Written Answers<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
Written Answers<br />
800W<br />
Written Answers to<br />
Questions<br />
Wednesday 1 December 2010<br />
INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT<br />
Departmental Sponsorship<br />
Priti Patel: To ask the Secretary of State for International<br />
Development what expenditure his Department incurred<br />
on sponsorship in each year since 1997 for which figures<br />
are available. [27524]<br />
Mr O’Brien: The Department for International<br />
Development (DFID) is not able to provide details of<br />
expenditure which may have been incurred on sponsorship<br />
without incurring a disproportionate cost.<br />
Developing Countries: Education<br />
Mr Blunkett: To ask the Secretary of State for<br />
International Development whether the needs of disabled<br />
people informed the ministerial review of his Department’s<br />
Education Strategy 2010-15; and what steps his Department<br />
plans to take to ensure such needs inform any further<br />
such review. [27555]<br />
Mr O’Brien: The Department for International<br />
Development (DFID) published its Learning for All<br />
Education Strategy in March 2010. The strategy recognised<br />
that disability is a major factor in excluding children<br />
from school and the importance of reaching those<br />
currently marginalised if the education millennium<br />
development goals and Education for All goals are to<br />
be achieved.<br />
DFID recently published a guidance note on supporting<br />
access to education for children with disabilities, “Education<br />
for Children with Disabilities—Improving Access and<br />
Quality”, which is available on the DFID website. This<br />
note has been used by country teams during the bilateral<br />
aid review, which will inform our ongoing policy, including<br />
that on education for children with disabilities.<br />
Developing Countries: HIV Infection<br />
Mr Andrew Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for<br />
International Development what recent assessment he<br />
has made of the effectiveness of his Department’s<br />
programmes in reducing the global incidence of<br />
HIV/AIDS; what plans he has for the future of such<br />
programmes; and if he will make a statement. [27747]<br />
Mr O’Brien: Figures from the UNAIDS Report on<br />
The Global Aids Epidemic 2010 demonstrate steady<br />
progress in the reduction of HIV incidence. In 33 countries,<br />
of which 22 are in Sub-Saharan Africa, HIV incidence<br />
has fallen by more than 25% between 2001 and 2009. In<br />
the countries most severely effected by the epidemic in<br />
Sub-Saharan Africa—Ethiopia, Nigeria, South Africa,<br />
Zambia and Zimbabwe—incidence have either stabilised<br />
or are showing signs of decline. These are all countries<br />
w<strong>here</strong> the Department for International Development<br />
(DFID) has supported national HIV prevention<br />
programmes.<br />
DFID is reviewing all its bilateral and multilateral<br />
aid programmes to ensure UK aid is effective, represents<br />
value for money for the UK taxpayer and accelerate<br />
progress towards the millennium development goals. As<br />
set out in DFID’s business plan 2011-15, we will specify<br />
our objectives on restricting the spread of diseases like<br />
TB, HIV, and malaria by May 2011.<br />
EU Law<br />
Priti Patel: To ask the Secretary of State for International<br />
Development how many EU directives are pending<br />
transposition into domestic legislation by his Department;<br />
and what estimate he has made of the cost of each such<br />
transposition. [27507]<br />
Mr O’Brien: T<strong>here</strong> are currently no EU directives<br />
waiting to be transposed into domestic legislation by<br />
the Department.<br />
Football: South Africa<br />
Graham Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for<br />
International Development how much his Department<br />
spent on entertainment activities related to the 2010<br />
FIFA World Cup. [27360]<br />
Mr Duncan: The Department for International<br />
Development (DFID) spent no money on entertainment<br />
relating to the activities of the 2010 FIFA World Cup.<br />
Trade Unions: Finance<br />
Priti Patel: To ask the Secretary of State for International<br />
Development how much his Department has given to<br />
trade unions in the UK and overseas through (a) the<br />
Civil Society Challenge Fund, (b) the UK Trades Union<br />
Congress Strategic Grant Agreement, (c) the Strategic<br />
Framework Partnership Agreement, (d) the partnership<br />
programme agreements, (e) the Development Awareness<br />
Fund and (f) other programmes in each of the last<br />
three years; which trade unions received such funds;<br />
and for what reason the award was made in each case.<br />
[27381]<br />
Mr Andrew Mitchell: I will arrange for the requested<br />
information to be placed in the Library of the House.<br />
The Department for International Development (DFID)<br />
is reviewing all of its aid programmes including aid<br />
channelled through trade unions, to ensure that it makes<br />
a real difference to the world’s poorest people.<br />
ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS<br />
Agricultural Wages Order<br />
Mr Bain: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment,<br />
Food and Rural Affairs (1) how many grants of widow’s<br />
or widower’s bereavement allowances were made under<br />
the Agricultural Wages Order in each of the last five<br />
financial years; [27417]
801W<br />
Written Answers<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
Written Answers<br />
802W<br />
(2) what the average sum payable as a grant of<br />
widow’s or widower’s bereavement allowance under the<br />
Agricultural Wages Order was in each of the last five<br />
financial years. [27418]<br />
Mr Paice: The Agricultural Wages Order provides<br />
agricultural workers with an entitlement to paid<br />
bereavement leave on the death of a close relative,<br />
including a spouse or civil partner. However, it does not<br />
include provision for the payment of a lump sum grant<br />
in addition to this.<br />
The Government do not keep records of the amount<br />
of bereavement leave taken by agricultural workers.<br />
T<strong>here</strong>fore, it is not possible to provide details of the<br />
average amount of bereavement leave pay received in<br />
each of the past five years.<br />
Mr Bain: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment,<br />
Food and Rural Affairs (1) how many grants of dog<br />
allowances were made under the Agricultural Wages<br />
Order in each of the last five financial years; [27419]<br />
(2) what the average sum payable as a grant of dog<br />
allowances under the Agricultural Wages Order was in<br />
each of the last five financial years. [27421]<br />
Mr Paice: The dog allowance is a weekly amount<br />
added to the minimum rate for a worker whose employer<br />
requires them to keep a dog or dogs. The allowance is<br />
paid in respect of each dog.<br />
The Government does not have information on the<br />
number of allowances paid to workers required to keep<br />
a dog or dogs for the better performance of their work.<br />
Nor is it possible to state what the average sum payable<br />
to such workers was in each of the last five financial<br />
years.<br />
The level of the weekly dog allowance payable to a<br />
worker required to keep a dog or dogs in each of the last<br />
five years was as follows:<br />
2010 7.21<br />
2009 7.01<br />
2008 6.86<br />
2007 6.58<br />
2006 6.30<br />
Note:<br />
All allowances are effective from 1 October of the relevant year.<br />
Biofuels<br />
Mike Weatherley: To ask the Secretary of State for<br />
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much wood<br />
was imported for burning as biomass fuel in (a) 2007,<br />
(b) 2008 and (c) 2009. [27552]<br />
Gregory Barker: I have been asked to reply.<br />
Information collated by HM Revenue and Customs<br />
as part of its statistics on overseas trade do not indicate<br />
the final use for imported wood.<br />
The 2010 edition of the Digest of UK Energy Statistics<br />
contains estimates of the total quantities of wood and<br />
waste wood that were used for energy purposes during<br />
2007, 2008 and 2009. Copies of this publication are<br />
available in the House Library. The publication shows<br />
the following information:<br />
£<br />
Wood for energy<br />
purposes<br />
Waste wood for<br />
energy purposes<br />
Thousand tonnes of oil equivalent<br />
2007 2008 2009<br />
332 359 375<br />
101 162 165<br />
Additionally, the publication contains the following<br />
estimates of straw, short rotation coppice, and other<br />
plant based biomass imported for energy purposes:<br />
Total imports of straw, short rotation coppice<br />
and other plant-based biomass for energy<br />
purposes<br />
British Waterways<br />
Thousand tonnes of oil equivalent<br />
2007 2008 2009<br />
378 416 415<br />
Andrew Stephenson: To ask the Secretary of State for<br />
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent<br />
discussions she has had on the future of British<br />
Waterways. [25906]<br />
Richard Benyon: On 14 October, the Government<br />
announced that British Waterways will move from being<br />
a public corporation to a charitable body within civil<br />
society from April 2012. Government’s intention is to<br />
issue a full public consultation on the scope and model<br />
of the new waterways charity early in 2011. Key<br />
stakeholders will continue to be kept closely involved<br />
through ongoing discussions, workshops and meetings<br />
with myself and DEFRA officials.<br />
Carbon Emissions: Businesses<br />
Naomi Long: To ask the Secretary of State for<br />
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether she plans<br />
to introduce mandatory reporting of carbon emissions<br />
by UK-listed companies. [27113]<br />
Zac Goldsmith: To ask the Secretary of State for<br />
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her policy is<br />
on the introduction of mandatory carbon reporting for<br />
businesses under section 85 of the Climate Change Act<br />
2008. [26349]<br />
Mr Laurence Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State<br />
for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will<br />
assess the merits of introducing mandatory reporting of<br />
carbon dioxide emissions by listed UK companies; and<br />
if she will make a statement. [27200]<br />
Mr Paice: I refer the hon. Member and my hon.<br />
Friends to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for<br />
Hartlepool (Mr Wright) on 27 October 2010, Official<br />
Report, column 319W.<br />
Common Agricultural Policy<br />
Amber Rudd: To ask the Secretary of State for<br />
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent<br />
assessment she has made of the effect on UK food<br />
security of the operation of the Common Agricultural<br />
Policy. [20736]
803W<br />
Written Answers<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
Written Answers<br />
804W<br />
Mr Paice: The best guarantors of UK food security,<br />
as detailed in DEFRA’s UK food security assessment,<br />
are an open trading system with other countries, and<br />
farmers at home and overseas being able to respond to<br />
market price signals. We believe that t<strong>here</strong> needs to be<br />
reform of the Common Agricultural Policy to facilitate<br />
this.<br />
Departmental Policy<br />
Mr Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for<br />
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what departmental<br />
policy reviews her Department has undertaken since 6<br />
May 2010; on what date each such review (a) was<br />
announced and (b) is expected to publish its findings;<br />
what estimate she has made of the cost of each such<br />
review; who has been appointed to lead each such<br />
review; to what remuneration each review leader is<br />
entitled; how many (i) full-time equivalent civil servants<br />
and (ii) seconded staff are working on each such review;<br />
from which organisations such staff have been seconded;<br />
and how much on average such seconded staff will be<br />
paid for their work on the review. [21883]<br />
Richard Benyon: The information requested is set out<br />
in the following table.<br />
Ofwat review<br />
Waste review<br />
Animal Welfare<br />
Act<br />
Animal welfare<br />
inspections<br />
Task force on<br />
farm regulation<br />
Review of<br />
national park<br />
governance<br />
arrangements<br />
Announcement<br />
date<br />
26 August 2010 15 June 2010 June 2010<br />
(reconfirmed<br />
earlier decision<br />
taken by<br />
previous<br />
Administration)<br />
1 May 2010 9 June 2010 A full public<br />
consultation was<br />
launched on<br />
9 November<br />
2010<br />
Publication date<br />
Spring/summer<br />
2011<br />
May 2011<br />
Command Paper<br />
to publish in<br />
December 2010.<br />
EFRA<br />
<strong>Parliament</strong>ary<br />
Select<br />
Committee to<br />
consider its<br />
findings.<br />
1 May 2011 April 2011 A Ministerial<br />
announcement<br />
on the<br />
consultation<br />
outcome,<br />
proposals for<br />
changes to the<br />
governance<br />
arrangements<br />
andwaysof<br />
improving<br />
accountability<br />
will be made by<br />
the end of<br />
March 2011.<br />
Estimated cost<br />
£55,000 not<br />
including staff<br />
costs<br />
Undertaken by<br />
civil servants in<br />
the course of<br />
normal duties<br />
Undertaken by<br />
civil servants in<br />
the course of<br />
normal duties<br />
Undertaken by<br />
civil servants in<br />
the course of<br />
normal duties<br />
£35,000 (not<br />
including staff<br />
costs)<br />
Undertaken by<br />
civil servants in<br />
the course of<br />
normal duties<br />
Appointed<br />
reviewer and<br />
remuneration<br />
David Gray.<br />
£50,000 plus<br />
expenses.<br />
n/a n/a n/a Richard<br />
Macdonald.<br />
Daily rate £300<br />
and entitled to<br />
reasonable<br />
expenses.<br />
Estimated input<br />
80 days.<br />
n/a<br />
Number of civil<br />
servants working<br />
on the review<br />
2.2 full-time<br />
employees<br />
4 full-time<br />
employees<br />
5 full-time<br />
employees<br />
4.6 full-time<br />
employees<br />
6 full-time<br />
employees<br />
2 civil servants<br />
but with<br />
significant input<br />
from the<br />
national park<br />
authorities.<br />
Number of<br />
secondees<br />
workingonthe<br />
review<br />
None<br />
1 part time<br />
(2 days per week)<br />
None None None None
805W<br />
Written Answers<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
Written Answers<br />
806W<br />
Ofwat review<br />
Waste review<br />
Animal Welfare<br />
Act<br />
Animal welfare<br />
inspections<br />
Task force on<br />
farm regulation<br />
Review of<br />
national park<br />
governance<br />
arrangements<br />
Secondees home<br />
organisation<br />
n/a<br />
Waste and<br />
Resources<br />
Action<br />
Programme<br />
(WRAP)<br />
n/a n/a n/a n/a<br />
Secondees pay<br />
rates<br />
n/a<br />
On loan from<br />
WRAP<br />
n/a n/a n/a n/a<br />
Farming Futures: Finance<br />
Mr Bain: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment,<br />
Food and Rural Affairs how much funding Farming<br />
Futures received from her Department in each of the<br />
last four years; and how much funding she plans to<br />
allocate to Farming Futures in each of the next four<br />
years. [27031]<br />
Mr Paice: Farming Futures was set up in 2007 to<br />
build greater awareness and provide advice to farmers<br />
on the impacts of climate change and actions they can<br />
take to deal with this, to increase efficiency, profitability<br />
and competiveness. DEFRA has provided Farming Futures<br />
with core funding of over £850,000 covering a four year<br />
period:<br />
2007-08 171,000<br />
2008-09 250,000<br />
2009-10 150,000<br />
2010-11 285,000<br />
DEFRA funding for Farming Futures was a substantial,<br />
time-limited contribution to allow them to establish<br />
themselves in playing a central role in supporting the<br />
industry’s action on climate change, whilst they sought<br />
alternative long-term funding. After four years, DEFRA’s<br />
financial support will come to an end in March 2011.<br />
Genetically Modified Organisms<br />
Mr Meacher: To ask the Secretary of State for<br />
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether the<br />
opinion of the Council of Ministers on the proposal to<br />
amend the GMO Deliberate Release Directive 2001/18<br />
by introducing a new article 26b has been received by<br />
her Department; and if she will make a statement.<br />
[26331]<br />
Mr Paice [holding answer 25 November 2010]: All<br />
member states have received the opinion of the Council<br />
Legal Service on the proposal to amend Directive 2001/18.<br />
Opinions on this matter are also expected to be made<br />
available soon from both the European <strong>Parliament</strong> and<br />
the Commission legal services. Following this, further<br />
discussions will be held at EU level on the legal implications<br />
of the Commission’s proposal.<br />
Mr Charles Walker: To ask the Secretary of State for<br />
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her policy<br />
is on the commercial growing of genetically-modified<br />
crops; and if she will make a statement. [26878]<br />
£<br />
Mr Paice [holding answer 29 November 2010]: The<br />
details of the Government’s policy on GM crops are<br />
currently under consideration, but all policies will be<br />
based on robust scientific evidence.<br />
National Parks<br />
Mary Creagh: To ask the Secretary of State for<br />
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what visits on<br />
what dates for what purposes (a) she and (b) other<br />
Ministers in her Department have made to (i) national<br />
parks and (ii) national nature reserves since 11 May<br />
2010. [26156]<br />
Richard Benyon [holding answer 24 November 2010]:<br />
I have expressed a keen interest in visiting all of the<br />
English national parks to see at first hand the valuable<br />
work being undertaken. So far I have been to<br />
Northumberland national park on 15 June and the<br />
Peak District national park on 27 July.<br />
During my visit to Northumberland national park I<br />
also went to Greenlee Lough national nature reserve to<br />
see how national park and national nature reserve<br />
designations can work together.<br />
Other national nature reserves I visited are Holme<br />
Fen and Woodwalton Fen on 10 November as part of<br />
the Great Fen project which is designed to link up the<br />
land between the two nature reserves.<br />
I was also able to see Leigh Woods national nature<br />
reserve from the Avon Gorge site of special scientific<br />
interest which I visited on 19 July.<br />
The Minister of State, Department for Environment,<br />
Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member<br />
for South East Cambridgeshire (Mr Paice) visited Dartmoor<br />
national park on 11 November to discuss uplands issues.<br />
The <strong>Parliament</strong>ary Under-Secretary of State, Department<br />
for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs the noble<br />
Lord, Lord Henley visited the Lake District national<br />
park on 25 August regarding future changes needed to<br />
adapt to climate change.<br />
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and<br />
Rural Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for<br />
Meriden (Mrs Spelman) has met with key representatives<br />
from the English national parks authority association<br />
and spoken with a number of people who have an<br />
interest in national parks and national nature reserves.<br />
We are currently putting together a programme of visits<br />
for 2011, which includes visits to our national parks.
807W<br />
Written Answers<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
Written Answers<br />
808W<br />
Salmon: Rivers<br />
Mr Charles Walker: To ask the Secretary of State for<br />
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) whether her<br />
Department has made an estimate of the number of<br />
salmon returning to the river (a) Test, (b) Itchen and<br />
(c) Hampshire Avon in each of the past five years; and<br />
if she will make a statement; [26235]<br />
(2) what assessment her Department has made of the<br />
future capacity of the river (a) Test, (b) Itchen and (c)<br />
Hampshire Avon to support viable stocks of migratory<br />
salmonoids; and if she will make a statement. [26236]<br />
Richard Benyon: The Environment Agency (EA) operates<br />
fish counters on the Rivers Test, Itchen and Hampshire<br />
Avon and uses these to derive annual estimates of the<br />
number of salmon returning to each of these rivers. The<br />
following table shows the estimated number of salmon<br />
returning in each of the past five years, although such<br />
estimates have only been possible on the Hampshire<br />
Avon since 2006.<br />
Test<br />
Itchen<br />
Hampshire<br />
Avon<br />
2005 1,117 411 n/a<br />
2006 1,058 419 1,319<br />
2007 664 301 1,135<br />
2008 1,487 500 810<br />
2009<br />
(provisional)<br />
903 276 743<br />
The EA estimates the Conservation Limits (CLs) for<br />
salmon stocks in each of the 64 principal salmon rivers<br />
in England and Wales; including the Test, Itchen and<br />
Hampshire Avon. CLs are described as ‘the minimum<br />
desirable spawning stock levels, below which stocks<br />
should not be allowed to fall’. The salmon stocks in the<br />
Rivers Test, Itchen and Hampshire Avon were all below<br />
their CLs in 2009, and are classified as being ‘At Risk’<br />
or ‘Probably at Risk’. They are also expected to remain<br />
in one of these categories until at least 2014. T<strong>here</strong> are<br />
no similar indicators of the status of other salmonid<br />
species.<br />
Stocks may still be sustainable at levels below their<br />
CL, but they are at greater risk. The EA and the Centre<br />
for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science<br />
are investigating the significance of impacts on salmon<br />
and will seek ways to manage the effects. An understanding<br />
of these key factors will be important in estimating the<br />
future potential of these southern chalk streams for all<br />
salmonid species.<br />
Woodland Grants Scheme<br />
Roger Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for<br />
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she<br />
has for the future of the Woodland Grants Scheme<br />
following the outcome of the comprehensive spending<br />
review; and if she will make a statement. [21955]<br />
Mr Paice: Expenditure on the Rural Development<br />
programme for England will be maintained over the<br />
spending review period. We will work with the Forestry<br />
Commission to ensure the England Woodland Grant<br />
Scheme, which provides for the stewardship of existing<br />
woodlands and the creation of new woodlands, is more<br />
effective and better targeted. I also refer the hon. Gentleman<br />
to the Welsh Assembly Government which administers<br />
woodland grant schemes in Wales for information on its<br />
plans.<br />
ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE<br />
Carbon Reduction Commitment Energy Efficiency<br />
Scheme<br />
Jeremy Lefroy: To ask the Secretary of State for<br />
Energy and Climate Change what progress his Department<br />
has made on inclusion of a proportion of electricity<br />
generated from energy from waste in the Carbon Reduction<br />
Commitment. [27286]<br />
Gregory Barker: All electricity supply arrangements<br />
to a CRC participant which meet the CRC’s supply<br />
criteria must be reported under the scheme, irrespective<br />
of how, w<strong>here</strong> and by whom the electricity is generated.<br />
This ensures the scheme’s focus is on energy efficiency<br />
measures.<br />
CRC participants which operate an energy from waste<br />
plant will also need to report their input fuel to the<br />
generational process, w<strong>here</strong> that waste supply meets the<br />
CRC supply definitions.<br />
Departmental Contracts<br />
Nicola Blackwood: To ask the Secretary of State for<br />
Energy and Climate Change what steps his Department<br />
plans to take to encourage and support small and<br />
medium-sized enterprises and third sector organisations<br />
to compete for departmental contracts in line with<br />
value-for-money policy, UK regulations and EU<br />
procurement directives. [28114]<br />
Gregory Barker: The Department of Energy and<br />
Climate Change is following all the requirements of the<br />
Transparency Agenda and openly advertising all<br />
procurements above £10,000.<br />
In circumstances w<strong>here</strong> an applicant is unsuccessful<br />
with their bid the Department provides full feedback to<br />
all companies as requested.<br />
Energy: Prices<br />
Huw Irranca-Davies: To ask the Secretary of State<br />
for Energy and Climate Change what steps he is taking<br />
to assist energy-intensive industries with rising energy<br />
prices. [27120]<br />
Charles Hendry: In order to help UK energy intensive<br />
industries, DECC is working closely with BIS, industry<br />
representatives, academics and other experts on an Energy<br />
Intensive Industry Strategy. The Strategy is assessing<br />
the impact of climate change and energy policies on the<br />
cost of energy for these industries, greenhouse gas<br />
abatement opportunities within key energy intensive<br />
sectors and is considering policy options w<strong>here</strong> further<br />
cost-effective abatement opportunities are not available<br />
in the short term.<br />
The Government also provide businesses with enhanced<br />
tax relief for investments in equipment that meets published<br />
energy-saving criteria via enhanced capital allowances.
809W<br />
Written Answers<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
Written Answers<br />
810W<br />
Rehman Chishti: To ask the Secretary of State for<br />
Energy and Climate Change whether he plans to seek<br />
additional data-sharing powers to enable people with a<br />
terminal illness automatically to receive assistance<br />
from the mandatory social price support scheme.<br />
[27741]<br />
Gregory Barker: Energy suppliers will be required<br />
from April 2011 to provide greater help with the financial<br />
costs of energy bills to more of the most vulnerable fuel<br />
poor households—with total support of £250 million in<br />
2011-12 rising to £310 million in 2014-15.<br />
We anticipate that data matching methods, similar to<br />
those which were used successfully in the Energy Rebate<br />
Scheme, will be used to target the available assistance<br />
towards more of the most vulnerable households.<br />
We intend to consult on the detailed policy design,<br />
including eligibility and targeting methods, shortly and<br />
would welcome views and input on these issues during<br />
that process.<br />
Natural Gas<br />
Graham Stringer: To ask the Secretary of State for<br />
Energy and Climate Change what recent estimate he<br />
has made of the level of reserves of shale gas in the<br />
UK. [27752]<br />
Charles Hendry: The British Geological Survey estimates<br />
that t<strong>here</strong> could be worthwhile shale gas resources in<br />
the UK. However it is not possible to make an estimate<br />
of reserves without drilling and production testing, and<br />
it is not yet clear that the success elsew<strong>here</strong> can be<br />
replicated in the UK.<br />
WOMEN AND EQUALITIES<br />
Black Asian and Minority Ethnic Women Councillors<br />
Taskforce: Expenditure<br />
Priti Patel: To ask the Minister for Women and<br />
Equalities pursuant to the answer of 22 November<br />
2010, Official Report, columns 81-2W, on ethnic minorities,<br />
who the speakers were at each of the 16 events. [27469]<br />
Lynne Featherstone: A total of 16 Black, Asian and<br />
Minority Ethnic (BAME) Women Councillors’ Taskforce<br />
events were held across Britain. The speakers at each of<br />
the events were as follows:<br />
Tower Hamlet—23 July 2008:<br />
Councillors: Dr Anwara AN, Shirley Marshall and Lurline<br />
Champagnie; Barbara Follett MP and Deputy Minister for<br />
Women; former Councillor Neelam Bakshi.<br />
Birmingham—17 October 2008:<br />
Councillors: Salma Yaqoob, Karen Hamilton and Paulette<br />
Hamilton; Francine Fernandes; Carol Coombes CEO.<br />
Harrow—21 November 2008:<br />
Councillors: Lurline Champagnie, Mimi Harker, Nana Asante<br />
and David Ashton.<br />
Swansea—12 December 2008:<br />
Former Councillor Yvonne Jardine; Nia Griffith MP; Salma<br />
Abbasi; Mari Rees.<br />
Islington—9 January 2009:<br />
Councillors: James Kempton, Jyoti Vaja, Anjana Patel, Ruth<br />
Polling, Berenice Vanier; Mouna Hamitouche.<br />
TUC event central London—3 February 2009:<br />
Sarah Veale; Dinah Cox; Councillors: Anwara Ali and Lurline<br />
Champagnie.<br />
Glasgow—13 February 2009:<br />
Former Councillor Neelam Bakshi; Angela O’Hagan; Councillor<br />
Paulette Hamilton; Loretta Mordi; Ann Henderson.<br />
Gloucester—19 February 2009:<br />
Former Councillor Carol Francis; Councillors: Barry Dare,<br />
Lorna Campbell and Lady Mavis Dunrossil; Parmjit Dhanda<br />
MP.<br />
Newcastle—20 March 2009:<br />
Former Councillor Thea Khamis; Councillors: David Faulkner<br />
and Lurline Champagnie; Baroness Sandip Verma; Ranjana<br />
Bell.<br />
Leicester—17 April 2009:<br />
Councillors: Manjula Sood, Ross Willmott, Sarah Russell and<br />
Ramilla Shah; Sheila Lock CEO; Liz Reid-Jones; Anita Patel.<br />
Camden—24 April 2009:<br />
Councillors: Maya de Souza, Keith Moffitt and Geethika<br />
Jayatilaka; Dame Jane Roberts; Simon Woolley.<br />
South London—21 May 2009:<br />
Councillors: Lorna Campbell; Nicholas Stanton, Eliza Mann,<br />
Mimi Harker and Dora Dixon Fyle; Dawn Butler MP; Harriet<br />
Harman QC, MP and Minister for Women and Equalities.<br />
Liverpool—29 May 2009:<br />
Former Councillor Mia Jones; Councillors: Warren Bradley<br />
and Anna Rothery; Amina Ismail; Maria Eagle MP and Deputy<br />
Minister for Women and Equalities.<br />
Chilterns, Maidenhead and Berkshire—26 June 2009:<br />
Councillors: Mimi Harker, Humaira Khan, John Warder, Meral<br />
Ece, Denise Headley.<br />
Luton—17 July 2009:<br />
Councillors: Sherma Batson, Joan Bailey, Jacqui Burnett and<br />
Anjana Patel; Dr Nazia Khanum; Kate Belinis CEO.<br />
Bradford—22 July 2009:<br />
Adeeba Malik; Councillors: Dale Smith, Naveeda Ikram and<br />
Alison Lowe; Marcia Churley.<br />
Note:<br />
This information is in the public domain through the BAME<br />
Women Councillors’ Taskforce report. The full report is available<br />
at the following link:<br />
http://www.equalities.gov.uk/pdf/<br />
Task%20Force%20Report%20Oct%202009.pdf<br />
Priti Patel: To ask the Minister for Women and<br />
Equalities pursuant to the answer of 22 November<br />
2010, Official Report, columns 81-82W, on ethnic minorities,<br />
how the (a) attendees and (b) delegates at each event<br />
were (i) invited and (ii) selected for invitation. [27471]<br />
Lynne Featherstone: A total of 16 events were held<br />
across Britain reaching nearly 1,100 women. These events<br />
were promoted using a wide range of organisations.<br />
This included working closely with existing local equalities<br />
group networks and political parties.<br />
The Government Equalities Office (GEO) sent e-mails<br />
including the event details and also telephoned organisations<br />
who helped to promote the events on behalf of the<br />
GEO. These organisations included local women’s<br />
organisations, equalities organisations, local authorities,<br />
local political parties, strategic partners, local Libraries<br />
and business networks.
811W<br />
Written Answers<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
Written Answers<br />
812W<br />
Attendees signed up to attend the events online. The<br />
selection of attendees was based on a first come first<br />
served basis w<strong>here</strong> the numbers were dependent on the<br />
size of the venue.<br />
Priti Patel: To ask the Minister for Women and<br />
Equalities pursuant to the answer of 22 November<br />
2010, Official Report, columns 81-82W, on ethnic minorities,<br />
what steps she plans to take to evaluate the (a) outcome<br />
and (b) value for money of each event. [27473]<br />
Lynne Featherstone: Action has been taken to evaluate<br />
the work of the Black, Asian Minority Ethnic (BAME)<br />
Women Councillors’ taskforce and an evaluation report<br />
will be published in the new year, with an executive<br />
summary. The report will assess the short- and longer-term<br />
impacts of the taskforce as a whole, and by each of the<br />
three strands of work covering the support and development<br />
element of the programme, which are the outreach<br />
events, the shadowing and mentoring scheme and the<br />
community leadership course.<br />
The specific research objectives are:<br />
1. To identify and examine the outcomes and effectiveness of<br />
the BAME taskforce<br />
2. To identify the strengths and limitations of the BAME<br />
taskforce programme of work<br />
3. To assess the value of the taskforce programme of work,<br />
including how to make this agenda sustainable in the longer term<br />
4. To follow-up and track participants’ progress in getting<br />
involved in political and public life.<br />
HOME DEPARTMENT<br />
Aviation: Security<br />
Steve McCabe: To ask the Secretary of State for the<br />
Home Department who informed (a) her and (b) the<br />
Prime Minister of the discovery of a bomb on board a<br />
UPS courier aircraft at East Midlands airport; and<br />
what the reasons were for the time taken to inform each<br />
Minister of that discovery. [22219]<br />
Mr Maude: I have been asked to reply.<br />
The Secretary of State for Transport, the right hon.<br />
Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond)<br />
informed about an incident at East Midlands airport at<br />
8.10 am on 29 October. In his capacity as Secretary of<br />
State for Transport he is routinely informed of incidents<br />
having the potential to disrupt air transport, even when<br />
no specific threat materialises. The Prime Minister, the<br />
Secretary of State for the Home Department, my right<br />
hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May)<br />
and the Minister of State for Security and Counter-terrorism<br />
(Baroness Neville-Jones) were all informed at lunchtime<br />
on 29 October.<br />
Crime<br />
Ed Balls: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home<br />
Department what the change in overall crime levels has<br />
been between 1997 and the latest date for which figures<br />
are available in terms of the methodology used in<br />
collecting information for (a) police recorded crime<br />
and (b) the British Crime Survey. [24606]<br />
Mrs May [holding answer 16 November 2010]: Both<br />
the police recorded crime statistics and the British Crime<br />
Survey provide an incomplete picture of crime.<br />
Statistics from the two sources are published annually<br />
in the Home Office statistical bulletin, Crime in England<br />
and Wales, a copy of which is available in the House of<br />
Commons Library.<br />
Homosexuality: Criminal Records<br />
Mike Weatherley: To ask the Secretary of State for<br />
the Home Department if she will bring forward legislative<br />
proposals to change requirements for the disclosure of<br />
historic convictions for homosexual intercourse for the<br />
purpose of preventing discrimination. [27241]<br />
Lynne Featherstone: As set out in the Home Office<br />
Business Plan, the Freedom Bill, to be introduced by<br />
February 2011, will include provisions so that those<br />
who were prosecuted for consensual gay sex at a time<br />
when this was illegal may apply to have their conviction<br />
record deleted from police records and will no longer be<br />
required to disclose their conviction in any circumstances.<br />
Immigration<br />
Mr Andrew Turner: To ask the Secretary of State for<br />
the Home Department what procedures are available to<br />
her to restrict the level of immigration from other EU<br />
member states. [26882]<br />
Damian Green [holding answer 29 November 2010]:<br />
The right to free movement is not unlimited; European<br />
Union (EU) and European Economic Area (EEA) nationals<br />
must be exercising a Treaty right as a worker, a self-employed<br />
or self-sufficient person or a student if they wish to<br />
reside in the UK beyond three months.<br />
The EU Accession Treaties for countries that have<br />
joined the EU since 2004 include a temporary derogation<br />
that allows individual member states to restrict accession<br />
workers’ access to the labour market for up to five years,<br />
or up to seven years if justified on labour market<br />
grounds. This Government are committed to applying<br />
transitional controls on access to the UK labour market<br />
as a matter of course in the future to all new EU<br />
member states.<br />
Under transitional arrangements currently in place,<br />
workers from the Central and Eastern European countries<br />
that acceded to the EU in 2004 must register their<br />
employment in the UK within one month. This scheme<br />
must end by 30 April 2011.<br />
Workers from Romania and Bulgaria, which acceded<br />
to the EU on 1 January 2007, must seek authorisation<br />
to work from the UK Border Agency and meet the<br />
required criteria. These restrictions will remain in force<br />
until 31 December 2011 and may be extended for a<br />
further two years.<br />
Migration<br />
Mr Blunkett: To ask the Secretary of State for the<br />
Home Department pursuant to the oral statement of<br />
23 November 2010, Official Report, columns 169-71,<br />
on controlling migration, what the minimum amount is
813W<br />
Written Answers<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
Written Answers<br />
814W<br />
which any applicant must be able to deposit in a<br />
UK-based financial institution prior to becoming<br />
eligible for an entrepreneur visa. [27758]<br />
Damian Green: The minimum amount an applicant<br />
to the tier 1 (entrepreneur) route must have available to<br />
deposit in a UK-based financial institution is currently<br />
£200,000. We will announce details of the revised criteria<br />
for entrepreneurs in due course.<br />
Vetting<br />
Rehman Chishti: To ask the Secretary of State for the<br />
Home Department (1) what recent representations she<br />
has received from accredited guardianship organisations<br />
on her Department’s review of the vetting and barring<br />
regime; [27681]<br />
(2) what account she took of accredited guardianship<br />
organisations in her Department’s review of the<br />
Independent Safeguarding Authority. [27684]<br />
Lynne Featherstone [holding answer 30 November 2010]:<br />
The review and remodelling of the Vetting and Barring<br />
Scheme is still under way. Representations from various<br />
organisations including those involved with the private<br />
and independent schools sector have been received, and<br />
will be taken into account as the review progresses.<br />
Norman Baker: The environmental impacts of biofuel<br />
production are included in the lifecycle assessment of<br />
biofuels awarded renewable transport fuel certificates<br />
(RTFCs).<br />
Biofuel producers who wish to claim RTFCs for the<br />
fuel they produce must register with the Renewable<br />
Fuels Agency (RFA). In the 2009-10 reporting period<br />
33 non-obligated biofuels producers were awarded RTFCs.<br />
The RFA quarterly reports list all biofuel producers<br />
awarded RTFCs during the reporting period, but do<br />
not distinguish between small and large suppliers. The<br />
volume of fuel supplied is commercially sensitive data.<br />
The RFA requires fuel suppliers claiming RTFCs to<br />
submit monthly reports on the lifecycle greenhouse gas<br />
(GHG) saving and the sustainability of the biofuels<br />
they supply. Summaries of the data supplied are published<br />
in the RFA’s quarterly reports. In the 2009-10 reporting<br />
period all biofuels-only suppliers reported meeting a<br />
qualifying environmental standard in 90% or more of<br />
the biofuel supplied and all reported on the fuel<br />
characteristics (feedstock, country of origin, sustainability<br />
and previous land use) for more than 95% of the fuel<br />
supplied, although in many cases environmental data<br />
were reported using RFA default values.<br />
The RFA quarterly reports are available at:<br />
www.renewablefuelsagency.gov.uk<br />
WALES<br />
Grants<br />
Anas Sarwar: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales<br />
what grants have been awarded by her Department in<br />
(a) 2009-10 and (b) 2010-11 to date; what grants she<br />
plans to award in each of the next two years; what the<br />
monetary value is of each such grant fund; and to<br />
which organisations such grants have been made.<br />
[27861]<br />
Mr David Jones: I refer the hon. Gentleman to<br />
my answer of 30 November 2010, Official Report,<br />
column 737W.<br />
UN Food and Agriculture Organisation<br />
Mr Bain: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales<br />
what assessment she has made of the compliance of<br />
her Department with the UN Food and Agriculture<br />
Organisation’s criteria for sourcing sustainable timber.<br />
[27851]<br />
Mr David Jones: The Wales Office obtains its support<br />
services through the Ministry of Justice and comes<br />
under that Ministry’s sustainable development framework,<br />
w<strong>here</strong> t<strong>here</strong> is a requirement for all timber to be from<br />
sustainable sources.<br />
TRANSPORT<br />
Biofuels<br />
Mr Bain: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport<br />
what assessment he has made of the effects on the<br />
environment of (a) small-scale biodiesel production<br />
and (b) competition within the biodiesel market.<br />
[26932]<br />
East Midlands Airport: Security<br />
Maria Eagle: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport<br />
at what time on 29 October 2010 he was informed of the<br />
security incident at East Midlands airport. [22480]<br />
Mr Hurd: I have been asked to reply.<br />
The Secretary of State for Transport, my right hon.<br />
Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge<br />
(Mr Hammond) was informed about an incident at<br />
East Midlands airport at 8.10am on Friday 29 October.<br />
In his capacity as Secretary of State for Transport he is<br />
routinely informed of incidents having the potential to<br />
disrupt air transport, even when no specific threat<br />
materialises. The Prime Minister, the Secretary of State<br />
for the Home Department, my right hon. Friend the<br />
Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) and the Minister<br />
of State for Security and Counter-terrorism (Baroness<br />
Neville-Jones) were all informed at lunchtime on Friday<br />
29 October.<br />
Lake Windermere: Speed Limits<br />
Tim Farron: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport<br />
what the speed limit is for motorised transportation<br />
across Lake Windermere in (a) miles per hour, (b)<br />
nautical miles per hour and (c) kilometres per hour.<br />
[26475]<br />
Mike Penning: Speed limits for motorised transportation<br />
across Lake Windermere are a matter for the Lake<br />
District National Park Authority (LDNPA).<br />
The LDNPA’s website states<br />
“T<strong>here</strong> is a 10 nautical miles per hour speed limit on Lake<br />
Windermere, dropping to 6 miles per hour in some areas.”
815W<br />
Written Answers<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
Written Answers<br />
816W<br />
Official Cars: Liquefied Natural Gas<br />
Paul Maynard: To ask the Secretary of State for<br />
Transport whether he has made an estimate of the<br />
potential cost savings likely to be made from converting<br />
a Government Car Service vehicle to be fuelled by<br />
liquefied petroleum gas autogas. [27204]<br />
Mike Penning: The cost-effectiveness of a conversion<br />
to liquid petroleum gas (LPG) can only be realised with<br />
vehicles that cover high mileage using primarily LPG<br />
and without incurring the associated reliability issues<br />
that the conversion creates. The mileage profile and<br />
replacement cycle of a Government Car Service vehicle<br />
would not permit full recovery of the conversion costs.<br />
Parking: Fines<br />
Mr Spellar: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport<br />
how many local authorities (a) responsible for London<br />
boroughs and (b) outside London have contacted his<br />
Department to seek an increase in charges for parking<br />
penalties. [27114]<br />
Norman Baker [holding answer 29 November 2010]:<br />
Penalty charges in London are the responsibility of the<br />
London Mayor. The British Parking Association has<br />
raised this matter with Ministers of behalf of their local<br />
authority members. In addition six local authorities<br />
have written to the Department for Transport.<br />
Stourbridge to Walsall Freight Rail Line<br />
Margot James: To ask the Secretary of State for<br />
Transport what progress has been made on reinstating<br />
the Stourbridge to Walsall freight rail line; and if he<br />
will make a statement. [27799]<br />
Mrs Villiers: T<strong>here</strong> is no current project to reinstate<br />
the Stourbridge to Walsall line. However, Network Rail<br />
has published the West Midlands and Chilterns Route<br />
Utilisation Strategy Draft for Consultation in November<br />
2010. It has established that t<strong>here</strong> may be a case for<br />
re-opening the Stourbridge to Walsall line to accommodate<br />
future freight growth.<br />
Transport: Expenditure<br />
George Eustice: To ask the Secretary of State for<br />
Transport what changes his Department has made to<br />
its formula for assessing benefit-to-cost ratios in<br />
respect of transport schemes since May 2010. [27328]<br />
Norman Baker: The Department for Transport has<br />
not changed its definitive appraisal guidance since May<br />
2010. The guidance, along with planned changes released<br />
“in draft” in January 2010 (which included a new benefitcost<br />
ratio formula), are available at:<br />
http://www.dft.gov.uk/webtag/index.php<br />
Spending review decisions were informed by a valuefor-money<br />
measure which was consistent with two of<br />
the proposed changes to the guidance: introducing the<br />
latest monetary values of carbon and adopting the new<br />
benefit-cost ratio formula.<br />
The Department for Transport’s business plan for<br />
2011-15 states it will reform the way transport projects<br />
are assessed, and funding prioritisation decisions are<br />
made, so that the benefits of low carbon proposals are<br />
fully recognised. This includes reviewing and revising its<br />
guidance on appraising transport projects, as well as its<br />
processes for assessing schemes and supporting ministerial<br />
decisions. We will announce the scope and timetable of<br />
this review shortly.<br />
DEFENCE<br />
Afghanistan: Peacekeeping Operations<br />
Mr Jim Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for<br />
Defence whether the remit of the Defence Reform<br />
Units review includes forces and operations in Afghanistan.<br />
[26292]<br />
Dr Fox: The remit of the Defence Reform Unit’s<br />
review does not include our current forces or operations<br />
in Afghanistan.<br />
Armed Forces: Aircraft<br />
Mr Ainsworth: To ask the Secretary of State for<br />
Defence what estimate his Department has made of the<br />
likely effect of implementing his decision to procure<br />
the non-STOVL variant of the joint strike fighter on<br />
the number of jobs. [27614]<br />
Peter Luff [holding answer 30 November 2010]: The<br />
decision to purchase the carrier variant (CV) of the<br />
joint strike fighter (JSF) was made on the basis of its<br />
advantages offered in terms of interoperability with<br />
allies, range, and pay load and through life costs over<br />
the short take off and vertical landing (STOVL) variant.<br />
The industrial implications of the key strategic defence<br />
and security review choices were given careful consideration,<br />
but we have not made a specific assessment of the<br />
impact on the jobs in the UK of the decision to proceed<br />
with the CV of the JSF. Many UK companies continue<br />
to be heavily involved in the overall JSF programme.<br />
Mr Ainsworth: To ask the Secretary of State for<br />
Defence which engines have been chosen to be fitted on<br />
the joint strike fighter; and if he will make a statement.<br />
[27615]<br />
Peter Luff: Pending the US decision as to whether to<br />
continue funding for the completion of development of<br />
the alternative General Electric/Rolls Royce F136 engine,<br />
it is too early to determine which engines will be fitted<br />
to the joint strike fighter.<br />
Armoured Fighting Vehicles<br />
Mr Jim Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for<br />
Defence with reference to the strategic defence and<br />
security review, page 24, what estimate he has made of<br />
the cost to his Department of introducing protected<br />
support vehicles to replace unprotected versions that<br />
are no longer suitable. [26794]<br />
Peter Luff: T<strong>here</strong> are a number of future planned<br />
programmes for both protected and unprotected support<br />
vehicles. The protection level of any given vehicle is very<br />
much driven by the capability the vehicle is designed to<br />
meet and the threat level it is expected to face. To
817W<br />
Written Answers<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
Written Answers<br />
818W<br />
maintain flexibility many of the vehicles are designed<br />
and procured with the ability to be fitted with additional<br />
protection in order to match specific threats.<br />
The Wolfhound, Coyote and Husky tactical support<br />
vehicles have been procured specifically for Afghanistan<br />
and over 500 will enter service at an approved cost of<br />
over £500 million.<br />
The new Foxhound light protected patrol vehicle will<br />
replace Snatch Vixen on operations and an initial tranche<br />
of 200 vehicles has been approved at a cost of around<br />
£180 million excluding VAT.<br />
The cost of the Operational Utility Vehicle System<br />
will be determined after the main investment decision<br />
point.<br />
Defence Exports Group<br />
Caroline Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for<br />
Defence when the Defence Exports Group was established;<br />
what its terms of reference are; who its members are;<br />
how many times it will meet per year; and when it will<br />
next meet. [22652]<br />
Mr Ainsworth: To ask the Secretary of State for<br />
Defence when he expects to establish the Defence<br />
Export Group; and whether a decision has been made<br />
on its composition. [25615]<br />
Dr Fox: The Defence Exports Support Group (DESG)<br />
was established on 22 October. The core DESG membership<br />
is the Secretary of State for Defence; the Minister for<br />
Defence Equipment, Support and Technology; the Minister<br />
for International Security Strategy; and Head, Defence<br />
and Security Organisation, UK Trade and Investment.<br />
Ministers and/or senior officials from the Foreign and<br />
Commonwealth Office and the Department for Business,<br />
Innovation and Skills will also attend as appropriate.<br />
The DESG will be a forum through which Ministers<br />
will plan and focus their support to UK Defence exports.<br />
The intention is to hold the first DESG meeting before<br />
Christmas at which its terms of reference and frequency<br />
of meetings will be discussed.<br />
Nimrod Aircraft<br />
Mrs Moon: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence<br />
(1) if he will estimate the cost to the public purse of<br />
making alternative arrangements for (a) protection of<br />
the carrier fleet and (b) provision of strategic deterrent<br />
against submarines compared to the cost of retaining<br />
the Nimrod MRA4; and if he will make a statement;<br />
[26944]<br />
(2) what assessment he has made of the<br />
consequences for (a) intelligence, surveillance, target<br />
acquisition and reconnaissance support, (b) maritime<br />
protection and (c) search and rescue capability in<br />
respect of (i) protection of merchant shipping and (ii)<br />
protection of coastal waters following the decision to<br />
cease the use of Nimrod MRA4 aircraft; what estimate<br />
he has made of changes to the cost to the public purse<br />
in the provision of such services as a result; and if he<br />
will make a statement; [27016]<br />
(3) what assessment he has made of the cost to his<br />
Department of C130 and C130K aircraft as a<br />
replacement for the Nimrod MRA4 for (a) intelligence<br />
surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance, (b)<br />
maritime protection and (c) search and rescue; and if<br />
he will make a statement. [27026]<br />
Peter Luff: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I<br />
gave on 28 October 2010, Official Report, columns<br />
450-51W, to the right hon. Member for Coventry North<br />
East (Mr Ainsworth) and the hon. Members for East<br />
Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Mr McCann),<br />
and North Durham (Mr Jones).<br />
The UK’s requirement for Anti-Submarine Warfare<br />
and Intelligence surveillance, target acquisition and<br />
reconnaissance (ISTAR) capability was assessed during<br />
the Strategic Defence and Security Review and will be<br />
kept under regular review. I can confirm that we have<br />
judged the implications of the decision not to bring the<br />
Nimrod MRA4 into service to be acceptable. We are in<br />
the process of developing a longer-term plan to mitigate<br />
the impact of cancellation on our continuing military<br />
tasks and capabilities. This will include an assessment<br />
of costs.<br />
Rescue Services<br />
Michael Dugher: To ask the Secretary of State for<br />
Defence whether the concept of operations underpinning<br />
the search and rescue (helicopter) requirement included<br />
the assumption that a search and rescue helicopter fleet<br />
would operate in conjunction with Nimrod maritime<br />
patrol aircraft. [26669]<br />
Dr Fox: The Search and Rescue Helicopter project<br />
includes the requirement that the helicopters would be<br />
able to interface with any other assets that might also be<br />
involved in dealing with an incident.<br />
Strategic Defence and Security Review<br />
Mr Jim Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for<br />
Defence (1) to whom his Department’s document<br />
entitled SDSR: Lessons Identified, 3 November 2010,<br />
was submitted; [26297]<br />
(2) who commissioned his Department’s document<br />
entitled SDSR: Lessons Identified, 3 November 2010;<br />
[26301]<br />
(3) if he will publish his Department’s document<br />
entitled SDSR: Lessons Identified. [26312]<br />
Dr Fox [holding answer 25 November 2010]: The<br />
document was proposed and a draft prepared by the<br />
strategic defence and security review (SDSR) core<br />
co-ordination team in charge of day-to-day management<br />
of the Review, to draw together working-level views<br />
from individuals involved in the SDSR process in the<br />
Ministry of Defence. The draft was a working document<br />
distributed to members of the SDSR programme board<br />
for comment: The Government have no intention to<br />
publish it.<br />
Trident Submarines<br />
Dr Huppert: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence<br />
how much his Department spent on long lead items for<br />
Vanguard submarines prior to the final decision to<br />
proceed with construction of the submarines. [26415]
819W<br />
Written Answers<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
Written Answers<br />
820W<br />
Dr Fox: Details of the cost of long lead items for the<br />
Vanguard class are not held centrally and could be<br />
provided only at disproportionate cost.<br />
Dr Huppert: To ask the Secretary of State for<br />
Defence what estimate he has made of the proportion<br />
of the cost of replacing Trident likely to be incurred<br />
prior to a decision of the House at Main Gate Stage on<br />
submarine replacement in 2016. [26416]<br />
Dr Fox: The likely expenditure will be dependent on<br />
the Initial Gate decision which we expect to finalise<br />
shortly. I do, however, propose to update <strong>Parliament</strong> on<br />
progress, including costs, after the Initial Gate decision<br />
through the publication of a report.<br />
USA: Nuclear Weapons<br />
Tessa Munt: To ask the Secretary of State for<br />
Defence with reference to his plans to co-operate on<br />
nuclear warhead testing with France, whether the UK<br />
will continue to (a) participate in or (b) receive the<br />
results of US sub-critical nuclear tests undertaken at<br />
the Nevada nuclear test site. [27415]<br />
Dr Fox: The recently signed treaty with France on<br />
proposed nuclear co-operation does not address “nuclear<br />
warhead testing” but delivers hydrodynamic experiments<br />
that provide a key element of assurance for the safety<br />
and reliability of the UK’s nuclear stockpile.<br />
I am satisfied that the treaty is complimentary to our<br />
nuclear co-operation with the US under the 1958 Mutual<br />
Defence Agreement and the nuclear exchanges made<br />
possible through that agreement.<br />
Warships: Decommissioning<br />
Mr Scott: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence<br />
whether HMS Ark Royal will be offered for sale to<br />
foreign navies following her decommissioning. [27188]<br />
Peter Luff: HMS Ark Royal is due to formally leave<br />
service with the Royal Navy in early 2011. It is too early<br />
to determine the future plans for HMS Ark Royal.<br />
Any decision will be in line with the Ministry of<br />
Defence’s policy for handling surplus assets.<br />
SCOTLAND<br />
Elections<br />
13. Jim McGovern: To ask the Secretary of State for<br />
Scotland when he last met the Electoral Commission to<br />
discuss the management of elections in Scotland.<br />
[26720]<br />
David Mundell: My right hon. Friend and the Advocate-<br />
General for Scotland met the Electoral Commission on<br />
13 October.<br />
I will be meeting the new Convener of the Electoral<br />
Management Board later this month to discuss preparations<br />
for next year’s elections and referendum on the UK<br />
parliamentary voting system.<br />
VAT<br />
14. Fiona O’Donnell: To ask the Secretary of State<br />
for Scotland what discussions he has had with the<br />
Chancellor of the Exchequer on the likely effect on<br />
families in Scotland of the proposed increase in value<br />
added tax. [26721]<br />
David Mundell: The VAT rise is part of the Government’s<br />
credible plan to tackle the largest deficit in peacetime<br />
history. Difficult decisions are necessary but, as a<br />
consequence, we will get ourselves back on a sustainable<br />
economic footing.<br />
Departmental Sponsorship<br />
Priti Patel: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland<br />
what expenditure his Department incurred on sponsorship<br />
in each year since 1997 for which figures are available.<br />
[27521]<br />
David Mundell: The Scotland Office was established<br />
on 1 July 1999. The only expenditure it has incurred<br />
since then by sponsoring others outside Government to<br />
promote a cause or provide a service was £3,296 in<br />
2002-03.<br />
Devolution<br />
Miss McIntosh: To ask the Secretary of State for<br />
Scotland what recent discussions he has had with the<br />
Advocate-General on devolution issues. [26717]<br />
David Mundell: The Secretary of State and I discuss<br />
devolution issues with the Advocate-General on a regular<br />
basis, and we have all worked together on preparations<br />
for the new Scotland Bill which will deliver the<br />
Government’s commitment to strengthening the devolution<br />
settlement for Scotland.<br />
JUSTICE<br />
Arrest Warrants<br />
Mike Weatherley: To ask the Secretary of State for<br />
Justice what timetable he has set for the implementation<br />
of his proposals to amend the law on universal jurisdiction.<br />
[27240]<br />
Mr Blunt: The Police Reform and Social Responsibility<br />
Bill, which was introduced into this House yesterday,<br />
contains a provision requiring the consent of the Director<br />
of Public Prosecutions to be given before an arrest<br />
warrant can be issued in a private prosecution for an<br />
offence of universal jurisdiction alleged to have been<br />
committed outside the <strong>United</strong> <strong>Kingdom</strong>. This requirement<br />
would ensure that, whilst private individuals could still<br />
apply for an arrest warrant, a warrant could be issued<br />
only w<strong>here</strong> t<strong>here</strong> was a prospect of successful prosecution.<br />
Departmental Grants<br />
Anas Sarwar: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice<br />
what grants have been awarded by his Department in<br />
2010-11 to date; what grants he plans to award in each<br />
of the next two years; what the monetary value is of<br />
each such grant; and to which organisations such grants<br />
are made. [27214]
821W<br />
Written Answers<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
Written Answers<br />
822W<br />
Mr Kenneth Clarke: Between April and October 2010<br />
the MoJ awarded grants worth £70 million to external<br />
organisations. The organisations who were awarded<br />
grants are listed in the following table.<br />
For 2011-12, the MoJ is still exploring funding options<br />
for external organisations and charities. The MoJ 2012-13<br />
funding is subject to the 2010 spending review and is<br />
not yet finalised. NOMS has estimates in place for<br />
2011-12 and 2012-13 but these are subject to change<br />
based on funding levels from MoJ.<br />
The MoJ also provides grants-in-aid to its NDPBs.<br />
For the year 2010-11, the gross provisions 1 for these are:<br />
NDPB Grant-in-Aid (£000)<br />
Legal Services Commission 2,175,331<br />
Information Commissioner’s<br />
7,990<br />
Office<br />
Judicial Appointments<br />
6,860<br />
Commission<br />
Parole Board 10,948<br />
Youth Justice Board 448,131<br />
Criminal Injuries Compensation<br />
238,823<br />
Authority<br />
Criminal Cases Review<br />
6,496<br />
Commission<br />
1<br />
As per the 2010-11 winter supplementary estimates<br />
Note:<br />
These figures are subject to change following end of year audit.<br />
The MoJ is currently working out specific funding<br />
requirements for NDPBs in 2011-12 and 2012-13.<br />
Organisation or Umbrella term<br />
Grant awarded by MoJ or<br />
executive agency (£000)<br />
Writers in Prison Network Ltd 47<br />
Partners of Prisoners and Families<br />
16<br />
Support Group<br />
Koestler Trust 35<br />
NACRO 1,149<br />
SOVA 248<br />
Prisoners Abroad 146<br />
CVS Pre-release Volunteer Scheme 79<br />
National Assoc, of Prison Visitors 6<br />
RCJ (Miscarriages of Justice) 90<br />
Mubarek Trust 23<br />
Prison Video Trust 29<br />
Action for Prisoners’ Families 187<br />
Samaritans 55<br />
<strong>United</strong> Synagogue Visitation<br />
12<br />
Committee<br />
Sikh Chaplaincy Service UK 17<br />
Angulimala 17<br />
ADFAM 84<br />
Magistrates’ Association 37<br />
Operation Black Vote 70<br />
John Smith Memorial Trust 320<br />
UK Subscription for the Hague<br />
161<br />
Conference<br />
GRECO ID contribution 30<br />
Great Britain China Centre 190<br />
China Law Council 328<br />
Plenet for running costs between<br />
50<br />
Apr-Jun<br />
Money Advice Trust 750<br />
The Helplines Association 25<br />
Organisation or Umbrella term<br />
Grant awarded by MoJ or<br />
executive agency (£000)<br />
Family Drug and Alcohol Court<br />
35<br />
pilot<br />
Reunite 128<br />
National Mediation Helpline 90<br />
Family Mediation Helpline 40<br />
Coroners’ Support Service 48<br />
Development Trust Association 50<br />
Women In Prison 80<br />
Women’s Community Projects<br />
6,200<br />
(umbrella)<br />
CLINKS 548<br />
Local Criminal Justice Boards 7,375<br />
Victim Support 51,566<br />
Total 70,271<br />
Anas Sarwar: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice<br />
what the monetary value of grants awarded by his<br />
Department was in 2009-10; and how much he expects<br />
to award in grants in (a) 2010-11 and (b) 2011-12.<br />
[27215]<br />
Mr Kenneth Clarke: In 2009-10 the Ministry of Justice<br />
awarded grants to external organisations to the value of<br />
£81.4 million.<br />
For the full financial year of 2010-11, the MoJ anticipates<br />
a total expenditure of £71.8 million to be made in<br />
grants to external bodies.<br />
The grants to external organisations for 2011-12 have<br />
yet to be decided.<br />
Note:<br />
All future figures are estimates only and are subject to change.<br />
EU Law<br />
Priti Patel: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice<br />
how many EU directives are pending transposition into<br />
domestic legislation by his Department; and what estimate<br />
he has made of the cost of each such transposition.<br />
[27506]<br />
Mr Djanogly: The Ministry of Justice is responsible<br />
for two directives that are currently pending transposition<br />
into domestic legislation:<br />
Directive 2008/52/EC of the European <strong>Parliament</strong> and of the<br />
Council on Certain Aspects of Mediation in Civil and Commercial<br />
Matters. The introduction of this directive will not impose additional<br />
regulatory burdens on businesses. The procedures it will introduce<br />
will be optional to those wishing to conduct EU cross-border<br />
mediations, and are expected to lead to greater legal certainty for<br />
those involved. The main costs envisaged to implement the directive<br />
are in relation to the necessary facilitative amendments to court<br />
rules and minimal costs in training court staff and the judiciary.<br />
Directive 2010/64/EU of the European <strong>Parliament</strong> and of the<br />
Council on the Right to Interpretation and Translation in Criminal<br />
Proceedings. We are currently considering the most cost-effective<br />
ways of transposing and implementing this directive, with the<br />
result that estimated costs cannot currently be provided.<br />
Prisons: Visits<br />
Lady Hermon: To ask the Secretary of State for<br />
Justice how many registered prison visitors t<strong>here</strong> were<br />
in each of the last five years; and whether he plans to<br />
take steps to increase the number of such visitors.<br />
[27667]
823W<br />
Written Answers<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
Written Answers<br />
824W<br />
Mr Blunt: Statistical information on the number of<br />
official prison visitors (OPVs) is not collated centrally.<br />
OPVs are independent volunteers appointed by prison<br />
governors to visit prisoners and offer friendship. They<br />
are neither paid civil servants nor religiously affiliated<br />
volunteers. The appointment of OPVs is a matter for<br />
the governing governor of each establishment.<br />
HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION<br />
Meat: Ritual Slaughter<br />
Keith Vaz: To ask the hon. Member for Caithness,<br />
Sutherland and Easter Ross, representing the House of<br />
Commons Commission, what checks are made with<br />
suppliers to ensure that halal and kosher meat are not<br />
supplied as ordinary meat intended for general<br />
consumption in canteens and restaurants of the House<br />
of Commons. [27688]<br />
John Thurso: Incumbent suppliers and suppliers bidding<br />
for the award of the contract for the future supply of<br />
fresh meats and poultry to the House of Commons<br />
catering service have confirmed that kosher meat does<br />
not enter the mainstream supply chain to catering<br />
establishments and, on that basis, they are confident<br />
that kosher meat has not been, nor will be, supplied to<br />
the House as ordinary meat.<br />
As stated in the reply given on 16 November 2010,<br />
Official Report, column 761W, by the hon. Member for<br />
Middlesbrough (Sir Peter Stuart Bell) to the hon. Member<br />
for East Yorkshire (Mr Knight), incumbent suppliers<br />
have admitted that it is highly likely that halal-slaughtered<br />
poultry has in the past been supplied to the House of<br />
Commons instead of ordinary meat. Henceforth, all<br />
suppliers have agreed, as a condition of contract, that<br />
halal-slaughtered meats and poultry will not be supplied<br />
unless expressly ordered or agreed to by the House of<br />
Commons catering service. This requirement has been<br />
added to the contract currently being tendered.<br />
Keith Vaz: To ask the hon. Member for Caithness,<br />
Sutherland and Easter Ross, representing the House of<br />
Commons Commission, whether meat used in canteens<br />
and restaurants in the House of Commons in the last<br />
12 months had been slaughtered by kosher methods.<br />
[27689]<br />
John Thurso: No kosher meat has been served in the<br />
House of Commons cafeterias and restaurants in the<br />
last 12 months.<br />
Keith Vaz: To ask the hon. Member for Caithness,<br />
Sutherland and Easter Ross, representing the House of<br />
Commons Commission, whether kosher meat has been<br />
used in non-kosher dishes in the restaurants or canteens<br />
in the House of Commons in the last 12 months. [27696]<br />
John Thurso: No kosher meat has been used in nonkosher<br />
dishes in the House of Commons restaurants or<br />
cafeterias in the last 12 months.<br />
<strong>Parliament</strong>ary Archives: Manpower<br />
Mr Amess: To ask the hon. Member for Caithness,<br />
Sutherland and Easter Ross, representing the House of<br />
Commons Commission how many staff at each grade<br />
are employed in the <strong>Parliament</strong>ary Archives; and if he<br />
will make a statement. [28132]<br />
John Thurso: The <strong>Parliament</strong>ary Archives, a shared<br />
service of both Houses, employs 23.5 staff at the following<br />
House of Lords’ grades:<br />
Number<br />
Senior band 1 1<br />
A2 3<br />
B1 6<br />
B2 5.5<br />
C2 2<br />
C3 6<br />
Smartphone Applications<br />
Priti Patel: To ask the hon. Member for Caithness,<br />
Sutherland and Easter Ross, representing the House of<br />
Commons Commission, what estimate the <strong>Parliament</strong>ary<br />
Information and Communications Technology Office<br />
has made of the cost of developing a mobile smartphone<br />
application for <strong>Parliament</strong>; what the cost will be holding<br />
focus group meetings on 30 November 2010 and<br />
1 December 2010; and when the smartphone application<br />
is due to be available. [27382]<br />
John Thurso: The development of a new mobile<br />
application, designed primarily for those visiting <strong>Parliament</strong>,<br />
is being led from within the Department of Information<br />
Services. The procurement for the smartphone mobile<br />
application is currently running, and to publish the<br />
budget might influence the responses from potential<br />
suppliers.<br />
Only one focus group is now being run, on 30 November.<br />
The focus group planned for 1 December is not going<br />
ahead. The participants are coming in on a voluntary<br />
basis and are not being paid. The cost of holding the<br />
focus groups will depend on the number of participants,<br />
and will be restricted to the provision of refreshments<br />
and any claims for reasonable travel costs. Refreshments<br />
are expected to cost £17.50, and a maximum of £20 per<br />
person is being set for travel claims. At present, seven<br />
people have registered an interest.<br />
It is expected that the smartphone application will be<br />
available from April 2011.<br />
PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION<br />
Departmental Written Questions<br />
Sir Paul Beresford: To ask the Chairman of the<br />
Public Accounts Commission how many and what<br />
proportion of questions tabled to the Public Accounts<br />
Commission for answer on a named day were answered<br />
substantively before or on the day named for answer<br />
(a) in Session 2009-10 and (b) since May 2010; how<br />
many such questions tabled between May 2010 and<br />
12 November 2010 had not received a substantive
825W<br />
Written Answers<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
Written Answers<br />
826W<br />
answer by 18 November 2010; and what estimate he has<br />
made of the average cost to the Commission of<br />
answering a question for written answer on a named<br />
day on the day named for answer in the latest period<br />
for which figures are available. [25991]<br />
Mr Tyrie: In Session 2009-10, t<strong>here</strong> was one question<br />
tabled to the Public Accounts Commission for answer<br />
on a named day. This received a substantive answer four<br />
days after the day named, which was the next sitting<br />
day. Since May 2010 t<strong>here</strong> have been no named day<br />
questions.<br />
The Public Accounts Commission has not made an<br />
estimate of the average cost of answering a named day<br />
question on the day named for answer but it is noted<br />
that HM Treasury has established the cost of a written<br />
PQ as £154.00. See paragraph 7.27 at the following link:<br />
http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/parliamentary-clerk-guide/<br />
chapter7.aspx<br />
Sir Paul Beresford: To ask the Chairman of the<br />
Public Accounts Commission how many and what<br />
proportion of questions tabled to the Public Accounts<br />
Commission for ordinary written answer (a) in Session<br />
2009-10 and (b) since May 2010 were answered within<br />
(i) seven days and (ii) 14 days of tabling; how many such<br />
questions tabled between May 2010 and 12 November<br />
2010 remained unanswered by 18 November 2010; and<br />
what estimate he has made of the average cost the<br />
Commission of answering a question for ordinary written<br />
answer within seven days of tabling in the latest period<br />
for which figures are available. [25992]<br />
Mr Tyrie: In Session 2009-10, t<strong>here</strong> were two questions<br />
tabled to the Public Accounts Commission for ordinary<br />
written answer, of which both were answered within<br />
seven days. Between May 2010 and 12 November 2010<br />
t<strong>here</strong> were no questions tabled for ordinary written<br />
answer.<br />
The Public Accounts Commission has not made an<br />
estimate of the average cost of answering an ordinary<br />
written question within seven days of tabling, but it is<br />
noted that HM Treasury has established the cost of a<br />
written PQ as £154.00. See paragraph 7.27 at the following<br />
link:<br />
http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/parliamentary-clerk-guide/<br />
chapter7.aspx<br />
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE<br />
Akmyrat Rejepow<br />
Neil Parish: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign<br />
and Commonwealth Affairs what representations his<br />
Department has made to the government of<br />
Turkmenistan on the (a) fate and (b) w<strong>here</strong>abouts of<br />
Akmyrat Rejepow. [27314]<br />
Mr Lidington: The Foreign and Commonwealth Office<br />
has made no representations to the Turkmen Government<br />
on the fate and w<strong>here</strong>abouts of Akmyrat Rejepow, nor<br />
are we aware of a request for us to do so. We understand<br />
that Mr Rejepow (a former general in the Turkmen<br />
security apparatus) was sentenced to 20 years’imprisonment<br />
in May 2007, having been convicted on charges of<br />
corruption. We understand he is being held in secure<br />
detention in Ashgabat or in a prison colony not far<br />
from Ashgabat. Mr Rejepow’s son, Nurmurad—arrested<br />
at the same time—was pardoned in 2007.<br />
We continue to have a regular and constructive dialogue<br />
with the Turkmen Government on human rights issues,<br />
both bilaterally and through international fora such as<br />
the European Union. Monitoring and raising individual<br />
cases forms an important component of this dialogue.<br />
British Council: Finance<br />
Mr Frank Roy: To ask the Secretary of State for<br />
Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much funding<br />
was provided by his Department to the British Council<br />
in each year since 2005. [23459]<br />
Mr Jeremy Browne: I refer the hon. Member to the<br />
answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Mid<br />
Sussex (Nicholas Soames) on 27 July 2010, Official<br />
Report, column 970W.<br />
Cayman Islands: Loans<br />
Emma Reynolds: To ask the Secretary of State for<br />
Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what conditions<br />
were placed on the loan of £217 million to the Cayman<br />
Islands authorised in 2009. [27742]<br />
Mr Jeremy Browne: The Government gave permission<br />
for the Cayman Islands Government to borrow Cayman<br />
Island $275 million in October 2009, subject to the<br />
Cayman Islands Government (CIG):<br />
including further savings/efficiency measures in 2009-10 budget<br />
plans;<br />
undertaking an urgent independent impact assessment of the<br />
community enhancement fee, alternative forms of payroll tax,<br />
property tax and any other tax that would genuinely broaden<br />
the revenue base;<br />
introducing substantial new tax(es) or fee(s) as identified in the<br />
impact assessment study as soon as possible and certainly no<br />
later than financial year 2010; and<br />
taking swift action to further cut expenditure and/or raise<br />
additional revenue if a greater than expected deficit was recorded.<br />
Emma Reynolds: To ask the Secretary of State for<br />
Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what conditions<br />
he placed on the loans to the Cayman Islands authorised<br />
in June 2010. [27743]<br />
Mr Jeremy Browne: The Government gave permission<br />
for the Cayman Islands Government to borrow Cayman<br />
Island $155 million in June 2010, subject to:<br />
The measures in the Cayman Islands Government’s<br />
(CIG) three year plan being fully implemented, which<br />
included measures to make significant savings/efficiencies,<br />
and raise revenue by increasing fuel duty over the three<br />
years;<br />
CIG using the proceeds of divestment activity to establish a<br />
dedicated “sinking fund” within the next year to rebuild reserves<br />
and offset debt attached to the recent bond issue;<br />
CIG restructuring existing loans to put in place arrangements<br />
to pay down debt over the longer term; and<br />
CIG ensuring that the Cayman Islands have a full, up-to-date<br />
set of audited accounts by the end of the next financial year;<br />
and<br />
No further requests for borrowing being made over the next<br />
financial year.
827W<br />
Written Answers<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
Written Answers<br />
828W<br />
Diplomatic Service: Domestic Staff<br />
David Morris: To ask the Secretary of State for<br />
Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what regulations<br />
govern the (a) working conditions and (b) remuneration<br />
of domestic staff employed by foreign diplomats accredited<br />
to the UK. [28045]<br />
Mr Bellingham: Article 41 of the Vienna Convention<br />
on Diplomatic Relations 1961 states that, without prejudice<br />
to their privileges and immunities, it is the duty of all<br />
diplomats<br />
‘to respect the laws and regulations of the receiving State’.<br />
This includes employment laws. Diplomatic missions<br />
and international organisations in the UK are periodically<br />
reminded of their responsibilities with regard to the<br />
employment of domestic workers; in August 2010, Protocol<br />
Directorate of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office<br />
issued a note to all missions highlighting their obligations.<br />
Government Departments work together and with nongovernmental<br />
organisations to monitor the employment<br />
rights of domestic workers in foreign diplomatic households<br />
in the UK.<br />
European Union<br />
Mr Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign<br />
and Commonwealth Affairs what powers have been<br />
ceded to the EU and in what areas of policy jurisdiction<br />
has been ceded since 10 May 2010 and in each case<br />
specifying whether such cession was by (a) EU legislative<br />
instrument, (b) judicial decision, (c) operation of a<br />
passerelle provision, (d) the ending of an opt-out, (e)<br />
an agreement to opt-in, (f) treaty amendment and (g)<br />
other means. [26626]<br />
Mr Lidington: All of the legislative measures that<br />
have been adopted since 10 May 2010 have been based<br />
on the existing powers and competences conferred on<br />
the EU under the existing EU treaties, which have been<br />
approved by <strong>Parliament</strong>. None of the passerelles under<br />
the existing EU treaties have been exercised since 10<br />
May 2010. T<strong>here</strong> have been no treaty amendments. We<br />
are not aware of any judicial decisions which have<br />
resulted in a transfer of competence or power from the<br />
UK to the EU. The whole of Title V is an area of shared<br />
competence. This position is not altered by the exercise<br />
of a UK opt-in.<br />
Football: South Africa<br />
Graham Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for<br />
Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much his<br />
Department spent on attendance at the 2010 FIFA<br />
World cup. [26149]<br />
Mr Jeremy Browne: No Foreign and Commonwealth<br />
Office (FCO) Ministers or officials visited South Africa<br />
to attend the 2010 World cup, and no money was spent<br />
by the FCO on purchasing match tickets.<br />
Government Hospitality: Wines<br />
Mr Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign<br />
and Commonwealth Affairs how many bottles of (a)<br />
red wine, (b) white wine, (c) champagne and (d)<br />
fortified wine t<strong>here</strong> are in the Government wine cellar.<br />
[26387]<br />
Mr Bellingham: The Government Hospitality wine<br />
cellar has held between 38,000 and 39,000 bottles of<br />
wine for the last five years. The most recent independent<br />
stock-take in October 2010 showed that the Government<br />
Hospitality wine cellar contained:<br />
(a) 25,721 bottles of red wine<br />
(b) 7,624 bottles of white wine<br />
(c) 1,661 bottles of champagne<br />
(d) 2,937 bottles of fortified wine.<br />
This excludes non-vintage reception wines.<br />
Cellar stock levels are regularly reassessed and the<br />
cellar’s performance and value for money are reviewed<br />
throughout the year.<br />
Mr Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign<br />
and Commonwealth Affairs at which events held<br />
between 11 May and 11 November 2010 wine from the<br />
Government wine cellar was served. [26388]<br />
Mr Bellingham: Events held between 11 May 2010<br />
and 11 November 2010 at which wine from the Government<br />
Hospitality wine cellar was served are as follows.<br />
The following were on a repayment basis:<br />
13 May 2010: Dinner for British-American business hosted by<br />
my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade, Investment and Small<br />
Business.<br />
8 June 2010: Diplomatic reception hosted by my right hon.<br />
Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth<br />
Affairs.<br />
9 June 2010: Dinner for Israeli judges hosted by my right hon.<br />
Friend the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice.<br />
5 July 2010: Reception for the Young Offenders Programme<br />
led by the National Grid hosted by my hon. Friend the <strong>Parliament</strong>ary<br />
Under-Secretary of State for Justice.<br />
28 July 2010: Reception for energy security hosted by my hon.<br />
Friends the Minister of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth<br />
Office and the Minister of State at the Department of Energy and<br />
Climate Change.<br />
13 September 2010: Lunch for Dr Henry Kissinger hosted by<br />
my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and<br />
Commonwealth Affairs.<br />
21 September 2010: Reception for Eid hosted by my right hon.<br />
Friends the Home Secretary, the Secretary of State for Communities<br />
and Local Government, my hon. Friend the <strong>Parliament</strong>ary Under-<br />
Secretary of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office,<br />
and other Government Ministers.<br />
9 November 2010: Dinner for the Secretary of Defence for the<br />
Republic of South Africa hosted by my right hon. Friend the<br />
<strong>Parliament</strong>ary Under-Secretary of State for International Security<br />
Strategy.<br />
The following were funded by Government Hospitality<br />
Fund:<br />
3 June 2010: Lunch for the Prime Minister of Canada hosted<br />
by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.<br />
3 June 2010: Dinner for the EU High Representative for<br />
Foreign Affairs hosted by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of<br />
State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.<br />
3 June 2010: Dinner for the Judicial Conference hosted by my<br />
right hon. Friends the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for<br />
Justice.<br />
8 June 2010: Lunch for the Secretary of Defence of the <strong>United</strong><br />
States of America hosted by my right hon. Friend the Secretary<br />
of State for Defence.<br />
16 June 2010: Lunch for the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the<br />
<strong>United</strong> Arab Emirates hosted by my right hon. Friend the Secretary<br />
of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.
829W<br />
Written Answers<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
Written Answers<br />
830W<br />
18 June 2010: Lunches for the President of the Republic of<br />
France and his Ministers hosted by my right hon. Friends the<br />
Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister.<br />
23 June 2010: Dinner for Reconnaissance Visit from the Holy<br />
See hosted by my noble Friend the right hon. Lord Patten of<br />
Barnes CH PC (Chancellor of the University of Oxford).<br />
28 June 2010: Lunch for the Minister of Defence of the<br />
Federal Republic of Germany hosted by my right hon. Friend<br />
Secretary of State for Defence.<br />
28 June 2010: Dinner for the Five Country Conference hosted<br />
by my hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration.<br />
5 July 2010: Lunch for the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the<br />
Hashemite <strong>Kingdom</strong> of Jordan hosted by my right hon. Friend<br />
the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.<br />
7 July 2010: Dinner for the international energy forums hosted<br />
by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Climate<br />
Change.<br />
8 July 2010: Lunch for the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the<br />
Republic of Turkey hosted by my hon. Friend the Secretary of<br />
State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.<br />
20 July 2010: Reception for Indian Government/industry officials<br />
who attended the Farnborough International Air Show hosted by<br />
my hon. Friend the <strong>Parliament</strong>ary Under-Secretary of State for<br />
International Security Strategy.<br />
28 July 2010: Lunch for the State Secretary of Labour and<br />
Social Affairs of the Federal Republic of Germany hosted by my<br />
hon. Friend the Minister of State for Employment.<br />
5 August 2010: Dinner for the President of Pakistan hosted by<br />
my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.<br />
6 September 2010: Dinner for the capital markets climate<br />
initiative hosted by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for<br />
Energy and Climate Change.<br />
8 September 2010: Dinner for the Deputy Prime Minister and<br />
Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam<br />
hosted by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Commonwealth<br />
Affairs.<br />
17 September 2010: Dinner for Pope Benedict XVI’s delegation<br />
hosted by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign<br />
and Commonwealth Affairs.<br />
27 September 2010: Lunch for the Minister for Roads, Transport<br />
and Highways of the Republic of India hosted by my right hon.<br />
Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.<br />
27 September 2010: Lunch for the Reconnaissance Party for<br />
the state visit of the Emir of Qatar.<br />
21 October 2010: Lunch for the UK/Mexico high level talks<br />
hosted by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Foreign<br />
and Commonwealth Office.<br />
21 October 2010: Lunch for the Minister of Foreign Affairs of<br />
the Republic of Poland hosted by my right hon. Friend the<br />
Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.<br />
25 October 2010: Lunch for the Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi<br />
hosted by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.<br />
25 October 2010: Lunch for the Finance Minister for the Swiss<br />
Confederation hosted by my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary<br />
to the Treasury.<br />
26/27 October 2010: Lunch and state banquet for the state visit<br />
of the Emir of Qatar hosted by Her Majesty the Queen.<br />
27 October 2010: Dinner for the Secretary for Policy, Strategy<br />
and International Affairs of the Federative Republic of Brazil<br />
hosted by my hon. Friend the <strong>Parliament</strong>ary Under-Secretary of<br />
State for International Security Strategy.<br />
30/31 October 2010: Lunch and dinner for the Chancellor of<br />
the Federal Republic of Germany hosted by my right hon. Friend<br />
the Prime Minister.<br />
2 November 2010: Lunch for the UK-France summit hosted<br />
by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.<br />
8 November 2010: Dinner for the International Energy Forum<br />
hosted by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Energy and<br />
Climate Change.<br />
11 November 2010 Lunch for the Minister for Foreign Affairs<br />
of the Republic of Austria hosted by my right hon. Friend the<br />
Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.<br />
Iraq: Christianity<br />
Mr MacNeil: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign<br />
and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to the answer to<br />
the hon. Member for the Wrekin of 15 November 2010,<br />
Official Report, column 631W, on Iraq: Christianity,<br />
what the outcomes were of his meeting with the Iraqi<br />
Foreign Minister; and if he will take further steps to<br />
seek to secure protection for institutions in Iraq. [27860]<br />
Alistair Burt: Iraqi Foreign Minister Zebari confirmed<br />
to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on 10<br />
November that the protection of minorities was the<br />
responsibility of the Iraqi Government. This responsibility<br />
has been recognised more widely by the Iraqi Prime<br />
Minister and the newly elected Speaker of the Council<br />
of Representatives Usamah Al-Nujaifi. The Speaker<br />
has requested that Christian MP Yonadam Kanna form<br />
a parliamentary committee to prepare recommendations<br />
for protecting Christians and follow up investigations<br />
into the recent attacks. The Iraqi Council of Representatives<br />
has also called for increased recruitment of Christians<br />
into the Iraq security forces.<br />
During my visit to Iraq from 22-25 November I<br />
raised the need to improve the protection of Christians<br />
and other minorities with all his interlocutors. The<br />
British Government will continue to press the Iraqi<br />
Government to ensure that Iraqi constitutional<br />
commitments to guarantee the rights and freedoms of<br />
citizens is respected and protected. We will also continue<br />
to urge the Iraqi Government to protect all communities,<br />
especially vulnerable minority groups and to deal<br />
appropriately with those who are found responsible for<br />
any acts of violence and intimidation because of political,<br />
ethnic or religious affiliation.<br />
Israel: OECD<br />
Mr Slaughter: To ask the Secretary of State for<br />
Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the UK<br />
representation is on the Organisation for Economic<br />
Co-operation and Development (a) Committee of Statistics<br />
and (b) study team quantifying the effects on Israeli<br />
macro-economic statistics of the inclusion of the Golan<br />
Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the<br />
West Bank. [25635]<br />
Mr Jeremy Browne: The UK Statistics Authority<br />
represents the UK on the Organisation for Economic<br />
Cooperation and Development Committee on Statistics.<br />
The authority will also represent the UK on the study<br />
team quantifying the effects on Israeli macro-economic<br />
statistics of the inclusion of the Golan Heights, East<br />
Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the West Bank.<br />
This work is expected to begin in early 2011.<br />
Palestinians: International Assistance<br />
Mr Offord: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign<br />
and Commonwealth Affairs (1) how much funding his<br />
Department provided to non-governmental organisations<br />
within the Palestinian Authorities of the West Bank and<br />
Gaza in each financial year since 2003; and for what<br />
purposes such funds were allocated; [21986]
831W<br />
Written Answers<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
Written Answers<br />
832W<br />
(2) how much funding his Department has provided<br />
to non-governmental organisations located in the<br />
Palestinian authorities of the West Bank and Gaza in<br />
each financial year since 2003; and for what purposes<br />
such payments were made. [25737]<br />
Alistair Burt: Between 2003-04 and 2009-10 financial<br />
years, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO)<br />
has provided £2,420,960 to non-governmental organisations<br />
within the West Bank and Gaza. The breakdown is as<br />
follows:<br />
2003-04 1<br />
—<br />
2004-05 122,000<br />
2005-06 104,482<br />
2006-07 542,328<br />
2007-08 484,113<br />
2008-09 604,824<br />
2009-10 563,213<br />
1<br />
No allocation<br />
The list of organisations and project funding for<br />
2010-11 is an indicative list, as funding cannot be confirmed<br />
at this point of the financial year.<br />
The FCO utilises a number of funding programmes<br />
with the purpose of (a) strengthening the bilateral<br />
relationship (b) helping to manage or mitigate conflicts<br />
and (c) developing the capacity of non-state actors in<br />
the West Bank and Gaza to provide oversight of the<br />
Executive and its actions including monitoring of human<br />
rights, access to justice and social welfare.<br />
Piracy<br />
Mr Spellar: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign<br />
and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he<br />
has had with his NATO counterparts on the development<br />
of policy to counter international piracy. [27107]<br />
Mr Lidington: T<strong>here</strong> have been no recent meetings at<br />
North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) at ministerial<br />
level specifically to discuss counter piracy. But, in the<br />
communiqué of its recent Lisbon summit, NATO renewed<br />
its commitment to counter piracy in the Gulf of Aden<br />
and Indian Ocean through its Operation Ocean Shield.<br />
NATO works closely alongside the EU’s Operation<br />
Atalanta and the Combined Maritime Forces so as to<br />
respond effectively and co<strong>here</strong>ntly to the threat of piracy,<br />
including on allocation of assets to the large area of<br />
operations. NATO is also a key partner in the Contact<br />
Group on Piracy off the Coast of Somalia, working<br />
comprehensively to address operational, legal and regional<br />
capacity concerns to ensure that piracy is tackled on a<br />
sustainable basis, including at its roots.<br />
The UK continues to support the operation, which<br />
has recently has had its mandate extended until 2012.<br />
The Royal Navy currently has a frigate and auxiliary<br />
vessel allocated to Operation Ocean Shield.<br />
BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND SKILLS<br />
Agriculture: Training<br />
Dr Poulter: To ask the Secretary of State for Business,<br />
Innovation and Skills (1) how much funding from the<br />
public purse will be available for (a) apprenticeship<br />
schemes and (b) vocational courses in the agricultural<br />
£<br />
sector (i) nationally and (ii) in Central Suffolk and<br />
North Ipswich constituency in 2011-12. [26866]<br />
(2) how many places will be available for (a)<br />
apprenticeship schemes and (b) vocational courses in<br />
the agricultural sector (i) nationally and (ii) in the<br />
Central Suffolk and North Ipswich constituency in<br />
2011-12. [26867]<br />
Mr Hayes: “Investing Skills for Sustainable Growth”<br />
was published on 16 November. In the 2011-12 financial<br />
year, we plan to invest £3.9 billion in FE skills for post<br />
19 learners. This includes £3.7 billion for over three<br />
million adult training places funded through the Skills<br />
Funding Agency. In the 2011-12 financial year, £605 million<br />
is earmarked for adult apprenticeships. Spend on adult<br />
apprenticeships will increase by up to £250 million,<br />
relative to the previous Government, by the end of the<br />
spending review period, supporting an additional 75,000<br />
people to start an apprenticeship by 2014-15.<br />
In support of the coalition Government’s principle<br />
of greater freedom, “Skills for Sustainable Growth and<br />
Investing in Skills for Sustainable Growth” set out the<br />
abolition of central targets and increased freedom and<br />
flexibility for further education colleges and training<br />
organisations to respond effectively to the needs of<br />
employers, learners and their communities. It will be for<br />
individual colleges and training organisations, working<br />
directly with their local partners, to determine the offer<br />
that best meets the needs of their communities.<br />
From the 2011/12 academic year, t<strong>here</strong> will be a single<br />
adult skills budget, with earmarked delivery for<br />
apprenticeships. As part of its allocations process later<br />
this year, the Skills Funding Agency will set out a<br />
minimum expectation of apprenticeships delivery. Further<br />
Education colleges and training organisations will be<br />
able to use their single adult skills budget allocation to<br />
expand apprenticeships. However, any diversion of funding<br />
away from apprenticeships is to be agreed with the<br />
Agency.<br />
Information on learner participation and achievement<br />
in further education is published in a quarterly statistical<br />
first release (SFR). The latest SFR was published on 16<br />
November and can be viewed at:<br />
http://www.thedataservice.org.uk/statistics/<br />
statisticalfirstrelease/sfr_current<br />
Credit: Regulation<br />
Stella Creasy: To ask the Secretary of State for Business,<br />
Innovation and Skills whether his Department has made<br />
an estimate of the numbers of UK residents who have<br />
been refused access to credit through banks and building<br />
societies in the last 10 years. [26472]<br />
Mr Prisk [holding answer 30 November 2010]: The<br />
Government do not collect data on the number of UK<br />
residents refused credit by banks and building societies.<br />
The Department of Business, Innovation and Skills<br />
commissions a quarterly survey (carried out by YouGov),<br />
which monitors the latest consumer credit and debt<br />
trends. The following table has been produced from this<br />
survey, showing the proportion of the population who<br />
have applied for credit (broken down by credit type) in<br />
the last six months and the outcome of this application.
833W<br />
Written Answers<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
Written Answers<br />
834W<br />
Proportion of the population who have applied for unsecured credit and<br />
the outcome of this application (w<strong>here</strong> the outcome is known) in the<br />
last six months<br />
Credit<br />
product<br />
Proportion of the<br />
population who<br />
applied for credit/<br />
loans<br />
(percentage)<br />
Application<br />
was rejected<br />
(percentage)<br />
Percentage of<br />
total population<br />
Credit card 8 24 1.9<br />
Unsecured<br />
3 33 0.7<br />
loan<br />
Overdraft<br />
2 29 0.8<br />
facility<br />
Store card 1 19 0.3<br />
Mail order 1 14 0.2<br />
Car finance<br />
1 9 0.1<br />
loan<br />
Notes:<br />
1. Based on 2009-10 YouGov data, sample size 13,172.<br />
2. The statistics in the table need to be interpreted with caution. Due<br />
to data limitations, we are unable to say how many individuals were<br />
refused credit completely in the last six months. For instance, a<br />
borrower may have refused a credit card, but was able to secure an<br />
overdraft facility. In addition, the values in the table cannot be<br />
summed, to produce statistics on the proportion of the population<br />
refused credit. This is because some borrowers may have been rejected<br />
for more than one credit product. Certain credit products have been<br />
excluded such as payday loans and home credit, which are unlikely to<br />
be offered by banks and building societies.<br />
Departmental Food<br />
Julian Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Business,<br />
Innovation and Skills whether his Department has<br />
guidelines on ensuring that food used for his Department’s<br />
official functions is of domestic origin. [25438]<br />
Mr Davey: The Department’s contracted catering<br />
and conference supplier Baxterstorey are accredited to<br />
the Red Tractor Farm Assurance Scheme and are fully<br />
compliant, demonstrating robust support for enhanced<br />
animal welfare, environmental responsibility, quality<br />
produce and supporting British producers.<br />
The Department ad<strong>here</strong>s w<strong>here</strong>ver possible to the<br />
five key objectives of the Public Sector Food Procurement<br />
Initiative (PSFPI). These objectives run in parallel to<br />
those of Baxterstorey, which form part of the policies<br />
that result in the approach to sustainable and ethical<br />
procurement. For example all eggs used on the departmental<br />
estate are British, Lion Brand standard and free range<br />
and 99% of all pork and bacon products are British and<br />
supplied by Red Tractor accredited suppliers.<br />
Higher Education: Admissions<br />
Elizabeth Truss: To ask the Secretary of State for<br />
Business, Innovation and Skills what the participation<br />
rate was of people aged 18 years in each income<br />
quintile entering higher education for the first time in<br />
the latest period for which figures are available. [27759]<br />
Mr Willetts: The Department does not publish<br />
information in the form requested. Latest figures show<br />
that 15% of pupils aged 15 in 2003/04 who claimed free<br />
school meals (FSM) at English maintained schools<br />
progressed to HE by the age of 19 in 2007/08. The<br />
equivalent figure for young people who did not claim<br />
free school meals is 33%.<br />
FSM eligibility is means tested and the majority of<br />
FSM young people are from households in receipt of<br />
some form of income support. Some 14% of young<br />
people claim free school meals.<br />
These figures have been estimated using matched<br />
data from the National Pupil Database, the Higher<br />
Education Statistics Agency Student Record and the<br />
Learning and Skills Council Individualised Learner<br />
Record. Figures for 2008/09 will be available next year.<br />
The Department uses a number of measures to monitor<br />
progress on participation of disadvantaged students,<br />
such as those from low participation neighbourhoods,<br />
and low socio-economic groups. However, figures in<br />
this answer have been provided as receipt of FSM is<br />
directly related to family income.<br />
Higher Education: Finance<br />
Mr Nicholas Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for<br />
Business, Innovation and Skills pursuant to the answer<br />
of 11 November 2010, Official Report, column 480W,<br />
on higher education: finance, what the outcomes were<br />
of his discussions with the Secretary of State for Work<br />
and Pensions. [27309]<br />
Mr Willetts: The Secretary of State for Business,<br />
Innovation and Skills, my right hon. Friend the Member<br />
for Twickenham (Vince Cable) and I have discussed the<br />
proposed changes to higher education funding and<br />
student finance at Cabinet. Our statements to the House<br />
of Commons on this subject reflect the Government<br />
position, as agreed at these meetings.<br />
Local Enterprise Partnerships<br />
Alex Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for<br />
Business, Innovation and Skills what plans he has to<br />
fund the development of Local Enterprise Partnerships;<br />
by what mechanisms such partnerships will he be able<br />
to bid for funds from his Department to fulfil their<br />
duties; and if he will make a statement. [27714]<br />
Mr Prisk: No central Government spending has been<br />
allocated specifically to fund the activities of local<br />
enterprise partnerships. As set out in the White Paper<br />
on Local Growth local enterprise partnerships will be<br />
expected to fund their own day-to-day running costs<br />
and will also want to consider how they can obtain the<br />
best value for public money by leveraging in private<br />
sector investment. The mechanisms for how local enterprise<br />
partnerships may bid for centrally available funds, such<br />
as the regional growth fund, will be specific to the fund<br />
itself. Details regarding how to access the regional<br />
growth fund can be found on the Department’s website<br />
at the following address:<br />
http://www.bis.gov.uk/policies/regional-economicdevelopment/regional-growth-fund<br />
Manufacturing Industries: Trade Competitiveness<br />
Mr Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State<br />
for Business, Innovation and Skills what plans he has to<br />
support competitiveness in the manufacturing sector.<br />
[27090]
835W<br />
Written Answers<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
Written Answers<br />
836W<br />
Mr Prisk: The Government are supporting<br />
manufacturing by creating a stable business environment<br />
that will give businesses the confidence they need to<br />
plan and invest. We are doing this by creating a more<br />
supportive tax environment, freeing up credit through<br />
the banking system, reducing regulation, maximising<br />
the flexibility of the labour market and focusing on<br />
training and apprenticeships. The Government announced<br />
in the spending review that they will invest up to £200<br />
million to support manufacturing and business development<br />
focusing on high growth business and innovation<br />
particularly among small and medium sized businesses.<br />
The Government have launched their comprehensive<br />
growth review and this will ensure that all Departments<br />
are actively removing barriers faced by industry.<br />
As part of the phased reporting process, we will<br />
conduct a detailed look into barriers to growth within<br />
advanced manufacturing.<br />
Also on 6 December we will be launching a new<br />
approach to manufacturing that will highlight key<br />
ambitions, identify growth opportunities and set out a<br />
new framework of actions for both Government and<br />
industry.<br />
raise awareness of opportunities in Bahrain, including a<br />
middle east road show in February and a financial<br />
services road show in September. UKTI also staged a<br />
‘Britain in the Region’ event in Dubai in November<br />
aimed at encouraging British companies with regional<br />
headquarters in Dubai into other markets in the middle<br />
east, including Bahrain.<br />
ATTORNEY-GENERAL<br />
EU Law<br />
Priti Patel: To ask the Attorney-General how many<br />
EU directives are pending transposition into domestic<br />
legislation by the Law Officers’ Departments; and what<br />
estimate he has made of the cost of each such transposition.<br />
[27482]<br />
The Attorney-General: The information is as follows:<br />
1. None<br />
2. None.<br />
Regional Growth Fund<br />
Mr Nicholas Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for<br />
Business, Innovation and Skills pursuant to the answer<br />
of 11 November 2010, Official Report, column 485W,<br />
on the Regional Growth Fund, what types of proposals<br />
will meet the criteria to be considered as strategic<br />
investment programmes. [27335]<br />
Mr Prisk: T<strong>here</strong> will be a separate bidding form and<br />
guidance for programme proposals, which will be made<br />
available in early 2011. Programme proposals are t<strong>here</strong>fore<br />
not included within the first bidding round.<br />
UK Trade and Investment: Bahrain<br />
Priti Patel: To ask the Secretary of State for Business,<br />
Innovation and Skills what steps UKTI is taking to<br />
increase trade and investment with the <strong>Kingdom</strong> of<br />
Bahrain. [27807]<br />
Mr Prisk: UK Trade and Investment (UKTI) supports<br />
business with Bahrain through trade and investment<br />
teams based in the British embassy in Manama and in<br />
the UK. UKTI provides a broad range of support for<br />
British companies—from conferences and trade missions<br />
to support for trade fairs and exhibitions—and also<br />
oversees annual trade and economic talks with Bahrain<br />
aimed at prioritising opportunities and improving the<br />
environment for bilateral trade and investment. The<br />
most recent talks resulted in the signature of a bilateral<br />
Double Taxation Agreement in March 2010.<br />
Recent examples of support for business with Bahrain<br />
include visits by the Lord Mayor of the City of London<br />
in February; and by the UK’s Special Representative<br />
for International Trade and Investment, HRH The Duke<br />
of York, in May. UKTI organised scoping visits to<br />
Bahrain in the spring of 2010 focused on the creative<br />
industries and sports infrastructure sectors; and also<br />
organised a UK pavilion of 18 companies at the World<br />
Islamic Banking Conference in Manama in November.<br />
Regular events are organised by UKTI in the UK to<br />
PRIME MINISTER<br />
Pupils: Bullying<br />
Mrs Glindon: To ask the Prime Minister if he will<br />
establish a Cabinet Sub-Committee on the prevention<br />
of and responses to bullying in schools. [27708]<br />
The Prime Minister: The Schools White Paper made<br />
clear our expectation that all schools should take a zero<br />
tolerance approach to bullying. Bullying in schools is<br />
discussed by the relevant Cabinet Committees.<br />
CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT<br />
Arts: Cumbria County Council<br />
Tony Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for<br />
Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport what recent<br />
assessment he has made of the effect of local authority<br />
funding reductions on arts organisations based in the<br />
Cumbria county council area. [27729]<br />
Mr Vaizey: It is central Government’s role to empower<br />
local communities and local authorities to make the<br />
decisions that they feel are most appropriate for their<br />
area.<br />
The Department will continue to fund the arts through<br />
Arts Council England, who provide support to a number<br />
of regularly funded organisations across the country.<br />
Arts: Sunderland City Council<br />
Mrs Hodgson: To ask the Secretary of State for<br />
Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport what recent assessment<br />
he has made of the likely effects of local authority<br />
funding reductions on arts organisations in the Sunderland<br />
city council area. [27805]
837W<br />
Written Answers<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
Written Answers<br />
838W<br />
Mr Vaizey: It is central Government’s role to empower<br />
local communities and local authorities to make the<br />
decisions that they feel are most appropriate for their<br />
area.<br />
The Department will continue to fund the arts through<br />
Arts Council England, who provide support to a number<br />
of regularly funded organisations across the country.<br />
Broadband<br />
Ian Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture,<br />
Olympics, Media and Sport what estimate he has made<br />
of the cost to the economy of the introduction of<br />
high-speed broadband services across the UK by 2015;<br />
and if he will make a statement. [27683]<br />
Mr Vaizey [holding answer 30 November 2010]: Overall,<br />
we believe t<strong>here</strong> will be a net benefit to the economy<br />
from introduction of superfast broadband. The<br />
Government have made no recent estimate of the costs<br />
of deploying superfast broadband. The Broadband<br />
Stakeholder Group recently published a complementary<br />
report on the costs of fixed wireless and satellite broadband.<br />
The Government have committed £530 million to<br />
facilitate the delivery of universal broadband and stimulate<br />
private sector investment to deliver the best superfast<br />
broadband network in Europe by 2015<br />
Co-production Agreement between the UK and Israel<br />
Mike Weatherley: To ask the Secretary of State for<br />
Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport what estimate he<br />
has made of the revenue likely to be raised as a result of<br />
the co-production agreement between the UK and<br />
Israel in (a) 2010, (b) 2011, (c) 2012, (d) 2013 and<br />
(e) 2014. [27239]<br />
Mr Vaizey: We have estimated an average annual<br />
benefit of between £0.5 million and £2.5 million. The<br />
monetised benefits reflect spending on films which would<br />
not have occurred without the treaty being in place. The<br />
range reflects a lower case scenario w<strong>here</strong> one film is<br />
made every two years with £1 million UK spend, and<br />
the upper case involves five films with £1 million spend<br />
made every two years.<br />
In addition, research indicates that film locations can<br />
get up to a 30% boost in bookings from fans visiting<br />
locations from their favourite film (e.g. the Harry Potter<br />
films have helped boost tourism in the Northumberland<br />
area by 16%). As well as clear tourism potential, t<strong>here</strong><br />
are cultural benefits to the UK of greater film diversity.<br />
Given that the film industry largely comprises Single<br />
Purpose Vehicles it is difficult to predict in advance how<br />
many businesses will make use of the treaty. We do not<br />
believe it will be significantly higher than projections,<br />
particularly in the first few years.<br />
Mike Weatherley: To ask the Secretary of State for<br />
Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport whether he has<br />
assessed the merits of extending to other countries the<br />
provisions of the co-production agreement agreed with<br />
Israel. [27248]<br />
Mr Vaizey: The recently signed film co-production<br />
agreements with Israel, and with the Palestine Liberation<br />
Organisation (PLO) on behalf of the Palestinian Authority,<br />
were the ninth and tenth agreements respectively to be<br />
signed in full. The Department for Culture, Media and<br />
Sport also has similar co-production agreements with<br />
Australia, Canada, France, Jamaica, New Zealand, South<br />
Africa, India and Morocco—the Moroccan treaty was<br />
signed last year but has yet to be fully ratified by the<br />
Moroccan authorities.<br />
Copyright: Recordings<br />
Mike Weatherley: To ask the Secretary of State for<br />
Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport if he will assess<br />
the likely effect on the British music industry of the<br />
expiry of 50 years copyright on recordings in the next<br />
10 years. [27347]<br />
Mr Davey: I have been asked to reply.<br />
I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 18<br />
November 2010, Official Report, columns 889-890W.<br />
T<strong>here</strong> are no plans to undertake the work described.<br />
Departmental Sponsorship<br />
Priti Patel: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture,<br />
Olympics, Media and Sport what expenditure (a) his<br />
Department and (b) its non-departmental public<br />
bodies incurred on sponsorship in each year since 1997<br />
for which figures are available. [27520]<br />
John Penrose: The Department does not provide<br />
corporate sponsorship or branding for events but it<br />
does encourage sponsorship of its sectors from the<br />
world of business.<br />
Data on expenditure incurred by non-departmental<br />
public bodies is not held centrally. Accordingly, I have<br />
asked the chief executive of each non-departmental<br />
public body to respond to the hon. Member for Witham<br />
directly. A copy of the responses will be placed in the<br />
Libraries of both Houses.<br />
Newsquest Media Group<br />
Katy Clark: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture,<br />
Olympics, Media and Sport what recent meetings (a)<br />
Ministers and (b) civil servants in his Department have<br />
had with directors of the Newsquest Media Group on<br />
local media provision. [27336]<br />
Mr Vaizey: As part of Nicholas Shott’s review of<br />
local TV he undertook a visit to Scotland w<strong>here</strong> he met<br />
with a range of interested parties including Newsquest.<br />
He was accompanied by a member of his steering group<br />
and an official from the Department.<br />
TREASURY<br />
Air Passenger Duty<br />
Richard Fuller: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer<br />
(1) if he will change the basis for calculating air passenger<br />
duty banding from London to capital city of destination<br />
to London to destination; [26546]<br />
(2) if he will change the air passenger duty banding<br />
for destinations in the Caribbean to be the same as that<br />
for destinations on the east coast of the <strong>United</strong> States.<br />
[26545]
839W<br />
Written Answers<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
Written Answers<br />
840W<br />
Justine Greening: The June Budget stated that the<br />
Government will explore changes to the aviation tax<br />
system, including switching from a per-passenger to a<br />
per-plane duty. Major changes will be subject to<br />
consultation.<br />
Banks: Finance<br />
Frank Dobson: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer<br />
what the monetary value is of (a) loans and (b) guarantees<br />
given to UK banks by his Department since 2007.<br />
[26984]<br />
Mr Hoban: A full breakdown of financial support<br />
provided to UK banks is published by the Treasury on a<br />
financial year basis. Details of the support provided for<br />
the years 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 are set out in<br />
the Treasury’s Resource Accounts for 2007-08 (HC<br />
539), 2008-09 (HC 611) and 2009-10 (HC261), respectively.<br />
Banks: Loans<br />
Mr Nicholas Brown: To ask the Chancellor of the<br />
Exchequer pursuant to the answer of 18 November<br />
2010, Official Report, column 894W, on banks: loans, if<br />
he will undertake an assessment of trends in the criteria<br />
for setting personal guarantees for loans over the last<br />
10 years. [27308]<br />
Mr Hoban: In response to the Government’s Green<br />
Paper on business finance, the British Bankers; Association<br />
(BBA) published the outcomes of their Business Finance<br />
Taskforce, which was written in conjunction with the<br />
six major UK banks.<br />
As part of these commitments, the banks have agreed<br />
to fund and establish an independent business survey.<br />
This survey will provide more information of the experience<br />
of small businesses in applying for finance.<br />
Copyright: Music<br />
Mike Weatherley: To ask the Chancellor of the<br />
Exchequer if he will estimate the additional revenue to<br />
the Exchequer attributable to an extension to 75 years<br />
of musicians’ copyright in the last 10 years. [27346]<br />
Mr Gauke: I refer the hon. Gentlemen to the answer<br />
I gave him on 22 November 2010, Official Report,<br />
column 84W.<br />
Employers’ Liability: Asbestos<br />
Andrea Leadsom: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer<br />
if he will bring forward proposals for a requirement for<br />
employers to insure themselves against potential harm<br />
caused to employees by asbestosis. [24112]<br />
Chris Grayling: I have been asked to reply.<br />
The Employers’ Liability (Compulsory Insurance)<br />
Act 1969 requires employers carrying on business in<br />
Great Britain to insure their liability to their employees<br />
for bodily injury or disease sustained in the course of<br />
their employment. This Act ensures that those with<br />
asbestos-related diseases can claim compensation against<br />
their Employers’ Liability insurance, w<strong>here</strong> the employer<br />
has been negligent in exposing them to asbestos while at<br />
work.<br />
However, a recent Court of Appeal case has considered<br />
how the wording of these Employers’ Liability insurance<br />
policies affects civil compensation for mesothelioma<br />
sufferers and we had hoped that the judgment would<br />
have provided a general principle on how these policies<br />
should deal with their mesothelioma claims. The court<br />
decided that the policies should be interpreted based on<br />
the actual policy wording, which means that some<br />
sufferers may not be able to claim compensation if the<br />
insurance policy was worded in such a way that prevents<br />
a claim from being made. We expect this judgment to be<br />
appealed to the Supreme Court.<br />
In February 2010 the previous Government published<br />
their consultation document, Accessing Compensation—<br />
Supporting people who need to trace employers’ liability<br />
insurance, which set out proposals for people who need<br />
to find their Employers’ Liability insurance policies in<br />
order to claim compensation. The consultation closed<br />
on 5 May 2010. T<strong>here</strong> were two proposals; firstly an<br />
Employers’ Liability Tracing Office, that would manage<br />
a database of EL policies. Secondly, an Employers’<br />
Liability Insurance Bureau which would be a compensation<br />
fund of last resort for those individuals who are unable<br />
to trace EL insurance records, ensuring they are able to<br />
receive compensation for injuries or diseases sustained<br />
during the course of their employment. We are in active<br />
discussions with all stakeholders on how this situation<br />
can be addressed and we will publish our response to<br />
the consultation in due course.<br />
Income Tax<br />
John Mann: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer<br />
what estimate he has made of the amount of revenue<br />
which accrued from income tax from employees in each<br />
business sector in each of the last three years. [27548]<br />
Mr Gauke: A sectoral breakdown of income tax<br />
revenues for the latest three years is not available.<br />
Estimated shares of pay as you earn tax liabilities<br />
deducted from pay (excluding pensions) by industry to<br />
2007-08 are published in table 2.10 on the HMRC<br />
website:<br />
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/income_tax/table2-10.xls<br />
Total PAYE tax (excluding pensions) is estimated at<br />
£107.2 billion, £115.7 billion and £123.3 billion in respect<br />
of liabilities for 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08 respectively.<br />
Members: Correspondence<br />
Kevin Brennan: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer<br />
when the Chief Secretary to the Treasury plans to respond<br />
to the letters of 17 September 2010 and 1 November<br />
2010 from the hon. Member for Cardiff West. [27753]<br />
Mr Hoban: I have replied to the hon. Member.<br />
Mortgages<br />
Harriett Baldwin: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer<br />
(1) whether he has assessed the effect of the mortgage<br />
market proposals made by the Financial Services Authority<br />
on small businesses with a turnover under £1 million;<br />
[27483]
841W<br />
Written Answers<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
Written Answers<br />
842W<br />
(2) what assessment he has made of the likely effect<br />
on house prices of the mortgage market proposals<br />
made by the Financial Services Authority; and if he<br />
will make a statement. [27484]<br />
Mr Hoban: The Government are committed to a<br />
healthy housing and mortgage market.<br />
The Financial Services Authority (FSA) is conducting<br />
a wholesale review of mortgage regulation in the UK,<br />
the ‘Mortgage Market Review’.<br />
The Government believe that it is right for the FSA<br />
to ensure that the UK mortgage market has responsible<br />
lending practices. We will continue to work with the<br />
FSA, mortgage lenders and intermediaries, and consumer<br />
groups to ensure a mortgage market that is sustainable<br />
for all participants.<br />
The FSA published ‘Mortgage Market Review:<br />
Responsible Lending’ in July which sets out the detail of<br />
some of the proposed changes. This paper forms one<br />
part of an ongoing consultation process.<br />
The FSA has stated that they will fully assess the<br />
potential impact on the market before implementing<br />
any rule changes. Further, the FSA will consult in 2011<br />
on transitional measures to help mitigate any adverse<br />
effects on existing borrowers.<br />
Mr Syms: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer<br />
(1) whether he has assessed the effect of the mortgage<br />
market proposals made by the Financial Services<br />
Authority on small businesses with a turnover under<br />
£1 million; [27533]<br />
(2) whether he has assessed the effect of the Financial<br />
Services Authority’s mortgage market review proposals<br />
on the (a) availability of mortgages and (b) operation<br />
of the housing market; and if he will make a statement;<br />
[27534]<br />
(3) whether he has discussed with the Council of<br />
Mortgage Lenders the proposals on responsible lending<br />
made by the Financial Services Authority and their<br />
likely effect on the housing market; [27535]<br />
(4) if he will take steps to ensure that the implementation<br />
of the Financial Services Authority’s mortgage market<br />
review proposals does not have a negative effect on<br />
home-buyers and the housing market; [27536]<br />
(5) what estimate he has made of the number of<br />
borrowers who may not be able to take out remortgages<br />
following the introduction of the Financial Services<br />
Authority’s proposals for the mortgage market; and if<br />
he will bring forward measures to assist such borrowers;<br />
[27539]<br />
(6) what estimate he has made of the number of<br />
mortgages granted since 2005 which would not have<br />
been issued under the Financial Services Authority’s<br />
proposals for the mortgage market; [27540]<br />
(7) if he will take steps to ensure that (a) self-employed<br />
and (b) other homebuyers with variable incomes will be<br />
able to obtain mortgages under the Financial Services<br />
Authority’s proposals for the mortgage market; [27544]<br />
(8) what assessment he has made of the likely effects<br />
of implementation of the Financial Services Authority’s<br />
proposals on availability of mortgage finance on homeownership<br />
in the UK. [27537]<br />
Mr Hoban: The Government are committed to a<br />
healthy housing and mortgage market.<br />
The Financial Services Authority (FSA) is conducting<br />
a wholesale review of mortgage regulation in the UK,<br />
the ‘Mortgage Market Review’.<br />
The Government believe that it is right for the FSA<br />
to ensure that the UK mortgage market has responsible<br />
lending practices. We will continue to work with the<br />
FSA, mortgage lenders and intermediaries, and consumer<br />
groups to ensure a mortgage market that is sustainable<br />
for all participants.<br />
The FSA published ‘Mortgage Market Review:<br />
Responsible Lending in July’, which sets out the details<br />
of some of the proposed changes. This paper forms one<br />
part of an ongoing consultation process.<br />
The FSA has stated that they will fully assess the<br />
potential impact on the market before implementing<br />
any rule changes. Further, the FSA will consult in 2011<br />
on transitional measures to help mitigate any adverse<br />
effects on existing borrowers.<br />
Treasury Ministers and officials have discussions with<br />
a wide variety of organisations in the public and private<br />
sectors as part of the process of policy development<br />
and delivery. As was the case with previous Administrations,<br />
it is not the Government’s practice to provide details of<br />
all such discussions.<br />
Private Finance Initiative: Newton Abbot<br />
Anne Marie Morris: To ask the Chancellor of the<br />
Exchequer what schemes under the Private Finance<br />
Initiative t<strong>here</strong> are in Newton Abbot constituency.<br />
[26022]<br />
Danny Alexander: A list of signed and in procurement<br />
PFI projects can be found on HM Treasury’s website at:<br />
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/ppp_pfi_stats.htm<br />
For each PFI project, this list details the project name,<br />
the capital value, the constituency, the procuring authority<br />
and whether it is on or off balance sheet; as used by the<br />
ONS in calculating public sector net debt. This indicates<br />
that t<strong>here</strong> are currently no PFI projects in the Newton<br />
Abbot constituency.<br />
Revenue and Customs: Marketing<br />
Priti Patel: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer<br />
pursuant to the answer of 23 November 2010, Official<br />
Report, column 274W, on incentives, from which of its<br />
budgets HM Revenue and Customs funds expenditure<br />
on promotional material; and how much has been<br />
spent from each such budget in each of the last three<br />
years. [27477]<br />
Mr Gauke: In HMRC, promotional items may be<br />
printed paper, office supplies or non paper items. These<br />
items will have been purchased via a range of budgets<br />
including commodities such as print, paper/stationery.<br />
From these budgets promotional materials are not<br />
identifiable from other items and cannot be disaggregated<br />
except at disproportionate cost. No central record is<br />
held of the spend on promotional materials and is not<br />
available except at disproportionate cost.
843W<br />
Written Answers<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
Written Answers<br />
844W<br />
Tax Yields<br />
Mr Byrne: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer<br />
how much revenue his Department raised through (a)<br />
personal, (b) direct business, (c) consumption, (d)<br />
property and (e) environmental taxes from the (i)<br />
business services, (ii) education, health and social work,<br />
(iii) financial intermediation, (iv) manufacturing, (v)<br />
other wholesale and retail trade, (vi) transport services,<br />
(vii) construction, (viii) real estate and renting, (ix)<br />
public administration, (x) oil and gas extraction, (xi)<br />
insurance and pension funding, (xii) hotels and<br />
restaurants, (xiii) recreational and social activities, (xiv)<br />
postal and telecommunications, (xv) other services,<br />
(xvi) energy, gas and water supply, (xvii) agriculture,<br />
forestry and fishing and (xviii) mining and quarrying<br />
except oil and gas sector in each financial year since<br />
1997-98. [22559]<br />
Mr Gauke: The full breakdown of tax receipts outlined<br />
in the question is not available.<br />
HMRC produce a breakdown by broad industrial<br />
sector for corporation tax, PAYE income tax and class 1<br />
national insurance contributions (NICs) and value added<br />
tax (VAT).<br />
Historical figures for corporation tax receipts paid by<br />
several broadly-defined business sectors are regularly<br />
updated and published in table 11.1 on the HMRC<br />
National Statistics website. Receipts information is available<br />
from 1997-98 to 2009-10. The sectors are defined by<br />
HMRC’s Summary Trade Classifications. The latest<br />
update is available <strong>here</strong>:<br />
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/corporate_tax/table11_1.pdf<br />
PAYE income tax and class 1 NICs received by<br />
HMRC in respect of employee and employer liabilities<br />
are split by sector as follows:<br />
£ billion<br />
Sector 1999-2000 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05<br />
Agriculture, Hunting<br />
664 630 598 617 676 730<br />
and Forestry<br />
Mining and Quarrying 701 762 675 673 654 669<br />
Manufacturing 24,185 24,752 23,925 23,731 25,133 25,696<br />
Electricity, Gas and<br />
1,225 1,229 1,118 1,089 1,098 1,135<br />
Water Supply<br />
Construction 6,981 7,597 8,200 8,974 10,164 10,751<br />
Wholesale and Retail<br />
14,944 15,824 15,978 17,025 18,733 19,729<br />
Trade<br />
Hotels and Restaurants 2,314 2,457 2,558 2,806 3,200 3,450<br />
Transport, Storage and<br />
8,779 9,801 10,139 10,104 10,912 11,939<br />
Communication<br />
Financial<br />
11,866 15,525 15,115 15,536 17,001 18,739<br />
Intermediation<br />
Real Estate, Renting<br />
22,830 26,582 28,050 27,948 29,567 32,221<br />
and Business Activities<br />
Public Administration<br />
6,086 5,899 5,994 6,293 7,525 10,544<br />
and Defence<br />
Education 11,441 12,442 13,206 14,105 16,274 17,498<br />
Health and Social Work 8,648 9,035 9,659 10,845 12,959 14,598<br />
Other Community,<br />
Social and Personal<br />
Service Activities<br />
4,060 4,527 4,747 5,026 5,691 6,169<br />
Occupational Pensions 5,989 6,300 6,561 6,671 6,752 7,166<br />
Other 645 1,384 2,385 1,920 1,547 1,676<br />
Total 131,358 144,748 148,905 153,363 167,887 182,709<br />
£ billion<br />
Sector 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10<br />
Accounting Adjustment 765 782 839 865 858<br />
Sector 757 829 864 961 982<br />
Agriculture, Hunting and Forestry 25,898 26,570 27,355 26,056 23,464<br />
Mining and Quarrying 1,135 1,253 1,429 1,519 1,514<br />
Manufacturing 11,575 12,428 14,236 13,779 11,896<br />
Wholesale and Retail Trade 20,554 21,512 22,895 22,574 21,339<br />
Construction 3,640 3,891 4,046 3,857 3,732<br />
Wholesale and Retail Trade 12,676 12,826 13,125 13,062 12,289<br />
Hotels and Restaurants 20,673 24,085 26,160 23,691 23,184<br />
Real Estate, Renting and Business Activities 35,182 38,996 44,009 45,581 43,286<br />
Public Administration and Defence 11,324 11,658 11,965 11,821 12,476<br />
Real Estate, Renting and Business 18,456 19,422 20,133 20,487 20,747<br />
Public Administration and Defence 16,167 17,454 17,735 18,385 19,530
845W<br />
Written Answers<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
Written Answers<br />
846W<br />
£ billion<br />
Sector 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10<br />
Other Community, Social and Personal<br />
6,585 7,025 7,344 7,531 7,257<br />
Service Activities<br />
Occupational Pensions 7,609 8,402 9,195 9,449 10,058<br />
Other 1,627 352 -43 70 -263<br />
Total 194,623 207,484 221,286 219,690 212,350<br />
Data are available back to 1999-2000 only. The sectors<br />
are defined by the Office for National Statistics’ Standard<br />
Industrial Classification 2003. The occupational pensions<br />
figures include all income tax on occupational pensions<br />
regardless of the sector in which the person was previously<br />
employed.<br />
Declared VAT is published by trade group in the VAT<br />
factsheet, table 2-3:<br />
https://www.uktradeinfo.com/index.cfm?task=factvat<br />
Given that sectors for corporation tax, VAT and<br />
PAYE income tax and class 1 NICs are defined differently<br />
these sets of figures are not directly comparable.<br />
Taxation: Music<br />
Mike Weatherley: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer<br />
how much tax revenue was raised in respect of the<br />
UK-based music industry in (a) 2005, (b) 2006, (c)<br />
2007, (d) 2008 and (e) 2009. [27232]<br />
Mr Gauke: The information required to answer the<br />
question is not available.<br />
Mike Weatherley: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer<br />
whether he has made a recent assessment of the merits<br />
of tax incentives to encourage the development of UK<br />
musical talent. [27234]<br />
Mr Gauke: The Government seek to provide a<br />
competitive environment and tax system for businesses<br />
and individuals across the economy.<br />
The Government believe that simplicity and stability<br />
are features of good tax policy, and that in general a tax<br />
system with fewer reliefs and allowances will provide<br />
the best incentive for economic growth.<br />
VAT: Churches<br />
Henry Smith: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer<br />
if he will seek agreement from the Council of Ministers<br />
to zero-rate value added tax on repairs to historic<br />
church buildings. [27098]<br />
Mr Gauke: EU legislation agreed by successive<br />
Governments does not provide any scope for the<br />
introduction of new zero rates or the extension of<br />
existing zero rates. T<strong>here</strong> is t<strong>here</strong>fore no realistic prospect<br />
of securing agreement to the introduction of a new zero<br />
rate for repairs to historic church buildings. However,<br />
the Department for Culture, Media and Sport operates<br />
a scheme which makes grants equivalent to the VAT<br />
incurred in making repairs to listed buildings primarily<br />
used for worship. The Listed Places of Worship Grant<br />
Scheme will continue until 2014-15 with a fixed annual<br />
budget of £12 million.<br />
COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT<br />
Affordable Housing: Construction<br />
Mr Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State<br />
for Communities and Local Government what assessment<br />
he has made of the effects of the proposed changes to<br />
rules under which new social housing can be constructed<br />
on the potential for small housing associations who do<br />
not construct new housing to amalgamate with other<br />
(a) large and (b) small housing associations; and if he<br />
will make a statement. [27097]<br />
Grant Shapps: We continue to encourage housing<br />
associations to explore models for management or<br />
ownership rationalisation if this will deliver better valuefor-money<br />
and improved services for tenants.<br />
The Government do not have a fixed view about what<br />
size a Housing Association should be. T<strong>here</strong> are excellent<br />
large and small Housing Associations in existence.<br />
Decentralisation and Localism Bill<br />
Mike Weatherley: To ask the Secretary of State for<br />
Communities and Local Government when he plans to<br />
publish the Localism Bill. [27245]<br />
Greg Clark: The Localism Bill contains a wide range<br />
of measures to shift power from central Government<br />
into the hands of individuals, communities and councils.<br />
The Bill frees local government from central and regional<br />
control and strengthens local democracy. In addition, it<br />
gives greater power over planning, housing and other<br />
services and allows councils and councillors to be better<br />
held to account.<br />
The Bill will be published imminently.<br />
Housing: Construction<br />
Dr Whitehead: To ask the Secretary of State for<br />
Communities and Local Government what estimate he<br />
has made of the number of new houses which would<br />
need to be built in Southampton unitary authority area<br />
in each of the next five years in order for the authority<br />
to establish a net income gain under the terms of the<br />
New Homes bonus scheme. [27192]<br />
Grant Shapps: The New Homes Bonus will start in<br />
April 2011 and will match fund the additional council<br />
tax raised for new homes and properties brought back<br />
into use for the following six years, with an additional<br />
amount for affordable homes.<br />
The Department has set aside almost £l billion over<br />
the comprehensive spending review period for the scheme,<br />
including nearly £200 million in 2011-12 in year one.<br />
Funding beyond these levels will come from formula<br />
grant.
847W<br />
Written Answers<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
Written Answers<br />
848W<br />
The New Homes Bonus consultation is available at;<br />
http://www.communities.gov.uk/housing/housingsupply/<br />
newhomesbonus<br />
This is accompanied by a calculator which will enable<br />
you to estimate grant from the New Homes Bonus for<br />
Southampton. This can be found at:<br />
http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/housing/xls/<br />
1767709.xls<br />
We will announce our proposals for the local government<br />
finance settlement for 2011-12, in the usual manner, in<br />
due course.<br />
Housing: Costs<br />
Mr Nicholas Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for<br />
Communities and Local Government what information<br />
his Department holds on the average (a) cost of<br />
management charges, (b) cost of maintenance and (c)<br />
return on capital expenditure in respect of the housing<br />
stock in each sector in each region. [26690]<br />
Andrew Stunell: The following table provides estimates<br />
of the average annual routine and planned maintenance<br />
costs per unit for social landlords, based on data provided<br />
to the Tenant Services Authority. Cost figures are derived<br />
from published financial statements, include only landlords<br />
managing more than 1,000 social homes and use end of<br />
year stock numbers to produce average costs. This<br />
information is not available on a regional basis.<br />
Routine<br />
maintenance<br />
costs<br />
Planned<br />
maintenance<br />
costs<br />
Management<br />
costs<br />
£’s per unit<br />
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09<br />
606 614 630 685<br />
258 264 271 302<br />
731 779 844 893<br />
T<strong>here</strong> is no suitable measure with which to calculate<br />
the return on capital invested for this sector. This is<br />
because most social landlords are non-profit making<br />
organisations and the valuation of assets across the<br />
sector at both historic cost and current value prevents a<br />
valid aggregation of such measures.<br />
The following table gives data on local authority<br />
expenditure on supervision and management and repairs,<br />
for council housing in 2007-08 and 2008-09 by region.<br />
This is taken from local authorities’ annual second<br />
advance housing revenue account subsidy claim forms<br />
submitted to the Department for Communities and<br />
Local Government. The regional split in the table is<br />
derived from the ‘Live tables on housing finance and<br />
household expenditure, Table 652’ available on the<br />
Department’s website at:<br />
http://www.communities.gov.uk/housing/housingresearch/<br />
housingstatistics/housingstatisticsby/housingfinance/<br />
livetables/<br />
North<br />
East<br />
Supervision and<br />
management:<br />
Average per dwelling (£)<br />
2007-08 2008-09<br />
Supervision and<br />
management:<br />
General Special Repairs General Special Repairs<br />
624 364 753 653 401 790<br />
North<br />
West<br />
Yorkshire<br />
and the<br />
Humber<br />
Supervision and<br />
management:<br />
Average per dwelling (£)<br />
2007-08 2008-09<br />
Supervision and<br />
management:<br />
General Special Repairs General Special Repairs<br />
878 512 918 677 403 979<br />
756 188 795 769 200 811<br />
East<br />
601 238 850 637 243 889<br />
Midlands<br />
West<br />
689 298 1,067 651 267 953<br />
Midlands<br />
East 701 387 924 681 393 893<br />
London 1,536 606 1,185 1,591 606 1,259<br />
South<br />
859 414 1,032 719 363 933<br />
East<br />
South<br />
654 277 814 750 294 821<br />
West<br />
National<br />
Average<br />
858 367 902 902 380 974<br />
Notes:<br />
General management includes expenditure on supervision and management of<br />
housing revenue account (HRA) property, eg policy and management,<br />
managing tenancies, rent collection and accounting.<br />
Special services include services (mainly shared) to HRA tenants, eg<br />
caretaking, cleaning, communal lighting, lifts, communal heating, laundry<br />
services, concierge schemes, ground maintenance and welfare services<br />
(excluding essential care and other special services).<br />
T<strong>here</strong> is no suitable measure with which to calculate<br />
the return on capital invested for this sector.<br />
Mortgages<br />
Mr Syms: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities<br />
and Local Government what his policy is on financial<br />
assistance to first-time homebuyers who commit a large<br />
proportion of their income in mortgage payments in<br />
order to get on to the property ladder. [27541]<br />
Grant Shapps: The Government are committed to<br />
helping those who aspire to own their own home, through<br />
ensuring a return to economic and financial stability.<br />
The Government are seeking to achieve this through a<br />
programme of debt reduction and a commitment to<br />
abolish the structural deficit in the life of this <strong>Parliament</strong>.<br />
This will help to keep mortgage interest rates low and<br />
improve credit availability.<br />
The coalition agreement included a commitment to<br />
promote shared ownership. While grant funding under<br />
the new investment model for affordable housing announced<br />
in the spending review will primarily target the new<br />
affordable rented product, t<strong>here</strong> may be some scope for<br />
delivery of low cost home ownership as part of the<br />
contractual arrangements with providers w<strong>here</strong> this is<br />
appropriate for local circumstances.<br />
Park Homes: Caravan Sites<br />
Annette Brooke: To ask the Secretary of State for<br />
Communities and Local Government how many residential<br />
park homes t<strong>here</strong> are on licensed park home sites in<br />
each county. [27180]<br />
Grant Shapps: These data are not collected.<br />
The Department has made no official estimate on<br />
this, but soundings in the sector suggest t<strong>here</strong> are<br />
approximately 85,000 park homes on 2,000 sites in<br />
England and 5,000 homes on 100 sites in Wales.
849W<br />
Written Answers<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
Written Answers<br />
850W<br />
Poverty: Children<br />
Kate Green: To ask the Secretary of State for<br />
Communities and Local Government if he will take<br />
steps to ensure that local authorities are allocated the<br />
resources to meet their obligations under the Child<br />
Poverty Act 2010; and if he will make a statement.<br />
[23042]<br />
Sarah Teather: I have been asked to reply.<br />
The Government are committed to ending child poverty<br />
by 2020 and recognises the critical role of local authorities<br />
and other partners in achieving that aim. Part 2 of the<br />
Child Poverty Act 2010 introduced new duties for local<br />
partners to cooperate and carry out local child poverty<br />
needs assessments and develop joint child poverty strategies.<br />
In recognition of the potential costs of carrying out<br />
that work the Government have made an additional<br />
£9.5 million available this year to ensure local authorities<br />
have the resources to meet the local duties.<br />
Funding will be provided for the remainder of this<br />
implementation year (2010-11) to support local authorities<br />
in England who are leading the co-operation around<br />
the duties. Payments will be distributed to all ‘top-tier’<br />
local authorities via the area based grant and the first<br />
payments were made in October.<br />
Squatting<br />
Mike Weatherley: To ask the Secretary of State for<br />
Communities and Local Government how many incidents<br />
of squatting were recorded (a) in Brighton and Hove<br />
constituency and (b) nationally in (i) 2007, (ii) 2008,<br />
and (iii) 2009. [27236]<br />
Grant Shapps: Information on the number of dwellings<br />
that are occupied by squatters is not held centrally.<br />
Tenancy Deposit Schemes<br />
Jeremy Lefroy: To ask the Secretary of State for<br />
Communities and Local Government what proportion<br />
of disputes in respect of tenancy deposit protection<br />
schemes resulted in a decision in favour of the tenant in<br />
(a) 2007-08, (b) 2008-9 and (c) 2009-10. [27750]<br />
Grant Shapps: My Department does not hold this<br />
information. My hon. Friend may wish to contact the<br />
three companies running the tenancy deposit protection<br />
schemes directly.<br />
Travellers: Caravan Sites<br />
Mr Burley: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities<br />
and Local Government what steps he is taking to reduce<br />
the number of (a) squatters and (b) unauthorised<br />
encampments. [27311]<br />
Grant Shapps: In relation to squatting, on 8 November<br />
I published an online guide for home owners affected by<br />
squatters. This sets out their rights and the action they<br />
can take. We are also taking steps to help get empty<br />
homes back into productive and lawful use, thus reducing<br />
the scope for squatting.<br />
In relation to <strong>Parliament</strong> square, I refer my hon.<br />
Friend to my answer of 25 November 2010, Official<br />
Report, column 439.<br />
In relation to unauthorised encampments, I refer my<br />
hon. Friend to the press notice of the Secretary of State<br />
for Communities and Local Government, my right hon.<br />
Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr<br />
Pickles) on 29 August 2010, a copy of which is in the<br />
Library. It outlines the new Government’s approach of<br />
providing incentives and support for authorised Traveller<br />
sites, while removing the counter-productive regime of<br />
top-down planning and ensuring fair play in the planning<br />
system.<br />
The forthcoming Localism Bill and changes to secondary<br />
legislation will include provisions to end the abuse of<br />
retrospective planning permission and will give councils<br />
stronger powers to tackle unauthorised development in<br />
all its forms.<br />
Working Neighbourhoods Fund<br />
Mr Allen: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities<br />
and Local Government what assessment he has made<br />
of the likely effects of the closure of the Working<br />
Neighbourhoods Fund on the most deprived communities<br />
in the country; and what sources of funding will be<br />
available to support such areas in the spending review<br />
period. [27456]<br />
Robert Neill: The Working Neighbourhoods Fund<br />
was a time-limited, three year programme scheduled to<br />
run from 2009-11. In line with our equalities duties, an<br />
equality impact assessment into the completion of the<br />
Working Neighbourhoods Fund has been carried out<br />
and will be published in due course.<br />
Businesses and local authorities in areas which currently<br />
receive the Fund will now be able to bid into the £1.4<br />
billion Regional Growth Fund to kick-start private<br />
sector-led growth. The Department for Work and Pensions<br />
is also to introduce the Work Programme which will<br />
provide an integrated package of support providing<br />
personalised help for people who find themselves out of<br />
work.<br />
The Government are also giving communities and<br />
neighbourhoods new rights, flexibilities, powers and<br />
tools that they could use to drive forward local regeneration<br />
and growth. For example through de-ringfencing of<br />
local budgets, and introducing incentives through the<br />
New Homes Bonus to direct more money to councils<br />
that build houses. The hon. Member should be aware<br />
that as outlined in the March 2010 Budget, the last<br />
Government was planning in-year cuts to the Working<br />
Neighbourhood Fund.<br />
EDUCATION<br />
Business: Education<br />
Lorely Burt: To ask the Secretary of State for Education<br />
what plans his Department has for the future of enterprise<br />
education in primary schools; and if he will make a<br />
statement. [18817]<br />
Mr Gibb: The Department currently has a contract<br />
with the Specialist Schools and Academies Trust (SSAT)<br />
to run the Enterprise Network to support the extension
851W<br />
Written Answers<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
Written Answers<br />
852W<br />
of enterprise education from a secondary school focus<br />
to the primary and FE sectors. The network is made up<br />
of Enterprise Learning Partnerships (ELPs), each chaired<br />
by a head teacher with representatives on the Board<br />
from two secondary schools, two primary schools, a<br />
special school, a further education college and an employer.<br />
T<strong>here</strong> are currently 54 ELPs covering 99.6% of local<br />
authority areas in England. To date, 7,002 primary<br />
schools have been involved in the Enterprise Network<br />
activities. Lead practitioners for each sector of education,<br />
including primary, have been identified in each region<br />
to share their ideas for enterprise education with their<br />
peers.<br />
The contract with SSAT ends in March 2011. Beyond<br />
that date, we expect the ELPs to become self-sustaining<br />
without Government funding, ensuring a network of<br />
local and teacher-led groups to support enterprise education<br />
in schools, including primary schools.<br />
Departmental Redundancy<br />
Ms Angela Eagle: To ask the Secretary of State for<br />
Education what estimate he has made of the number of<br />
redundancies arising from the spending reductions<br />
proposed in the comprehensive spending review in<br />
respect of (a) his Department, (b) its nondepartmental<br />
public bodies and (c) other public bodies<br />
which are dependent on his Department for funding.<br />
[21515]<br />
Tim Loughton: Determining optimal work force reforms<br />
in order to live within the Department’s spending review<br />
resource DEL settlement will be an ongoing process.<br />
Detailed decisions regarding the number of redundancies<br />
that may be required have yet to be finalised.<br />
Free School Meals: Ealing<br />
Mr Virendra Sharma: To ask the Secretary of State<br />
for Education how many children in each ward in<br />
Ealing Southall constituency are eligible for free school<br />
meals; and whether he has made a recent estimate of<br />
the proportion of those children in each such ward who<br />
are claiming free meals. [23576]<br />
Mr Gibb: The Department collects information on<br />
the number of pupils who meet the free school meals<br />
criteria and make a claim. Information is not available<br />
on the number of pupils who may be eligible but do not<br />
make a claim.<br />
The number of pupils known to be eligible and<br />
claiming for free school meals is shown in the table.<br />
Maintained nursery, maintained primary 1 , state-funded secondary 1, 2<br />
and special 3 schools: School meal arrangements 4, 5 . As at January<br />
2010—by each ward within Ealing Southall parliamentary<br />
constituency<br />
Ward name<br />
Number on<br />
roll 4, 5<br />
Number of<br />
pupils known to<br />
be eligible for<br />
free school<br />
meals 4, 5<br />
Percentage of<br />
pupils known to<br />
be eligible for<br />
free school<br />
meals<br />
Dormers Wells 2,224 721 32.4<br />
Elthorne 2,358 526 22.3<br />
Lady Margaret 943 211 22.4<br />
Northfield 1,498 78 5.2<br />
Maintained nursery, maintained primary 1 , state-funded secondary 1, 2<br />
and special 3 schools: School meal arrangements 4, 5 . As at January<br />
2010—by each ward within Ealing Southall parliamentary<br />
constituency<br />
Ward name<br />
Number on<br />
roll 4, 5<br />
Number of<br />
pupils known to<br />
be eligible for<br />
free school<br />
meals 4, 5<br />
Percentage of<br />
pupils known to<br />
be eligible for<br />
free school<br />
meals<br />
Norwood<br />
1,674 501 29.9<br />
Green<br />
Southall<br />
2,448 598 24.4<br />
Broadway<br />
Southall Green 2,105 690 32.8<br />
Ealing Southall<br />
(all wards)<br />
13,250 3,325 25.1<br />
1<br />
Includes middle schools as deemed.<br />
2<br />
This term generally covers local authority maintained secondary<br />
schools, city technology colleges and academies, however t<strong>here</strong> are no<br />
city technology colleges or academies in this constituency.<br />
3<br />
Includes maintained and non-maintained special schools. Excludes<br />
general hospital schools.<br />
4<br />
Includes sole and dual (main) registrations.<br />
5<br />
Pupils who have full-time attendance and are aged 15 and under, or<br />
pupils who have part time attendance and are aged between five and<br />
15.<br />
Source:<br />
School Census<br />
Kristallnacht: Education<br />
Mr Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Education<br />
(1) whether the study of Kristallnacht is included in the<br />
curriculum at secondary school level; and if he will<br />
make a statement; [24890]<br />
(2) what recent representations he has received on<br />
the inclusion of Kristallnacht in the curriculum at<br />
secondary school level; and if he will make a statement.<br />
[24891]<br />
Mr Gibb: The teaching of the Holocaust is a compulsory<br />
part of the National Curriculum at secondary school<br />
level, but it is up to schools to determine whether the<br />
study of Kristallnacht should be included in this. As<br />
Kristallnacht was a key moment in the events leading<br />
up to the Holocaust, it is expected that most secondary<br />
schools would teach this.<br />
The Department has provided funds, with the Pears<br />
Foundation, for a national programme of courses to<br />
help teachers address the concerns and issues they<br />
encounter when teaching about the Holocaust. Kristallnacht<br />
features prominently in one of the training activities for<br />
this programme.<br />
The Secretary of State has not recently received any<br />
representations on the inclusion of Kristallnacht in the<br />
curriculum at secondary school level.<br />
The Government are committed to reviewing the<br />
National Curriculum to restore it to its original purpose—a<br />
core national entitlement organised around subject<br />
disciplines. We plan to consult a wide range of academics,<br />
teachers and other interested parties to ensure that our<br />
core curriculum can compare with those of the highest<br />
performing countries in the world. More details about<br />
our plans to review the curriculum will be announced<br />
later in the year. As part of the consultation process<br />
t<strong>here</strong> will be a number of opportunities to contribute.
853W<br />
Written Answers<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
Written Answers<br />
854W<br />
Pre-School Education: Special Educational Needs<br />
Mrs Hodgson: To ask the Secretary of State for<br />
Education what measures are in place to identify pupils<br />
in pre-school education with special educational needs.<br />
[22918]<br />
Sarah Teather [holding answer 9 November 2010]:<br />
We believe it is vital that children who have special<br />
educational needs and disabilities, including the needs<br />
of pre-school children, are identified as early as possible<br />
if they are to make the most of their education experience.<br />
T<strong>here</strong> are currently provisions in place that impose legal<br />
requirements to identify, assess and make provision for<br />
these pre-school needs, for example through the Special<br />
Educational Needs Code of Practice and the Early<br />
Years Foundation Stage statutory framework. We want<br />
to strengthen the system so that all children are ready to<br />
engage in learning when they start formal schooling.<br />
The Tickell review is considering how young children’s<br />
early learning should best be supported and the forthcoming<br />
Green Paper on Special Educational Needs and Disability<br />
will consider how we can achieve better educational<br />
outcomes and life chances for children and young people<br />
with special educational needs from the early years<br />
through to transition to adult life and employment.<br />
Pupils: Disadvantaged<br />
Paul Maynard: To ask the Secretary of State for<br />
Education how many children who attended (a)<br />
maintained primary schools, (b) Catholic maintained<br />
primary schools, (c) maintained secondary schools<br />
and (d) Catholic maintained secondary schools lived<br />
in (i) the 10% most deprived super output areas<br />
(SOAs), (ii) the 20% most deprived SOAs, (iii) the 30%<br />
most deprived SOAs and (iv) the 10% least deprived<br />
SOAs as measured by the Income Deprivation<br />
Affecting Children Index in the school year 2009-10.<br />
[24895]<br />
Mr Gibb: The requested information is shown in the<br />
following table:<br />
Number of pupils resident in each IDACI decile attending maintained<br />
schools and maintained Catholic schools by phase of education—2010<br />
Primary 1 Secondary 1, 2<br />
IDACI-3<br />
decile of pupil<br />
residence<br />
All<br />
schools<br />
Catholic<br />
schools<br />
All<br />
schools<br />
Catholic<br />
schools<br />
0-10 % most 584,313 75,460 377,687 52,831<br />
deprived<br />
10-20% 498,615 54,953 347,214 40,363<br />
20-30 % 435,191 46,009 329,527 35,685<br />
30-40 % 398,675 39,965 316,620 31,208<br />
40-50 % 379,238 35,948 314,931 27,761<br />
50-60 % 366,354 33,154 312,916 26,264<br />
60-70 % 356,050 28,988 313,310 23,746<br />
70-80 % 357,340 28,745 318,667 24,578<br />
80-90 % 356,608 29,775 319,923 25,228<br />
90-100 % least 348,800 31,941 318,017 27,603<br />
deprived<br />
1<br />
Maintained schools only, includes middle schools as deemed.<br />
2<br />
Secondary includes academies and city technology colleges.<br />
3<br />
Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index 2007.<br />
Source:<br />
School Census 2010<br />
Schools: Holocaust Memorial Day<br />
Mr Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Education<br />
what arrangements his Department has made to mark<br />
Holocaust Memorial Day in schools in 2011; and if he<br />
will make a statement. [24889]<br />
Mr Gibb: The Department funds the Holocaust<br />
Educational Trust’s Lessons from Auschwitz project,<br />
which provides for two students (aged 16 to 18) from<br />
every school/sixth form college in England to visit<br />
Auschwitz-Birkenau. Many of the students who participate<br />
in the project will be marking Holocaust Memorial Day<br />
in their schools and local communities across the country.<br />
Schools: Reading<br />
Henry Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Education<br />
what recent assessment he has made of the effects on<br />
attainment levels in reading and mathematics among<br />
the lowest achieving six and seven year olds of the<br />
Every Child a Reader programme; and if he will make a<br />
statement. [23201]<br />
Mr Gibb: We regularly evaluate the progress of the<br />
programme against a range of management information.<br />
Evidence shows that Every Child a Reader has had a<br />
positive impact in raising the attainment of pupils in<br />
the programme, as well as indications of a positive<br />
whole-school effect.<br />
All three Every Child programmes are currently<br />
undergoing robust independent evaluations, to report<br />
in late 2010 or early 2011, which will give a substantive<br />
view of the impact of the programmes.<br />
Schools: Standards<br />
Laura Sandys: To ask the Secretary of State for<br />
Education what recent assessment he has made of<br />
educational standards in secondary schools in (a) South<br />
Thanet constituency and (b) England. [24585]<br />
Mr Gibb: In 2009 (the most recent year for which<br />
constituency level data are available) 52.4% of pupils in<br />
maintained schools in South Thanet achieved five or<br />
more GCSEs at grade A*-C or equivalent including<br />
English and maths, compared to 50.9% in England.<br />
We remain concerned that almost half of young<br />
people are leaving compulsory education without meeting<br />
this standard. That is why we are reforming the school<br />
system to give schools more freedom and introducing<br />
the pupil premium to support children from disadvantaged<br />
backgrounds.<br />
Laura Sandys: To ask the Secretary of State for<br />
Education what recent assessment he has made of<br />
educational standards in primary schools in (a) South<br />
Thanet constituency and (b) England. [24586]<br />
Mr Gibb: In 2009, the most recent year for which<br />
constituency level data are available, 62% of pupils in<br />
maintained schools in South Thanet achieved Level 4<br />
or above in English and maths combined at Key Stage 2,<br />
compared to 72% in England.<br />
We want all children, whatever their background, to<br />
achieve high standards in reading, writing and mathematics.
855W<br />
Written Answers<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
Written Answers<br />
856W<br />
That is why we are introducing a pupil premium which<br />
will provide extra funding for those schools with the<br />
most challenging intakes.<br />
Special Educational Needs: Children in Care<br />
Mrs Hodgson: To ask the Secretary of State for<br />
Education what steps his Department is taking to reduce<br />
the incidence of special educational needs among lookedafter<br />
children. [22917]<br />
Sarah Teather [holding answer 9 November 2010]:<br />
Just over half (52%) of looked after children have<br />
special educational needs (SEN). We are publishing a<br />
Green Paper which will set out how we will improve<br />
identification of and support for all children with SEN,<br />
including looked after children with SEN. All looked<br />
after children are required to have a care plan which is<br />
drawn up and reviewed by the local authority which<br />
looks after them. This overall plan must include a plan<br />
describing how the child’s educational needs will be met<br />
and whether s/he has a statement.<br />
Special Educational Needs: Lancashire<br />
Rosie Cooper: To ask the Secretary of State for<br />
Education how many teachers in Lancashire have a<br />
mandatory qualification in teaching deaf children; and<br />
what recent estimate he has made of the number of<br />
children in Lancashire who are deaf. [22810]<br />
Sarah Teather [holding answer 15 November 2010]:<br />
We do not routinely collect data regarding the number<br />
of British sign language qualified teachers teaching<br />
deaf children in mainstream schools either nationally<br />
or by region. Local authorities are responsible for ensuring<br />
that teachers of hearing impaired and deaf children<br />
possess the appropriate mandatory qualification to<br />
undertake the role. It is a matter for local authorities to<br />
ensure that they have enough qualified teachers to meet<br />
their statutory commitments.<br />
Regarding the estimate of the number of children in<br />
Lancashire who are deaf, these figures are available<br />
from the Statistical First Release ‘Special Educational<br />
Needs in England: January 2010’. This shows that t<strong>here</strong><br />
were 426 pupils in Lancashire at School Action Plus or<br />
with statements that had hearing impairment as a primary<br />
need and were being educated within the maintained<br />
sector or at special schools as at January 2010.<br />
At the end of the year the Government plan to<br />
publish a Green Paper on special educational needs and<br />
disabilities, which will explore how we can improve<br />
support for all children with special educational needs<br />
and disabilities, including those who are deaf or hearing<br />
impaired.<br />
It is a priority to improve the educational outcomes<br />
for all children and we recognise the important role<br />
specialists, such as Teachers of the Deaf, play in meeting<br />
this goal.<br />
UN Convention on the Rights of the Child<br />
Annette Brooke: To ask the Secretary of State for<br />
Education if he will bring forward legislative proposals<br />
to incorporate the provisions of the UN Convention on<br />
the Rights of the Child into his Ministerial responsibilities.<br />
[21731]<br />
Sarah Teather [holding answer 4 November 2010]:<br />
The Government are committed to the implementation<br />
of the <strong>United</strong> Nations convention on the rights of the<br />
child (UNCRC) and takes their obligations to the<br />
convention seriously.<br />
In March 2010, the previous Administration published<br />
an analysis setting out how legislation, policy and practice<br />
comply with the UNCRC. That analysis is being reviewed<br />
in order to assess how broader changes in legislation<br />
and policy align with the UNCRC and will decide if any<br />
further action is needed to give further effect to the<br />
convention.<br />
World War II: Education<br />
Mr Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Education<br />
whether his Department has taken steps to promote (a)<br />
knowledge of and (b) interest in the 70 th anniversary of<br />
the Battle of Britain in schools; and if he will make a<br />
statement. [24888]<br />
Mr Gibb: The battle of Britain was a significant event<br />
in the second world war; and the second world war is a<br />
compulsory subject in the secondary school curriculum.<br />
Schools determine whether to include the battle of<br />
Britain as part of their studies, and the Government<br />
believe that schools should be free to decide how best to<br />
mark the 70 th anniversary of the battle of Britain.<br />
Youth Services: Manpower<br />
Toby Perkins: To ask the Secretary of State for Education<br />
how many full-time equivalent youth support workers<br />
t<strong>here</strong> are in each local authority area. [21377]<br />
Tim Loughton: The Department for Education does<br />
not collect these data. However, the Children’s Workforce<br />
Development Council (CWDC) published an audit of<br />
the workforce in December 2009 and this includes some<br />
national level estimates of the numbers of youth and<br />
community workers. The report is available on CWDC’s<br />
website at:<br />
http://www.cwdcouncil.org.uk/young-peoples-workforce/<br />
state-of-the-young-peoples-workforce-report<br />
WORK AND PENSIONS<br />
Atos Healthcare<br />
Mr Charles Walker: To ask the Secretary of State for<br />
Work and Pensions what services Atos is providing<br />
under contract to his Department; and whether he<br />
plans to renew his Department’s contract with Atos in<br />
2012. [26484]<br />
Chris Grayling: The information is as follows.<br />
Medical Services<br />
Following a competitive tender exercise the medical<br />
services agreement between Atos Healthcare and the<br />
Department for Work and Pensions was awarded on<br />
15 March 2005 by the Secretary of State for Work and<br />
Pensions. The contract went live on 1 September 2005,<br />
for a period of seven years, with options to extend for a<br />
further three and two years. On 1 November 2010 the<br />
Minister of State for Employment awarded a contract
857W<br />
Written Answers<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
Written Answers<br />
858W<br />
extension to 31 August 2015 to facilitate the delivery of<br />
incapacity benefit reassessment. The new disability living<br />
allowance assessment service from 2013, is not included<br />
in the extension contractual arrangements but will be<br />
awarded through a competitive tendering process.<br />
The scope of the medical services agreement is to<br />
provide medical advice to Department for Work and<br />
Pensions; Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs; Service<br />
Personnel and Veterans Agency and Tribunals Service<br />
to support decisions in relation to a number of benefits<br />
and pensions, including but not limited to:<br />
Incapacity benefits<br />
Employment and support allowance<br />
Industrial injuries disablement benefits<br />
Disability living allowance (to be competed in 2013)<br />
Attendance allowance<br />
Statutory sick pay/statutory maternity pay<br />
Child trust fund<br />
War pension<br />
Vaccine Damage Payment scheme<br />
Financial Assistance scheme<br />
Compensation Recovery scheme<br />
Appeals tribunal service<br />
Occupational Health<br />
Following a competitive tender exercise the occupational<br />
health framework agreement between Atos Healthcare<br />
and the Department for Work and Pensions was awarded<br />
on 30 May 2008 by the Secretary of State for Work and<br />
Pensions.<br />
The framework agreement went live on 3rd August<br />
2008 and was for a period of three years, with an option<br />
to extend for a further two years. The Department for<br />
Work and Pensions is currently considering the option<br />
to extend.<br />
The scope of the occupational health framework<br />
ensures the Department has access to professional<br />
occupational health guidance, enabling obligations under<br />
the Equality Act (especially in respect of disabled workers)<br />
to be fulfilled and also to prevent or resolve instances of<br />
sickness absence. Such guidance will normally be about<br />
the applicability of the Equality Act; the effect of illness<br />
on an employee’s functional capability; and measures<br />
that can be taken to reduce the effects of illness on<br />
functional capability or to rehabilitate an employee<br />
from sick leave to work. Services available via the agreement<br />
include but are not limited to:<br />
Attendance management support<br />
Pre-employment health screening<br />
Audiology screening<br />
Absence related case conferences<br />
Atos also provide IT services to the Department<br />
under the Stand Alone Support Services (SASA) Contract.<br />
The covers the provision of development, support,<br />
enhancement and consultancy services for mostly small<br />
scale DWP IT applications.<br />
Children: Maintenance<br />
Alok Sharma: To ask the Secretary of State for Work<br />
and Pensions what estimate he has made of the average<br />
difference between the amounts paid by clients of the<br />
Child Support Agency on the (a) pre-2002 and (b)<br />
post-2002 scheme. [24372]<br />
Maria Miller: The Child Maintenance and Enforcement<br />
Commission is responsible for the child maintenance<br />
system. I have asked the Child Maintenance Commissioner<br />
to write to the hon. Member with the information<br />
requested and I have seen the response.<br />
Letter from Stephen Geraghty:<br />
In reply to your recent <strong>Parliament</strong>ary Question about the<br />
Child Support Agency, the Secretary of State promised a substantive<br />
reply from the Child Maintenance Commissioner as the Child<br />
Support Agency is now the responsibility of the Child Maintenance<br />
and Enforcement Commission.<br />
You asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what<br />
estimate he has made of the average difference between in amounts<br />
paid by clients of the Child Support Agency on the (a) pre-2002<br />
and (b) post-2002 scheme. [24372]<br />
The table shows average collections on cases administered<br />
under old scheme rules compared to average collections on cases<br />
administered under current scheme rules for each quarter.<br />
Average collections have been calculated by dividing the total<br />
amount of maintenance collected and arranged under each scheme<br />
by the number of cases paying maintenance as at the end of each<br />
quarter.<br />
Total collections and caseload figures include cases administered<br />
on the CS2 and CSCS computer systems as well as cases administered<br />
off system. However, the value of maintenance direct payments<br />
within the collections figure only include off system cases from<br />
April 2008.<br />
Average collections and arrangements will be directly impacted<br />
by the average assessment value. The average assessment of Old<br />
Scheme cases is significantly lower than Current Scheme cases<br />
due to differences in policy between the schemes. The majority of<br />
cases in receipt of benefit on the Old Scheme are nil-assessed,<br />
w<strong>here</strong>as cases in receipt of benefit on the Current Scheme are<br />
given a weekly assessment of £5.00. 29% of cases on the Current<br />
Scheme have an assessment between £0.01 and £5.00, which<br />
significantly reduces the average assessment value.<br />
I hope you find this answer helpful.<br />
Table 1: Average monthly collections and arrangements by scheme<br />
£<br />
Month<br />
Average monthly<br />
collections/<br />
arrangements old<br />
scheme<br />
Average monthly<br />
collections/<br />
arrangements<br />
current scheme<br />
Difference<br />
December<br />
179 125 54<br />
2006<br />
March 2007 184 129 55<br />
June 2007 181 128 53<br />
September<br />
186 135 51<br />
2007<br />
December<br />
186 142 44<br />
2007<br />
March 2008 192 142 50<br />
June 2008 194 137 56<br />
September<br />
199 142 57<br />
2008<br />
December<br />
197 142 54<br />
2008<br />
March 2009 200 138 62<br />
June 2009 194 136 57<br />
September<br />
195 137 59<br />
2009<br />
December<br />
196 136 60<br />
2009<br />
March 2010 184 135 48<br />
June 2010 180 133 47<br />
Notes:<br />
1. Figures rounded to the nearest £1.<br />
2. Figures include value of maintenance collected as well as value of<br />
maintenance direct arrangements.
859W<br />
Written Answers<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
Written Answers<br />
860W<br />
Jessica Lee: To ask the Secretary of State for Work<br />
and Pensions in how many assessed cases currently<br />
being dealt with by the Child Support Agency child<br />
maintenance liability is abated to take account of shared<br />
care arrangements; and what proportion of these cases<br />
are abated by (a) one seventh, (b) two sevenths, (c)<br />
three sevenths and (d) one half. [26442]<br />
Maria Miller: The Child Maintenance and Enforcement<br />
Commission is responsible for the child maintenance<br />
system. I have asked the Child Maintenance Commissioner<br />
to write to my hon. Friend with the information requested<br />
and I have seen the response.<br />
Letter from Stephen Geraghty:<br />
In reply to your recent <strong>Parliament</strong>ary Question about the<br />
Child Support Agency, the Secretary of State promised a substantive<br />
reply from the Child Maintenance Commissioner as the Child<br />
Support Agency is now the responsibility of the Child Maintenance<br />
and Enforcement Commission.<br />
You asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, in<br />
how many assessed cases currently being dealt with by the Child<br />
Support Agency child maintenance liability is abated to take<br />
account of shared care arrangements; and what proportion of<br />
these cases are abated by (a) one seventh (b) two sevenths (c) three<br />
sevenths and (d) one half. [26442]<br />
Information is not available on the value that maintenance<br />
assessments have been abated by when taking into account shared<br />
care arrangements.<br />
Information is available on the number of nights each qualifying<br />
child on cases administered on the CSCS computer system spends<br />
with the parent with care. Information is also available on the<br />
number of current scheme cases administered on the CS2 computer<br />
system with a shared care arrangement in place. However, no<br />
robust information is available for old scheme cases administered<br />
on the CS2 computer system or for cases administered off system.<br />
A shared care arrangement is defined for current scheme cases<br />
as those cases w<strong>here</strong> the qualifying child or children spends at<br />
least 52 nights per year with the non-resident parent. As at<br />
September 2010 t<strong>here</strong> were 145,500 such cases, which is 22% of<br />
the assessed caseload.<br />
The table shows the number of cases administered on the<br />
CSCS computer system with a shared care arrangement in place.<br />
They are shown split by the number of nights spent with the<br />
parent with care for the qualifying child that spends the least<br />
nights with that parent.<br />
I hope you find this answer helpful.<br />
Table 1: CSCS cases with a shared care arrangement: September 2010<br />
Nights spent with parent with care<br />
per week<br />
Number of assessed cases<br />
2 100<br />
3 1,200<br />
4 6,400<br />
5 14,600<br />
Notes:<br />
1. Figures rounded to nearest 100.<br />
2. A case w<strong>here</strong> the child spends one night per week with the parent<br />
with care is recorded on the CSCS computer system as 0 nights.<br />
Likewise, cases w<strong>here</strong> the child spends six nights per week with the<br />
parent with care are recorded on the CSCS computer system as seven<br />
nights. These categories can t<strong>here</strong>fore not be separated and are<br />
t<strong>here</strong>fore not shown.<br />
3. Management information on cases administered on the CSCS<br />
computer system records the number of nights each individual child<br />
spends with the parent with care. It is possible that the number of<br />
nights is different for children within the same case. T<strong>here</strong>fore, in the<br />
attached response, the child which spends the least number of nights<br />
with the parent with care has been used in the table.<br />
Cold Weather Payments<br />
Rehman Chishti: To ask the Secretary of State for<br />
Work and Pensions whether he made an estimate of the<br />
number of people with cancer who received the cold<br />
weather payment in (a) 2007, (b) 2008 and (c) 2009.<br />
[27866]<br />
Steve Webb: The information requested is not available.<br />
Cold weather payments are paid automatically to<br />
people receiving pension credit and to those receiving<br />
certain income related benefits who are disabled, have a<br />
disabled child or a child under age five.<br />
Departmental Contracts<br />
Andrew Bingham: To ask the Secretary of State for<br />
Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of<br />
the effectiveness of quality management statements in<br />
assisting with contract decisions by his Department;<br />
and what assessment he has made of the effects on the<br />
prospects for small businesses winning of contracts of<br />
such statements. [19014]<br />
Chris Grayling: DWP, as part of its selection criteria,<br />
will assess a bidder’s technical or professional ability,<br />
including quality management. As part of the tender<br />
evaluation process, procurement staff must include, within<br />
the published evaluation criteria, details of any weighting<br />
system used and how the tender will be scored with<br />
reference to quality management.<br />
Bidders are required to describe what quality<br />
management measures they operate relevant to the bid<br />
specification. W<strong>here</strong> specific quality standards are required<br />
to meet technical contract requirements, bidders are<br />
permitted to provide evidence of equivalent or comparable<br />
processes or systems.<br />
Evaluation criteria will clearly state the scoring attached<br />
to quality management and the minimum acceptable<br />
standard required to deliver the contract. Provided a<br />
bidder can demonstrate their capability to deliver a<br />
contract, t<strong>here</strong> are no barriers that impact on the likely<br />
success of small businesses winning contracts.<br />
Commercial activities in DWP are determined by EU<br />
procurement rules. One of the primary objectives of the<br />
European Union is the prevention of discrimination<br />
and restriction on the movement of goods or services.<br />
Any specification, even those not subject to the EU<br />
rules, must ensure that they comply with this objective.<br />
A member state or contracting authority, such as DWP,<br />
cannot adopt measures that are, even potentially, restrictive.<br />
Sustainable procurement considerations ensure that<br />
opportunities for small businesses to bid for DWP<br />
contracts are maximised. Use of electronic procurement,<br />
division of requirements into local/regional lots and<br />
supplier briefings all help to improve access.<br />
Departmental Grants<br />
Anas Sarwar: To ask the Secretary of State for Work<br />
and Pensions (1) what grants have been awarded by his<br />
Department in 2010-11 to date; what grants he plans to<br />
award in each of the next two years; what the monetary<br />
value is of each such grant fund; and to which<br />
organisations such grants have been made; [27862]
861W<br />
Written Answers<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
Written Answers<br />
862W<br />
(2) what the monetary value was of grants awarded<br />
by his Department in 2009-10; and how much he<br />
expects to award in grants in (a) 2010-11 and (b)<br />
2011-12. [27865]<br />
Chris Grayling: Grants made by the Department for<br />
Work and Pensions in 2009-10 and 2010-2011 are shown<br />
in the table.<br />
£ million<br />
Description of grant Paid to 2009-10 2010-11 1 2010-11 2<br />
Grants to support expenditure on Financial<br />
Inclusion<br />
Factory Support Grant<br />
Credit Unions and Community<br />
Development Financial Institutions<br />
A range of businesses to support the<br />
employment of disabled people<br />
18.0 4.6 7.9<br />
0.5 — 0.2<br />
Future Jobs Fund Employers to create new jobs 82.5 274.9 420.0<br />
Access to Work<br />
employers for adaptations to premises and<br />
1.1 0.8 1.7<br />
equipment<br />
Deprived Areas Fund<br />
City Strategy Pathfinders and other<br />
7.7 5.5 9.7<br />
partnership organisations<br />
Ageing Well Grant<br />
Local Government Improvement and<br />
0.5 0.7 1.7<br />
Development (LGID)<br />
Active at 60<br />
Individuals, via the Community<br />
— — 1.0<br />
Development Foundation<br />
Get Digital Project<br />
The National Institute of Adult Continuing<br />
1.0 1.9 1.9<br />
Education via the Department for<br />
Communities and Local Government<br />
Sure Start Maternity Grants (SSMG) individuals 138.8 82.7 142.0<br />
Community Care Grants (CCG) individuals 140.7 83.2 142.0<br />
1<br />
To 31 October<br />
2<br />
Full year forecast<br />
Notes:<br />
1. Factory Support Grant was a small scale aspect of Workstep intended to help improve specialist disability employment services by providing<br />
funding for supported businesses to, for example, buy new machinery or modernise the services they offer.<br />
2. Current year figures are based on actual spend, as shown in the departmental general ledger, and forecasts which are subject to change.<br />
3. For the purposes of this answer, grants are interpreted to be one-off payments to individuals or other entities to support the objectives of<br />
the Department. Payments which are on-going in nature, for example subsidies to local authorities for housing benefit administration, or<br />
grants in aid to non-departmental public bodies have not been included.<br />
4. Funding for the Factory Support Grant, the Future Jobs Fund, and the Deprived Areas Fund have either already ended or will end this<br />
financial year.<br />
5. The Department is now working through the financial implications of its spending review settlement and details are not available on future<br />
funding amounts for particular grants at present.<br />
Departmental Regulation<br />
Mr Redwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Work<br />
and Pensions what regulations sponsored by his<br />
Department have been revoked in the last six months.<br />
[24382]<br />
Chris Grayling: The Employment and Support Allowance<br />
(Transitional Provisions, Housing Benefit and Council<br />
Tax Benefit) (Existing Awards) Regs 2010 (S.I. 2010/<br />
875) were revoked by the Employment and Support<br />
Allowance (Transitional Provisions, Housing Benefit<br />
and Council Tax Benefit) (Existing Awards) (Revocation)<br />
Regulations 2010 (S.I. 2010/1906)<br />
The following regulations were revoked by the Equality<br />
Act 2010 (Disability) Regulations 2010 (S.I. 2010/2128):<br />
The Disability Discrimination (Meaning of Disability) Regulations<br />
1996 (S.I. 1996/1455)<br />
The Disability Discrimination (Providers of Services) (Adjustment<br />
of Premises) Regulations 2001 (S.I. 2001/3253)<br />
The Disability Discrimination (Blind and Partially Sighted<br />
Persons) Regulations 2003 (S.I. 2003/712)<br />
The Disability Discrimination (Employment Field) (Leasehold<br />
Premises) Regulations 2004 (S.I. 2004/153)<br />
The Disability Discrimination (Educational Institutions) (Alteration<br />
of Leasehold Premises) Regulations 2005 (S.I. 2005/1070)<br />
The Disability Discrimination (Service Providers and Public<br />
Authorities Carrying Out Functions) Regulations 2005 (S.I.<br />
2005/2901)<br />
The Disability Discrimination (Private Clubs etc) Regulations<br />
2005 (S.I. 2005/3258)<br />
The Disability Discrimination (Premises) Regulations 2006<br />
(S.I. 2006/887).<br />
The Vaccine Damage Payment (Specified Disease)<br />
Order (S.I. 2009/2516) was revoked by the Vaccine<br />
Damage Payments (Specified Disease) (Revocation and<br />
Savings) Order 2010 (S.I. 2010/1988).<br />
The Transfer of State Pensions and Benefits Regulations<br />
(Northern Ireland) 2007 (SR (NI) 2007/286) were revoked<br />
by the Transfer of State Pensions and Benefits<br />
(Amendment) Regulations 2010 (S.I. 2010/1825).<br />
Disability Living Allowance: Care Homes<br />
Kate Green: To ask the Secretary of State for Work<br />
and Pensions what estimate he has made of the number<br />
of children likely to be affected by the implementation<br />
of the proposed withdrawal of the mobility component<br />
of disability living allowance from claimants living in<br />
residential care. [24704]<br />
Maria Miller: The spending review announced that<br />
the mobility component of disability living allowance<br />
would be removed from adults in residential care and<br />
children in residential schools.<br />
Proposals for disability living allowance reform will<br />
be informed by responses to the consultation document<br />
which we will publish shortly.
863W<br />
Written Answers<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
Written Answers<br />
864W<br />
We will be making clearer as we move towards the<br />
Bill exactly how the measure to cease paying mobility<br />
component of DLA to people in care homes will affect<br />
particular groups.<br />
Employment Schemes<br />
Mr Douglas Alexander: To ask the Secretary of State<br />
for Work and Pensions how many companies have<br />
expressed an interest in applying for contracts under<br />
the Work Programme. [26262]<br />
Chris Grayling: 102 organisations, SPV or consortia<br />
submitted bids in respect of the DWP Framework for<br />
the Provision of Employment Related Support Services.<br />
A list of organisations that submitted bids can be found<br />
on the Supplying DWP website<br />
http://www.dwp.gov.uk/supplying-dwp/<br />
Those organisations that were accepted onto the<br />
framework were notified on 25 November and a list has<br />
also been published on the Supplying DWP website.<br />
Only those organisations that have been successful in<br />
being admitted to the framework as prime contractors<br />
will be invited to tender for Work Programme contracts.<br />
Organisations will only be able to bid in lots w<strong>here</strong> they<br />
have been successful in the framework competition.<br />
Mr Douglas Alexander: To ask the Secretary of State<br />
for Work and Pensions what (a) assumptions and (b)<br />
calculations his Department made when formulating<br />
its estimate of the market value of Work Programme<br />
contracts contained in the framework agreement for<br />
the provision of employment-related support services.<br />
[26263]<br />
Chris Grayling: Assumptions and calculations on the<br />
estimated value of Work Programme contracts and<br />
indeed other contracts which will be let from the framework,<br />
were developed from information on the value of existing<br />
welfare to work programmes. These took into account<br />
the intention to radically simplify the array of existing<br />
employment programmes and deliver co<strong>here</strong>nt, integrated<br />
support more capable of dealing with complex and<br />
overlapping barriers to work. Estimates were broad in<br />
order to provide transparency to the market and to<br />
ensure that the framework would be able to meet<br />
requirements to be the principal vehicle for sourcing all<br />
employment related support services for the full life of<br />
the Framework, not just for DWP, but also for other<br />
eligible contracting authorities. Calculations also took<br />
into account the need to deliver greater value for money<br />
on future welfare to work contracts.<br />
Mr Douglas Alexander: To ask the Secretary of State<br />
for Work and Pensions whether he plans to place any<br />
restrictions on sub-contracting within the procurement<br />
processes for the Work Programme. [26264]<br />
Chris Grayling: T<strong>here</strong> are no plans to place any<br />
restrictions on sub-contracting within the procurement<br />
processes for the Work Programme. Evaluation of bids<br />
will, at least in part, depend on the quality of their<br />
supply chain.<br />
Mr Douglas Alexander: To ask the Secretary of State<br />
for Work and Pensions what the geographical areas are<br />
for contracting for each type of back-to-work<br />
provision; and what geographical areas t<strong>here</strong> will be for<br />
contracts under the Work Programme. [26265]<br />
Chris Grayling: The DWP Framework for the Provision<br />
of Employment Related Support Services will be divided<br />
into 11 geographical lots. The lots are: South East,<br />
South West, London, East of England, East Midlands,<br />
West Midlands, North West, Yorkshire and the Humber,<br />
North East, Scotland, Wales. Contracts let under the<br />
framework may be across all lots, cover a specific lot or<br />
a smaller geographical area(s) within a lot.<br />
Employment Schemes: Scotland<br />
Cathy Jamieson: To ask the Secretary of State for<br />
Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of<br />
the likely effect of the proposed universal credit on<br />
work incentives in Scotland. [25774]<br />
Chris Grayling: Universal credit will make work pay.<br />
It will enable workers to retain more of their earnings<br />
when they enter work, providing stronger financial incentives<br />
to take job opportunities than under the current system.<br />
Establishing a single withdrawal rate and eliminating<br />
the hours rules currently present in working tax credit<br />
has the potential to create a much more flexible labour<br />
market, w<strong>here</strong> workers will be able to work the number<br />
of hours that most suits their needs and those of their<br />
employer.<br />
The integration of in and out of work support through<br />
universal credit will also greatly reduce the risks people<br />
perceive around the continuity of financial support as<br />
they move into and leave work.<br />
We expect the impacts in Scotland to be broadly the<br />
same as for Great Britain as a whole.<br />
Housing Benefit<br />
Mr Douglas Alexander: To ask the Secretary of State<br />
for Work and Pensions pursuant to the contribution<br />
by the Minister of State for Work and Pensions of<br />
9 November 2010, Official Report, column 154, on<br />
housing benefit, what the evidential basis was for his<br />
assessment of the change in private rents since November<br />
2008. [26345]<br />
Steve Webb: The source of the private rental data was<br />
the Find A Property index. This has been used by the<br />
DWP and wider Government since 2008, when CLG<br />
stopped producing their own private rental index. The<br />
Office for National Statistics does not publish up-to-date<br />
private rental data.<br />
Further details of the evidential base are available at:<br />
http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/wpsc-analytical-supp.pdf<br />
Graham Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for<br />
Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of<br />
the likely effects on levels of housing benefit payments<br />
of the implementation of his Department’s decision to<br />
merge high rental and low rental areas; and if he will<br />
make a statement. [26379]<br />
Steve Webb: We will be considering the areas in which<br />
local housing allowance rates are set in the context of<br />
our proposal to uprate local housing allowance rates
865W<br />
Written Answers<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
Written Answers<br />
866W<br />
according to the consumer price index from April 2013.<br />
We have not as yet made any decisions on the constitution<br />
of these areas.<br />
Mr Umunna: To ask the Secretary of State for Work<br />
and Pensions whether the proposed changes to local<br />
housing allowance will apply to people who are part<br />
way through a tenancy which was signed prior to the<br />
changes coming into effect. [26632]<br />
Steve Webb: Changes to local housing allowance<br />
rates apply to customers at the anniversary of their<br />
claim. The anniversary may coincide with the date they<br />
are due to renew a tenancy or it could fall part way<br />
through the tenancy. For existing customers who will be<br />
affected by changes to local housing allowance rates<br />
from April 2011, we are allowing an additional period<br />
of up to nine months from the anniversary of their<br />
claim during which they will be protected from a reduction<br />
in their local housing allowance rate. This will allow<br />
them extra time to renegotiate their rental commitment<br />
or, if necessary, look for alternative accommodation.<br />
Mr Umunna: To ask the Secretary of State for Work<br />
and Pensions whether he plans to issue further<br />
guidance to local authorities on the allocation of<br />
discretionary housing benefit. [26654]<br />
Steve Webb: We are reviewing our discretionary housing<br />
payment good practice guidance to local authorities<br />
and plan to issue a revised version early next year.<br />
Mr Umunna: To ask the Secretary of State for Work<br />
and Pensions whether he plans to make exceptions to<br />
the proposed limits on payments of local housing<br />
allowance to claimants under 35 years to a shared<br />
room rate in respect of those with (a) learning<br />
difficulties and (b) mental health disorders. [26698]<br />
Steve Webb: The shared room rate already has<br />
exemptions which will continue to apply for people in<br />
vulnerable situations. The exemptions include local authority<br />
and housing association tenants and those in certain<br />
supported accommodation.<br />
Customers who receive the middle or higher rate care<br />
component of disability living allowance and w<strong>here</strong> no<br />
one gets a carer’s allowance for them are also exempt.<br />
We are currently considering the detailed design of this<br />
proposal, which is not due to be implemented until<br />
April 2012.<br />
Housing Benefit: Newham<br />
Lyn Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Work<br />
and Pensions how many working families in Newham<br />
are in receipt of housing benefit. [26489]<br />
Steve Webb: The following table shows the number of<br />
housing benefit recipients in Newham which are non<br />
passported and in employment, August 2010.<br />
Housing benefit recipients by family type and employment status in<br />
Newham, August 2010<br />
Of which: In<br />
HB non passported<br />
employment<br />
Single no child<br />
dependents<br />
4,550 1,690<br />
Housing benefit recipients by family type and employment status in<br />
Newham, August 2010<br />
Of which: In<br />
HB non passported<br />
employment<br />
Single with child<br />
3,370 2,690<br />
dependents<br />
Couple no child<br />
800 410<br />
dependents<br />
Couple with child<br />
4,160 3,940<br />
dependents<br />
Total 12,880 8,730<br />
Notes:<br />
1. The figures have been rounded to the nearest 10. Totals may not<br />
sum due to rounding.<br />
2. Housing benefit figures exclude any extended payment cases. An<br />
extended payment is a payment that may be received for a further<br />
four weeks when they start working full-time, work more hours or<br />
earn more money.<br />
3. Single Housing Benefit Extract (SHBE) is a monthly electronic<br />
scan of claimant level data direct from local authority computer<br />
systems. It replaces quarterly aggregate clerical returns. The data are<br />
available monthly from November 2008 and August 2010 is the latest<br />
available.<br />
4. People claiming housing benefit not in receipt of a passported<br />
benefit are recorded as being in employment if their local authority<br />
has recorded employment income from either the main claimant, or<br />
partner of claimant (if applicable), in calculating the housing benefit<br />
award.<br />
5. Passported status does not include recipients with unknown<br />
passported status.<br />
Source:<br />
August 2010 Single Housing Benefit Extract (SHBE)<br />
Housing Benefit: North East<br />
Grahame M. Morris: To ask the Secretary of State for<br />
Work and Pensions what assessment his Department<br />
has made of the likely effect on (a) the economy of the<br />
North East and (b) housing provision of planned<br />
reductions in the level of housing benefit and council<br />
tax benefit payments. [17752]<br />
Steve Webb: Work is under way to ascertain the<br />
impacts of the proposed measures and we will publish<br />
an economic impact assessment at the time amendments<br />
to legislation are laid in <strong>Parliament</strong>.<br />
Housing Benefit: Worcestershire<br />
Mr Robin Walker: To ask the Secretary of State for<br />
Work and Pensions how many people in (a) Worcestershire<br />
and (b) Worcester were in receipt of housing benefit of<br />
more than £400 per week in the latest period for which<br />
figures are available. [17631]<br />
Steve Webb: At July 2010, for housing benefit claims<br />
in the private rented sector our records show that t<strong>here</strong><br />
are no households in Worcestershire receiving over £400<br />
per week.<br />
Source:<br />
Single housing benefit extract for July 2010.<br />
Industrial Accidents: Construction<br />
Miss Begg: To ask the Secretary of State for Work<br />
and Pensions what plans the Government has to implement<br />
the recommendations of the Rita Donaghy report entitled<br />
One death is too many: enquiry into the underlying<br />
cause of construction fatal accidents [26399]
867W<br />
Written Answers<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
Written Answers<br />
868W<br />
Chris Grayling: The Government are committed to<br />
addressing the heavy toll of deaths in the construction<br />
industry which was highlighted in Baroness Donaghy’s<br />
report. We will t<strong>here</strong>fore progress those of the Donaghy<br />
recommendations accepted by the previous Administration<br />
which we consider are supported by the available evidence.<br />
For example, consistent with recommendation eight of<br />
the Donaghy report, the Government have actively<br />
supported the new specification for “pre-qualification”<br />
criteria in the construction industry, introduced by the<br />
British Standards Institution in October and which has<br />
the potential to radically simplify the prequalification<br />
process for small firms tendering for construction work.<br />
W<strong>here</strong>, however, we lack firm evidence for particular<br />
recommendations—for example, that directors’ health<br />
and safety duties need to be further strengthened—we<br />
do not propose to take further action at this time.<br />
Industrial Health and Safety: Inspections<br />
Mr Nicholas Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for<br />
Work and Pensions what recent representations he<br />
has received on the work of the Health and Safety<br />
Executive (HSE); and how many sites were formally<br />
inspected by a HSE inspector after a serious accident in<br />
the latest period for which figures are available. [26624]<br />
Chris Grayling: The Secretary of State has the principal<br />
responsibility to <strong>Parliament</strong> for the Health and Safety<br />
Executive and routinely receives representations on their<br />
work. Recent representations are concerned with a range<br />
of matters relating to the formulation and development<br />
of Government policy.<br />
HSE’s inspectors have investigated 2,021 serious accidents<br />
that occurred between 1 April 2009 and 31 March 2010,<br />
although some of these investigations are still under<br />
way.<br />
These serious accidents are categorised as fatalities<br />
and major injuries, such as amputations and fractures,<br />
that were reported under the Reporting of Injuries,<br />
Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995<br />
(RIDDOR 95).<br />
Jobcentre Plus: Rural Areas<br />
Miss McIntosh: To ask the Secretary of State for<br />
Work and Pensions what assistance his Department<br />
plans to give to those living in remote rural areas to (a)<br />
access jobcentres to see what vacancies are available<br />
and (b) access the labour market in areas with poor<br />
local transport. [26596]<br />
Chris Grayling: The administration of Jobcentre Plus<br />
is a matter for the chief executive of Jobcentre Plus,<br />
Darra Singh. I have asked him to provide the hon.<br />
Member with the information requested.<br />
Letter from Darra Singh:<br />
The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question<br />
about what assistance his Department plans to give to those living<br />
in remote rural areas to (a) access jobcentres to see what vacancies<br />
are available and (b) access the labour market in areas with poor<br />
local transport. This is something that falls within the responsibilities<br />
delegated to me as Chief Executive of Jobcentre Plus.<br />
Jobcentre Plus is committed to providing all customers, including<br />
those in rural areas, with the help they need to find work as<br />
quickly as possible. We do this through a combination of the<br />
largest network of offices within Government, which is used<br />
primarily to provide face-to-face advice and guidance at the<br />
outset of the claim and at key stages t<strong>here</strong>after; and alternative<br />
means of service delivery such as telephony and the Internet.<br />
In terms of plans to help those in remote areas access vacancies,<br />
everyone receives information, advice and guidance at the new<br />
claims interview about how to make best use of appropriate<br />
vacancy sources. As part of this, people receive information about<br />
the Directgov Internet Job Bank and Jobseeker Direct (the Jobcentre<br />
Plus telephony-based vacancy matching service), both of which<br />
provide remote, fast and easy access to thousands of jobs. As a<br />
further development, we have also launched a new application for<br />
the iPhone and Google Android systems, which offers people an<br />
innovative way to search for a job through their telephone handset.<br />
Looking ahead and in transforming our labour market services<br />
still further, we aim to provide a much improved, more efficient<br />
automated service to help employers post and fill vacancies and<br />
jobseekers access available jobs. As part of this, the intention is to<br />
extend the current job search facility to include vacancies from<br />
employer websites and other job boards; and to create secure<br />
customer profiles, which will be used to automatically notify<br />
employers of suitable applicants and individuals of suitable jobs.<br />
In terms of helping people access the labour market in areas<br />
with poor local transport, Jobcentre Plus advisers will offer<br />
information, advice and guidance to claimants and provide access<br />
to measures such as the Travel to Interview Scheme to help with<br />
the cost of attending interviews. We also administer the Adviser<br />
Discretion Fund, which is used to help customers overcome small<br />
challenges preventing them from taking-up the offer of employment.<br />
In appropriate circumstances, the Fund can help with travel to<br />
work costs until receipt of first wages. All awards are at adviser<br />
discretion, taking into account individual customer circumstances<br />
and all awards must represent good value for taxpayer’s money.<br />
Following the coalition Government’s announcement of a<br />
new, integrated work programme coupled with a more flexible<br />
Jobcentre Plus delivery model, we aim to build upon the discretionary<br />
funding currently available to give local managers the ability to<br />
tailor services to local and individual need. This could include the<br />
provision of more help to overcome travel costs and difficulties in<br />
appropriate locations.<br />
Over and above the schemes administered directly by Jobcentre<br />
Plus, t<strong>here</strong> are a number of agreements in place (nationally and<br />
locally) to provide people with discounted travel, for example, in<br />
England and Wales, we have an agreement with the Association<br />
of Train Operating Companies, which offers a 50% discount on<br />
rail travel for longer-term unemployed people. A similar scheme is<br />
in place with Scot Rail and while t<strong>here</strong> is no UK wide discount<br />
scheme for bus travel, many local operators do offer discounted<br />
services to unemployed people.<br />
Jobseeker’s Allowance: Fraud<br />
Cathy Jamieson: To ask the Secretary of State for<br />
Work and Pensions how many people were prosecuted<br />
for offences relating to fraudulent claims for jobseeker’s<br />
allowance in Kilmarnock and Loudoun constituency in<br />
each of the last three years. [22958]<br />
Chris Grayling: The information requested is not<br />
available.<br />
Information on the numbers of people prosecuted for<br />
benefit fraud in Scotland for the last three years for all<br />
DWP administered benefits is available in the following<br />
table.<br />
Number prosecuted for benefit<br />
fraud in Scotland<br />
2007-08 168<br />
2008-09 139<br />
2009-10 489<br />
Notes:<br />
Information extracted from the Fraud Referral and Intelligence<br />
Management Information System.
869W<br />
Written Answers<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
Written Answers<br />
870W<br />
Jobseeker’s Allowance: Hearing Impaired<br />
Mary Macleod: To ask the Secretary of State for<br />
Work and Pensions what provisions are in place at<br />
Jobcentre Plus centres to assist jobseekers with hearing<br />
impairments; and whether interpreters are provided at<br />
each such location. [24953]<br />
Chris Grayling: The administration of Jobcentre Plus<br />
is a matter for the chief executive of Jobcentre Plus,<br />
Darra Singh. I have asked him to provide my hon.<br />
Friend with the information requested.<br />
Letter from Darra Singh:<br />
The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question<br />
asking what provisions are in place at Jobcentre Plus centres to<br />
assist jobseekers with hearing impairments and whether interpreters<br />
are provided at each such location. This is something that falls<br />
within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of<br />
Jobcentre Plus.<br />
In Jobcentre Plus we recognise the diverse range of customers<br />
we serve and we are fully committed to providing equal accessibility<br />
and availability of services to all customers. Customers arriving in<br />
a Jobcentre are met by a Customer Services Manager who identifies<br />
the reason for their visit and who is able to direct them appropriately.<br />
When a deaf or hard of hearing customer arrives at an office<br />
the Customer Services Manager takes the customer to the Customer<br />
Service Support Leader who will communicate with them at a<br />
desk set up with a hearing loop facility, if this is appropriate.<br />
If the customer is profoundly deaf or cannot use a hearing aid,<br />
a member of staff who is British Sign Language (BSL) qualified<br />
will act as interpreter. If no qualified member of staff is available,<br />
we will arrange for a communicator, for example a BSL interpreter,<br />
lip speaker or deaf/blind interpreter as appropriate, to attend the<br />
office and book an appointment for the customer to return then.<br />
If customers wish, they may bring their own interpreters. If a<br />
customer provides their own professional qualified interpreter,<br />
they can be reimbursed with reasonable travel costs. Customers<br />
often choose to bring friends and relatives to interpret.<br />
If the customer attends the Jobcentre to look for work, touch<br />
screen Jobpoints are available in our offices to search for and<br />
access vacancies. Staff will support the customer in progressing<br />
any applications for work, for example, by making contact with<br />
the employer.<br />
For customers with an appointment requiring an interpreter<br />
we currently have three contracted providers that provide BSL<br />
interpreters nationally.<br />
Jobcentre Plus is committed to providing a first class service<br />
and ensuring we fully support our most vulnerable customers.<br />
I hope this information is helpful.<br />
Mobility Allowance: Children<br />
Stephen Lloyd: To ask the Secretary of State for<br />
Work and Pensions (1) whether the removal of mobility<br />
allowance for disabled children after 84 days in residential<br />
care will also apply to children in residential education<br />
settings; [24964]<br />
(2) whether residential schools for disabled children<br />
will be classified as care homes for the purposes of the<br />
proposed changes to the mobility element of disability<br />
living allowance. [24965]<br />
Maria Miller: The spending review announced that<br />
the mobility component of disability living allowance<br />
would be removed from adults in residential care and<br />
children in residential schools.<br />
Proposals for disability living allowance reform will<br />
be informed by responses to the consultation document<br />
which we will publish shortly.<br />
We will be making clearer as we move towards the<br />
Bill exactly how the measure to cease paying mobility<br />
component of DLA to people in care homes will affect<br />
particular groups.<br />
Mortgage Payments<br />
Mr Sanders: To ask the Secretary of State for Work<br />
and Pensions whether his Department plans to provide<br />
support to households with disabled residents who can<br />
no longer afford their mortgage payments as a result of<br />
changes to the rate of support for mortgage interest to<br />
fund alternative accommodation. [23663]<br />
Steve Webb: We have no plans to increase the amount<br />
paid by way of support for mortgage interest, or to<br />
change the current standard interest rate for this group.<br />
It was necessary for the Government to put support<br />
for mortgage interest on a more sustainable footing,<br />
and to better reflect mortgage costs, which is why we set<br />
the standard interest rate at a level equal to the Bank of<br />
England’s published monthly average mortgage rate<br />
from 1 October. The rate is currently 3.63%. The previous<br />
rate of 6.08% was too generous and resulted in the vast<br />
majority of people getting more than their eligible<br />
mortgage interest liability, which was unfair to taxpayers.<br />
The plans of the previous Government would have<br />
meant that the standard interest rate would have reverted<br />
to a formula—the Bank of England base rate plus<br />
1.58%—which, at present, would produce a rate of<br />
2.08% from January 2011.<br />
T<strong>here</strong> are other funding streams available to households<br />
with disabled residents, for example, Disabled Facilities<br />
Grants and the Mortgage Rescue Scheme.<br />
Disabled Facilities Grants are provided by local<br />
authorities to help meet the cost of adapting a property<br />
for the needs of a disabled person. The Mortgage<br />
Rescue Scheme was introduced in 2009 to help people<br />
in priority need, including those who are vulnerable<br />
because of old age or a physical/mental impairment.<br />
The scheme involves a Housing Association taking on<br />
full or part ownership of the property being repossessed.<br />
Poverty: Children<br />
Richard Fuller: To ask the Secretary of State for<br />
Work and Pensions how many children in (a) England,<br />
(b) the East of England and (c) Bedford constituency<br />
were living in families with no parents in employment<br />
in October each year from 2000 to 2010. [26539]<br />
Mr Hurd: I have been asked to reply.<br />
The information requested falls within the responsibility<br />
of the UK Statistics Authority. I have asked the authority<br />
to reply.<br />
Letter from Stephen Penneck, dated November 2010:<br />
As Director General for the Office for National Statistics, I<br />
have been asked to reply to your question asking how many<br />
children in a) England b) East of England and c) Bedford<br />
Constituency were living in families with no parents in employment<br />
in October each year from 2000 to 2010. (26539)<br />
The figures requested come from the Annual Population Survey<br />
(APS) household datasets. These are currently available for 2004<br />
to 2009. The attached table shows estimates for England and East<br />
of England for these years.
871W<br />
Written Answers<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
Written Answers<br />
872W<br />
It is not possible to provide reliable estimates for Bedford<br />
constituency because of small sample sizes.<br />
As with any sample survey, estimates from the APS are subject<br />
to a margin of uncertainty. This is captured in a confidence<br />
interval, defined by lower and upper bounds, such that the<br />
interval formed between the bounds would contain the true value<br />
of 95% of all possible samples.<br />
Table: Children 1 living in families with no parent in employment in<br />
England and East of England<br />
Thousand<br />
January to<br />
December<br />
Estimate<br />
Lower<br />
bound 2<br />
Upper<br />
bound 2<br />
England 2004 1,639 1,591 1,687<br />
2005 1,630 1,582 1,678<br />
2006 1,645 1,596 1,693<br />
2007 1,613 1,564 1,662<br />
2008 1,670 1,620 1,721<br />
2009 1,707 1,655 1,759<br />
East of 2004 126 111 141<br />
England<br />
2005 124 109 140<br />
2006 128 112 144<br />
2007 130 114 147<br />
2008 141 123 158<br />
2009 133 115 150<br />
1<br />
Children refers to children under 16.<br />
2<br />
95% confidence interval which means that from all samples<br />
possible t<strong>here</strong> would be 95% certainty that the true estimate would<br />
lie within the lower and upper bounds.<br />
Source:<br />
APS household dataset<br />
Private Finance Initiative Scheme<br />
Alun Cairns: To ask the Secretary of State for Work<br />
and Pensions how many of his Department’s properties<br />
that are managed under a private finance initiative<br />
scheme are empty. [20810]<br />
Chris Grayling: DWP does not have any empty properties<br />
managed under a private finance initiative.<br />
Social Rented Housing: Reform<br />
Valerie Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for Work<br />
and Pensions whether he has had discussions with the<br />
Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government<br />
on the implications for the social rented housing market<br />
of his Department’s welfare reforms. [18432]<br />
Steve Webb: A number of discussions have been held<br />
between the Department for Work and Pensions and<br />
Communities and Local Government at, both ministerial<br />
and official level. These discussions will continue as we<br />
develop our plans.<br />
Social Security Benefits<br />
Mr Douglas Alexander: To ask the Secretary of State<br />
for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of<br />
the level of civil service staffing resources which were<br />
allocated to the preparation of the White Paper on<br />
universal credit. [26249]<br />
Chris Grayling: A number of civil servants in DWP<br />
and other Departments were involved in preparing the<br />
White Paper over a three-month period. The main work<br />
was done by members of the universal credit policy<br />
team in DWP which has a total of 20 staff.<br />
Mr Douglas Alexander: To ask the Secretary of State<br />
for Work and Pensions what (a) assumptions and (b)<br />
calculations his Department made when modelling the<br />
likely effects of the implementation of the universal<br />
credit; and if he will place in the Library a copy of each<br />
briefing document on these calculations provided to (i)<br />
Ministers and (ii) external bodies. [26250]<br />
Chris Grayling: Chapter 7 of the recent White Paper,<br />
‘Universal Credit: Welfare That Works’, and the<br />
accompanying impact assessment set out the assumptions<br />
and calculations used to model the effects of universal<br />
credit. The briefing documents provided to Ministers<br />
that covered these calculations are restricted policy<br />
development documents. The Department’s Ministers<br />
and officials have had numerous discussions over recent<br />
months with external bodies on the Government’s proposals<br />
for benefit reform.<br />
Mr Douglas Alexander: To ask the Secretary of State<br />
for Work and Pensions how much funding he plans to<br />
allocate to the implementation of the universal credit<br />
in 2011-12. [26260]<br />
Chris Grayling: The Treasury has allocated £2 billion<br />
investment funding to the Department of Work and<br />
Pensions for universal credit over the spending review<br />
period. Plans on the allocation of funding are in<br />
development.<br />
Miss McIntosh: To ask the Secretary of State for<br />
Work and Pensions what timetable he has put in place<br />
for the introduction of the universal credit; and if he<br />
will make a statement. [26631]<br />
Chris Grayling: Introducing universal credit will be a<br />
very substantial exercise with around 19 million individual<br />
existing awards of benefits and tax credits becoming<br />
part of the new benefit. The provisional timetable is as<br />
follows, subject to detailed design work done in partnership<br />
with HMRC and local authorities. The current intention<br />
is to manage transition to universal credit in three<br />
stages:<br />
October 2013 to April 2014: all new claims for out of work<br />
support will be treated as claims to universal credit. No new<br />
jobseekers allowance, employment and support allowance, income<br />
support and housing benefit claims will be accepted. Customers<br />
transitioning from out of work benefits into work will move<br />
onto universal credit if they are eligible.<br />
April 2014: no new claims will be made to tax credits.<br />
April 2014 to October 2017: we would begin to work through<br />
transferring existing case to the new benefit.<br />
Social Security Benefits: Adoption<br />
Lyn Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Work<br />
and Pensions whether his Department provides financial<br />
support for adoptive parents who are classified as casual<br />
employees. [24148]
873W<br />
Written Answers<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
Written Answers<br />
874W<br />
Maria Miller: Statutory adoption pay enables adopters<br />
to take a period of leave from work when a new child<br />
joins the family. It is paid by employers to employees<br />
who satisfy qualifying conditions based on length of<br />
employment and a minimum level of earnings. Casual<br />
employees may receive statutory adoption pay if they<br />
can satisfy the qualifying conditions.<br />
Income support is available in certain circumstances.<br />
Single people who have a child placed with them prior<br />
to an adoption have access to income support. Once the<br />
adoption has taken place an adoptive parent can continue<br />
to receive income support if they fall within another<br />
prescribed group, for example if they are a lone parent<br />
or a carer. A parent may also be entitled to income<br />
support if they are taking leave from their employment<br />
under the parental leave provisions.<br />
Social Security Benefits: Fraud<br />
Priti Patel: To ask the Secretary of State for Work<br />
and Pensions pursuant to the answer of 10 November<br />
2010, Official Report, column 350W, on social security<br />
benefits: fraud, what the (a) monetary value was of the<br />
suspected fraud in the 550 warrant cases, (b) average<br />
monetary value per case was of suspected fraud and<br />
(c) monetary value was of the suspected fraud in each<br />
of the 10 cases w<strong>here</strong> that value is highest; and what the<br />
dates of issue were of the 10 longest standing arrest<br />
warrants. [24549]<br />
Chris Grayling: Of the 550 warrants held by the<br />
Department on 14 October 2010, information was held<br />
centrally on 188 cases. This number has now been<br />
reduced to 156 following the execution of 32 warrants.<br />
Information on the remaining 362 warrants not held<br />
centrally can be provided only at disproportionate cost.<br />
(a) The total monetary value of fraud in the 156 cases is<br />
£1,273,314.26.<br />
(b) The average monetary value of fraud in the 156 cases is<br />
£8,162.27<br />
(c) The monetary value in each of the 10 cases w<strong>here</strong> that<br />
value is highest is shown in the following table.<br />
10 highest value warrant cases<br />
£<br />
1. 58,550.01<br />
2. 55,494.13<br />
3. 54,864.22<br />
4. 53,319.36<br />
5. 46,406.20<br />
6. 39,906.59<br />
7. 37,465.39<br />
8. 33,735.64<br />
9. 32,121.02<br />
10. 28,253.76<br />
Total 440,116.32<br />
Source:<br />
FRAIMS<br />
Information on the dates of issue of the 10 longest<br />
standing arrest warrants is not available centrally and<br />
can be provided only at disproportionate cost.<br />
Priti Patel: To ask the Secretary of State for Work<br />
and Pensions pursuant to the answer of 10 November<br />
2010, Official Report, column 350W, on social security<br />
benefits: fraud, what benefits were involved in the<br />
suspected frauds; how many cases involved each type<br />
of benefit; and how many cases involved suspected acts<br />
of fraud relating to more than one type of benefit.<br />
[24550]<br />
Chris Grayling: Information on the following is held<br />
but would incur disproportionate cost to collate:<br />
(a) what benefits were involved in the suspected frauds,<br />
(b) how many cases involved each type of benefit, and<br />
(c) how many cases involved suspected acts of fraud relating to<br />
more than one type of benefit..<br />
Priti Patel: To ask the Secretary of State for Work<br />
and Pensions pursuant to the answer of 10 November<br />
2010, Official Report, column 350W, on social security<br />
benefits: fraud, how many of the defendants have<br />
convictions or police cautions for other offences.<br />
[24551]<br />
Chris Grayling: The information on how many of the<br />
defendants have convictions or police cautions for other<br />
offences is held but can be provided only at disproportionate<br />
cost.<br />
Priti Patel: To ask the Secretary of State for Work<br />
and Pensions pursuant to the answer of 10 November<br />
2010, Official Report, column 350W, on social security<br />
benefits: fraud, what were the (a) names of the persons<br />
issued with arrest warrants, (b) their last known<br />
addresses or w<strong>here</strong>abouts and (c) the monetary value<br />
of the suspected fraud in each case. [24719]<br />
Chris Grayling: The Data Protection Act 1998 and<br />
Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights<br />
provide no legal gateway to release information containing:<br />
(a) names of the persons issued with arrest warrants<br />
(b) their last known addresses or w<strong>here</strong>abouts.<br />
Of the 550 warrants held by the Department on<br />
14 October 2010, information is held centrally on 188<br />
cases. Information on the remaining 362 cases is not<br />
held centrally, warrants having been issued prior to roll<br />
out of an IT case management system in November<br />
2009.<br />
The monetary value of the 362 cases is held but can<br />
be provided only at disproportionate cost.<br />
Of the 188 arrest warrants mentioned above, 32 have<br />
been executed since 14 October 2010, reducing the<br />
number to156, on which information is held centrally.<br />
(c)The monetary value of the 156 cases can be found<br />
in the following table.<br />
Number and monetary value of 156 warrant cases<br />
Number Amount of overpaid benefit (£)<br />
1-13 0<br />
14 77.95<br />
15 259.28<br />
16 328.29<br />
17 409.50<br />
18 429.66<br />
19 517.07<br />
20 587.88<br />
21 776.81<br />
22 841.44<br />
23 854.62<br />
24 862.30
875W<br />
Written Answers<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
Written Answers<br />
876W<br />
Number and monetary value of 156 warrant cases<br />
Number Amount of overpaid benefit (£)<br />
25 866.00<br />
26 890.40<br />
27 936.44<br />
28 939.12<br />
29 1,066.65<br />
30 1,148.21<br />
31 1,253.76<br />
32 1,417.60<br />
33 1,483.54<br />
34 1,548.10<br />
35 1,617.01<br />
36 1,711.84<br />
37 1,817.75<br />
38 1,831.06<br />
39 1,847.75<br />
40 1,968.29<br />
41 2,005.51<br />
42 2,028.74<br />
43 2,110.33<br />
44 2,124.84<br />
45 2,158.64<br />
46 2,203.43<br />
47 2,207.51<br />
48 2,209.20<br />
49 2,249.04<br />
50 2,314.50<br />
51 2,323.34<br />
52 2,428.39<br />
53 2,429.41<br />
54 2,431.22<br />
55 2,478.56<br />
56 2,533.40<br />
57 2,674.32<br />
58 2,816.69<br />
59 2,867.64<br />
60 2,917.10<br />
61 2,962.23<br />
62 2,976.41<br />
63 2,995.07<br />
64 3,014.35<br />
65 3,265.20<br />
66 3,311.41<br />
67 3,342.81<br />
68 3,389.50<br />
69 3,473.29<br />
70 3,536.55<br />
71 3,598.53<br />
72 3,632.38<br />
73 3,662.47<br />
74 3,678.02<br />
75 3,821.10<br />
76 3,840.90<br />
77 3,845.21<br />
78 3,860.88<br />
79 3,924.65<br />
80 4,036.68<br />
81 4,131.49<br />
82 4,234.76<br />
83 4,367.23<br />
84 4,396.97<br />
85 4,422.05<br />
86 4,430.69<br />
Number and monetary value of 156 warrant cases<br />
Number Amount of overpaid benefit (£)<br />
87 4,765.10<br />
88 4,815.42<br />
89 4,927.90<br />
90 4,928.80<br />
91 5,461.84<br />
92 5,463.05<br />
93 5,512.54<br />
94 5,599.80<br />
95 5,711.28<br />
96 6,011.93<br />
97 6,116.89<br />
98 6,120.89<br />
99 6,487.05<br />
100 6,487.53<br />
101 6,859.82<br />
102 7,017.09<br />
103 7,150.94<br />
104 7,201.96<br />
105 7,356.10<br />
106 7,674.28<br />
107 7,815.00<br />
108 7,829.00<br />
109 7,972.47<br />
110 8,034.17<br />
111 8,267.87<br />
112 8,336.33<br />
113 8,406.11<br />
114 8,489.62<br />
115 9,038.97<br />
116 9,081.42<br />
117 9,575.76<br />
118 9,768.85<br />
119 9,931.33<br />
120 10,349.52<br />
121 10,421.42<br />
122 10,540.63<br />
123 11,261.49<br />
124 12,110.54<br />
125 12,175.86<br />
126 12,387.59<br />
127 12,620.73<br />
128 12,819.05<br />
129 13,015.24<br />
130 13,893.95<br />
131 14,007.92<br />
132 14,140.00<br />
133 15,339.59<br />
134 15,353.00<br />
135 16,105.99<br />
136 16,332.74<br />
137 17,146.00<br />
138 17,225.54<br />
139 17,820.01<br />
140 18,368.30<br />
141 19,481.46<br />
142 20,816.00<br />
143 21,049.35<br />
144 21,239.32<br />
145 25,286.04<br />
146 25,722.59<br />
147 28,253.76<br />
148 32,121.02
877W<br />
Written Answers<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
Written Answers<br />
878W<br />
Number and monetary value of 156 warrant cases<br />
Number Amount of overpaid benefit (£)<br />
149 33,735.64<br />
150 37,465.39<br />
151 39,906.59<br />
152 46,406.20<br />
153 53,319.36<br />
154 54,864.22<br />
155 55,494.13<br />
156 58,550.01<br />
Source:<br />
FRAIMS<br />
The Department will instigate criminal proceedings irrespective of<br />
the amount of overpayment w<strong>here</strong> it is in the public interest to do so.<br />
For example, an attempt by a fraudster to falsely obtain a national<br />
insurance number to gain access to the benefit system may have<br />
criminal proceedings instigated against them whether or not t<strong>here</strong> was<br />
an overpayment.<br />
Priti Patel: To ask the Secretary of State for Work<br />
and Pensions pursuant to the answer of 10 November<br />
2010, Official Report, column 350W, on social security<br />
benefits: fraud, what steps are being taken to recover<br />
the suspected fraud identified in the cases; what steps<br />
he plans to take to recover from them the legal and<br />
other costs of pursuing those cases; what estimate he<br />
made of the cost to the public purse of taking legal and<br />
other action to pursue those cases; and what steps are<br />
being taken to arrest the persons concerned in the 550<br />
cases. [24720]<br />
Chris Grayling: Once a decision has been made that<br />
an overpayment is recoverable the steps taken to effect<br />
recovery include deductions from ongoing benefits,<br />
instalments, a lump sum or through the courts.<br />
Overpayments are not written off if the debtor cannot<br />
be immediately located. Comprehensive efforts are made<br />
to trace debtors and debts may be pursued over a<br />
considerable period of time.<br />
The Department seeks prosecution costs awards in<br />
all cases: it is not limited to those dealt with by warrant.<br />
Standard costs are £100.00 in guilty plea and £250.00 in<br />
not guilty plea cases heard in the magistrates courts. In<br />
the Crown court, applications for prosecution costs<br />
start at £350.00 and rise substantially depending on the<br />
seriousness, complexity and plea entered. Decisions to<br />
award prosecution costs are made by presiding magistrates<br />
or judges on a case by case basis.<br />
Information is not available of the cost to the public<br />
purse of taking legal and other action to pursue the 550<br />
cases.<br />
The Department has nominated staff whose duties<br />
include checking all outstanding warrants every month<br />
against departmental records and informing the warrant<br />
holder, who is normally either based at the local police<br />
or court, of changes and requesting immediate execution<br />
of warrants. The responsibility to arrest rests with the<br />
police.<br />
Social Security Benefits: Reform<br />
Graham Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for<br />
Work and Pensions what the evidential basis is for the<br />
estimate in his Department’s White Paper on welfare<br />
reform that his proposed benefit reforms will take<br />
300,000 people out of poverty; and over what period he<br />
expects this to be achieved. [26169]<br />
Chris Grayling: We expect that by the time it is fully<br />
implemented, universal credit will have moved 350,000<br />
children and 500,000 working-age adults out of poverty,<br />
due to increased benefit entitlement and improved take-up<br />
rates. This is estimated using the Department’s policy<br />
simulation model. These poverty impacts do not take<br />
any account of any positive impacts of more people<br />
moving into work.<br />
Graham Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for<br />
Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of the<br />
number of people who will no longer be in poverty in<br />
(a) Haslingden and (b) Hyndburn as a result of<br />
implementation of his proposed reforms to the welfare<br />
system. [26170]<br />
Chris Grayling: The information is not available for<br />
the geographical areas requested.<br />
We estimate that for Great Britain, by the time it is<br />
fully implemented, the impact of universal credit will be<br />
a net poverty reduction of 350,000 children and 500,000<br />
working-age adults.<br />
Graham Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for<br />
Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of the<br />
number of people likely to have their (a) housing<br />
benefit, (b) incapacity benefit and (c) jobseeker’s allowance<br />
withdrawn as a result of implementation of the proposals<br />
in his Department’s White Paper on welfare reform.<br />
[26189]<br />
Chris Grayling: No one will experience a reduction in<br />
the benefit they are receiving as a result of the introduction<br />
of universal credit. At the point of transition onto the<br />
new system, those households whose circumstances remain<br />
unchanged and who would otherwise experience a reduction<br />
in income will receive cash protection to make up the<br />
difference.<br />
Universal Credit: Welfare<br />
Grahame M. Morris: To ask the Secretary of State<br />
for Work and Pensions with reference to paragraph 14<br />
of his White Paper entitled Universal Credit: welfare<br />
that works, when he plans to set out proposals for a<br />
new system of financial sanctions to provide greater<br />
incentives for people to meet their responsibilities.<br />
[24900]<br />
Chris Grayling: Our current proposals for financial<br />
sanctions are set out in chapter three of our White<br />
Paper, ‘Universal Credit: welfare that works’.<br />
Universal credit will make sure that work pays. In<br />
return, claimants can reasonably be expected to look<br />
for and prepare for work.<br />
We also believe that it is fair to ask some claimants to<br />
do more to find work in return for receiving current<br />
benefits and ahead of the introduction of universal<br />
credit we intend to increase the level of labour market<br />
conditionality applied to some claimants; introduce a<br />
claimant commitment to ensure claimants fully understand<br />
what is expected of them; improve the sanctions regime<br />
so that it more effectively encourages claimants to meet<br />
their responsibilities; and introduce full-time mandatory<br />
work activity.
879W<br />
Written Answers<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
Written Answers<br />
880W<br />
These changes will form the basis of the labour<br />
market conditionality and sanctions system under universal<br />
credit.<br />
Those measures that require primary legislation will<br />
form part of the Welfare Reform Bill to be introduced<br />
in the new year.<br />
Vacancies: Peterborough<br />
Mr Stewart Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State<br />
for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of<br />
the number of vacancies for (a) full-time and (b)<br />
part-time employment in Peterborough city council<br />
area on (i) 1 April 2008, (ii) 1 April 2009, (iii) 1 April<br />
2010 and (iv) 1 September 2010; and if he will make a<br />
statement. [21162]<br />
Chris Grayling: The information requested is in the<br />
following tables.<br />
The figures provided relate just to vacancies notified<br />
to Jobcentre Plus and, as such, represent a market share<br />
of vacancies throughout the whole economy.<br />
Comprehensive estimates of all job vacancies and not<br />
just those notified to Jobcentre Plus, are available from<br />
the ONS Vacancy Survey. However, the ONS survey is<br />
currently designed to provide national estimates only.<br />
August 2010 is the most recent available data.<br />
Number of notified vacancies for the months of April 2008, April<br />
2009, April 2010 and August 2010: Peterborough local authority<br />
Date Full-time vacancies Part-time vacancies<br />
April 2008 973 198<br />
April 2009 608 228<br />
April 2010 1,113 278<br />
August 2010 1,451 420<br />
Number of live unfilled vacancies for the months of April 2008, April<br />
2009, April 2010 and August 2010: Peterborough local authority<br />
Date Full-time vacancies Part-time vacancies<br />
April 2008 1,336 221<br />
April 2009 500 146<br />
April 2010 813 252<br />
August 2010 918 419<br />
Source:<br />
Jobcentre Plus Labour Market System.<br />
Asbestos: Employers’ Liability<br />
Andrea Leadsom: To ask the Secretary of State for<br />
Work and Pensions if he will bring forward proposals to<br />
ensure that those with asbestos-related illnesses are<br />
eligible to claim on employers’ insurance if the exposure<br />
to asbestos occurred while at work. [24113]<br />
Chris Grayling: The Employers’ Liability (Compulsory<br />
Insurance) Act 1969 requires employers carrying on<br />
business in Great Britain to insure their liability to their<br />
employees for bodily injury or disease sustained in the<br />
course of their employment. This Act ensures that<br />
those with asbestos-related diseases can claim compensation<br />
against their employers’ liability insurance, w<strong>here</strong> the<br />
employer has been negligent in exposing them to asbestos<br />
while at work.<br />
However, a recent Court of Appeal case has considered<br />
how the wording of these employers’ liability insurance<br />
policies affects civil compensation for mesothelioma<br />
sufferers and we had hoped that the judgment would<br />
have provided a general principle on how these policies<br />
should deal with their mesothelioma claims. The court<br />
decided that the policies should be interpreted based on<br />
the actual policy wording, which means that some<br />
sufferers may not be able to claim compensation if the<br />
insurance policy was worded in such a way that prevents<br />
a claim from being made. We expect this judgment to be<br />
appealed to the Supreme Court.<br />
In February 2010 the previous Government published<br />
their consultation document, ‘Accessing Compensation—<br />
Supporting people who need to trace employers’ liability<br />
insurance’, which set out proposals for people who need<br />
to find their employers’ liability insurance policies in<br />
order to claim compensation. The consultation closed<br />
on 5 May 2010. T<strong>here</strong> were two proposals; firstly an<br />
Employers’ Liability Tracing Office, that would manage<br />
a database of EL policies. Secondly, an Employers’<br />
Liability Insurance Bureau which would be a compensation<br />
fund of last resort for those individuals who are unable<br />
to trace EL insurance records, ensuring they are able to<br />
receive compensation for injuries or diseases sustained<br />
during the course of their employment. We are in active<br />
discussions with all stakeholders on how this situation<br />
can be addressed and we will publish our response to<br />
the consultation in due course.<br />
CABINET OFFICE<br />
Banks: Finance<br />
Mr MacNeil: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet<br />
Office whether the Office for National Statistics calculation<br />
of public sector net debt takes account of the recapitalisation<br />
of banks. [27859]<br />
Mr Hurd: The information requested falls within the<br />
responsibility of the UK Statistics Authority. I have<br />
asked the authority to reply to the hon. Member. A<br />
copy of their response will be placed in the Library.<br />
Big Society Bank<br />
Roberta Blackman-Woods: To ask the Minister for<br />
the Cabinet Office by what date he expects the Big<br />
Society Bank to (a) be established and (b) commence<br />
distributing funds. [27275]<br />
Mr Hurd: The Government aim to have some functions<br />
of the Big Society Bank in place by April, then building<br />
towards a fully operational Bank. It will be ready to<br />
make initial investments by early summer, which is<br />
when we expect the first dormant accounts money will<br />
become available.<br />
Charity Commission<br />
Mrs Ellman: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet<br />
Office what assessment he has made of the proposed<br />
changes to the operation of the Charity Commission;<br />
and if he will make a statement. [26453]<br />
Mr Hurd: The Charity Commission, like other<br />
Government Departments, is facing tough decisions<br />
about its future priorities following the spending review.<br />
It is undertaking a strategic review to focus on the key
881W<br />
Written Answers<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
Written Answers<br />
882W<br />
priorities for its future work, including seeking the<br />
views of the public and other stakeholders. In addition,<br />
the statutory review of the Charities Act 2006 which is<br />
due to take place in 2011 will consider potential changes<br />
to the legislative framework for charities and the Charity<br />
Commission.<br />
The Charity Commission’s strategic review is currently<br />
under way and it would be premature to speculate on<br />
the outcome, but I am confident that the Charity<br />
Commission can be an effective regulator of charities in<br />
England and Wales within the resources allocated in its<br />
spending review settlement.<br />
Community Organisers<br />
Alex Cunningham: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet<br />
Office what roles and responsibilities the proposed<br />
community organisers will have; and what mechanisms<br />
he plans to put in place to monitor and assess their<br />
effectiveness. [27300]<br />
Mr Hurd: Community organisers will act as a catalyst<br />
for more social action, supporting all parts of the<br />
community (including under-represented and disadvantaged<br />
groups and individuals), to express their needs and<br />
issues, as well as identify opportunities and resources.<br />
Through supporting communities to take action, they<br />
will:<br />
(a) Build capacity of the community they serve by helping the<br />
community take action on the issues that matter most to them;<br />
(b) Help the community challenge vested interests and drive<br />
change in public and private sector organisations and in the<br />
community;<br />
(c) Build self-reliance, individual and collective responsibility;<br />
(d) Encourage diverse people to work with others to improve<br />
the quality of life locally;<br />
(e) Identify local leaders who can carry forward actions;<br />
(f) Support and link new and existing neighbourhood groups<br />
(t<strong>here</strong>by supporting the activity of the Community First programme,<br />
a targeted grants programme, currently under development).<br />
The Office for Civil Society is currently procuring a<br />
national partner to further develop, manage and implement<br />
the community organisers programme at arms length<br />
from Government. This ensures that community organisers<br />
will be accountable to the national partner, while remaining<br />
free from political influence.<br />
The effectiveness of the community organisers will<br />
also be measured by the success they have in enabling<br />
the communities to take successful actions for change,<br />
on the priorities that the communities have identified.<br />
Community organisers will be accountable to the<br />
community they are supporting as well as any institutions<br />
which support them.<br />
Deaths: Winter<br />
Valerie Vaz: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet<br />
Office what recent discussions he has had with ministerial<br />
colleagues on responsibility for steps to prevent excess<br />
winter deaths. [26283]<br />
Mr Maude: Officials from all key Departments are in<br />
regular contact on a wide range of winter resilience<br />
issues, including steps to reduce the number of excess<br />
deaths over the winter period.<br />
Emergencies<br />
Miss McIntosh: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet<br />
Office what assessment he has made of the likely effects<br />
of the outcomes of the comprehensive spending review<br />
on his Department’s civil contingencies programmes.<br />
[26629]<br />
Mr Maude: The Government’s plans for changes in<br />
the <strong>United</strong> <strong>Kingdom</strong>’s civil contingencies programmes,<br />
within the resources available through the 2010 spending<br />
review, are set out in chapter 4 of the strategic defence<br />
and security review published on 19 October.<br />
The need for resilience to all kinds of emergency is<br />
identified in the National Security Strategy as a priority<br />
task. The role of the Cabinet Office is to co-ordinate<br />
Government-wide resilience planning and programmes,<br />
and will continue t<strong>here</strong>fore to be an important task for<br />
the Department.<br />
Football: South Africa<br />
Graham Evans: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet<br />
Office how much his Department spent on attendance<br />
at the 2010 FIFA World cup. [26151]<br />
Mr Hurd: The Cabinet Office did not spend any<br />
money on attendance at the 2010 FIFA World cup.<br />
Iraq Committee of Inquiry: Public Appointments<br />
Mr Llwyd: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office<br />
(1) what skills and experience were identified as being<br />
required for the role of Secretary to the Iraq Inquiry;<br />
how many candidates were identified as having such<br />
skills and experience; and on what basis the successful<br />
candidate was selected; [26897]<br />
(2) what steps were taken in the process of appointment<br />
of the Secretary to the Iraq Inquiry (a) to identify<br />
potential conflicts of interest and (b) to ensure that any<br />
such conflicts did not affect the independence of the<br />
inquiry. [26898]<br />
Mr Hurd: The Cabinet Secretary decided to nominate<br />
the Secretary to the Iraq Inquiry and agreed the<br />
appointment with the Chairman of the Inquiry. Both<br />
the Cabinet Secretary and the Chairman of the Inquiry<br />
agreed that the Secretary to the Inquiry should be a<br />
senior individual in the civil service ideally with previous<br />
involvement in Iraq issues.<br />
The Chairman of the Inquiry has told the Cabinet<br />
Secretary that, in agreeing to the appointment, he was<br />
aware of the candidate’s role in the Foreign and Defence<br />
Policy (formerly the Defence and Overseas Policy)<br />
Secretariat in the Cabinet Office from November 2004,<br />
and, given the professional standards of the senior civil<br />
service, saw no potential conflict of interest with her<br />
appointment as Secretary to the Inquiry that would, in<br />
his view, affect the independence of the Inquiry.<br />
Mr Llwyd: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office<br />
which of his Department’s human resources procedures<br />
were followed in the selection of the (a) secretary and<br />
(b) press secretary to the Iraq Inquiry. [26899]
883W<br />
Written Answers<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
Written Answers<br />
884W<br />
Mr Hurd: The roles were filled by applying the managed<br />
move policy in accordance with the Cabinet Office<br />
human resources procedures.<br />
National Citizen Service<br />
Roberta Blackman-Woods: To ask the Minister for<br />
the Cabinet Office on what dates Ministers in the<br />
Cabinet Office have met Lord Wei to discuss the<br />
National Citizen Service. [27274]<br />
Mr Hurd: Ministers in the Cabinet Office meet with<br />
Lord Wei frequently to discuss many subjects in his<br />
capacity as Government adviser on Big Society, including<br />
National Citizen Service (NCS). Information relating<br />
to internal discussions and advice is not normally disclosed.<br />
Alex Cunningham: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet<br />
Office what plans he has for the role of the National<br />
Citizen Service in providing public services; and what<br />
plans he has to monitor and assess the service’s performance<br />
in that role. [27299]<br />
Mr Hurd: National Citizen Service (NCS) is a scheme<br />
to help young people to serve their communities and to<br />
develop personally. It is not envisaged that NCS will be<br />
used to provide public services, although as part of<br />
their summer NCS experience t<strong>here</strong> may be opportunities<br />
for young people to volunteer with, and learn more<br />
about, public service providers in their area.<br />
An independent evaluation will be conducted to assess<br />
the impact of National Citizen Service during the pilot<br />
phase.<br />
Roberta Blackman-Woods: To ask the Minister for<br />
the Cabinet Office what procurement process his<br />
Department undertook for the pilots of the National<br />
Citizen Service. [27450]<br />
Mr Hurd: Cabinet Office conducted a fully open and<br />
competitive process to select the providers of 2011<br />
National Citizen Service (NCS) pilots. This involved a<br />
public invitation of expressions of interest from any<br />
organisation or group of organisations interested in<br />
running NCS pilots in 2011, followed by the invitation<br />
of full proposals from organisations and consortiums<br />
shortlisted at the expression of interest stage.<br />
Third Sector: Finance<br />
Alex Cunningham: To ask the Minister for the<br />
Cabinet Office what steps his Department plans to take<br />
to monitor the effectiveness of the transition fund for<br />
charities, voluntary groups and social enterprises.<br />
[27302]<br />
Mr Hurd: The Transition Fund is a significant fund<br />
that will provide much needed and immediate support<br />
for charities, voluntary groups and social enterprises to<br />
help them take on an even bigger role in this country in<br />
the medium to long term. Our key aim is to make this<br />
support available quickly, so that organisations can<br />
make the necessary changes to make the transition to a<br />
tighter funding environment and take advantage of the<br />
opportunities presented by the Big Society. The Office<br />
for Civil Society has worked with the fund manager,<br />
BIG Fund, to develop arrangements for monitoring the<br />
outcomes achieved by successful applicants.<br />
The Transition Fund was launched on 30 November<br />
and is open for applications until 21 January 2011.<br />
Lindsay Roy: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet<br />
Office what assessment he has made of the potential<br />
contribution to the Big Society initiative of proposed<br />
changes in his Department’s funding of community<br />
groups and charities. [27445]<br />
Mr Hurd: Civil Society cannot be immune from the<br />
need to reduce the deficit, but the allocation of around<br />
£470 million to the Office for Civil Society within the<br />
Cabinet Office budget shows our support in very tight<br />
circumstances.<br />
Charities, communities and social enterprises have a<br />
tremendous role to play in building the Big Society,<br />
through their ability to galvanise community action,<br />
provide better public services and represent and empower<br />
communities. We will use our settlement to support<br />
them in this work, making it easier to set up and run a<br />
charity or social enterprise, and easier for such organisations<br />
to access finance and work with the state.<br />
While Big Society opens up many opportunities for<br />
the sector, we recognise however that the sector is<br />
exposed during the transitional period leading up to<br />
them, and so the spending review settlement t<strong>here</strong>fore<br />
includes a £100 million transition fund for the sector in<br />
England. Funding for Charities and community Groups<br />
outside England is largely a matter for devolved<br />
administrations.<br />
Lindsay Roy: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet<br />
Office what assessment he has made of the likely effects<br />
on (a) community groups and (b) charities of changes<br />
to their funding as a result of the outcome of the<br />
Comprehensive Spending Review. [27451]<br />
Mr Hurd: It is currently too early to evaluate the<br />
impact of the comprehensive spending review on (a)<br />
community groups and (b) charities. However the Cabinet<br />
Office has worked with partners in the sector, across<br />
Government and the Third Sector Research Centre to<br />
examine the exposure of the sector to public spending<br />
reductions and to mitigate potential impacts.<br />
The Big Society presents a great opportunity for<br />
voluntary and community groups, as we open up public<br />
services and devolve power; and the Government are<br />
t<strong>here</strong>fore committed to supporting the sector through<br />
this transitional period. This includes: a £100 million<br />
Transition Fund to help organisations with shortfalls in<br />
the short-term; publishing evidence and best practice to<br />
support government at all levels to make cuts wisely and<br />
in partnership with the sector; and, setting out policy<br />
measures to open up new sources of funding and help<br />
the sector maximise new opportunities in the strategy<br />
document ‘Building a Stronger Civil Society’.<br />
Funding for charities and community groups outside<br />
England is largely a matter for devolved Administrations.<br />
Written Questions: Government Responses<br />
Mr Amess: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office<br />
(1) if he will make it his policy that guidance on<br />
answering round robin questions produced by his
885W<br />
Written Answers<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
Written Answers<br />
886W<br />
Department in respect of questions tabled in (a) the<br />
House of Lords and (b) House of Commons is<br />
circulated to departments within three days of the<br />
question being tabled; and if he will make a statement;<br />
[26648]<br />
(2) what recent estimate he has made of the number<br />
of questions to Government tabled in the House of<br />
Lords that remain unanswered after 10 working days as<br />
a result of the timing of circulation of guidance on<br />
answering round robins; what recent representations he<br />
has received from Cabinet colleagues about the issue;<br />
and if he will make a statement. [26649]<br />
Mr Maude: All Ministers are responsible and accountable<br />
for the answers given to parliamentary questions within<br />
specified deadlines. In the case of questions that are<br />
deemed to be “round robin”, The Guide to <strong>Parliament</strong>ary<br />
Work, published by the Leader of the House of Commons<br />
www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/government-business/<br />
parliamentary-business.aspx<br />
states that Departments should not delay preparing an<br />
answer until “round robin” advice is provided, and<br />
should not miss the target deadlines for this reason.<br />
HEALTH<br />
Answers received for publication on<br />
Monday 29 November 2010.<br />
Abortion<br />
Mr Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Health<br />
how many women aged (a) 18 to 24 years and (b) 25<br />
to 30 years in each strategic health authority area who<br />
had had (i) one, (ii) two, (iii) three, (iv) four, (v) five, (vi)<br />
six, (vii) seven, (viii) eight, (ix) nine and (x) 10 or more<br />
previous abortions had an abortion in 2009. [26652]<br />
Anne Milton: Information on previous abortions by<br />
age group and strategic health authority in 2009 is<br />
shown in the following table. The data have been provided<br />
for age groups 25 to 29 years for consistency with data<br />
published in the Department’s statistical bulletin.<br />
Information on previous abortions is extracted from the<br />
HSA4 abortion notification forms submitted to the<br />
chief medical officer (CMO). These data show the total<br />
number of abortions notified to CMO and not data for<br />
individual women as more than one form may be received<br />
for a woman in a calendar year.<br />
Abortions by age group, strategic health authority and number of<br />
previous abortions, residents of England and Wales, 2009<br />
Age group<br />
Strategic<br />
health<br />
authority<br />
England and<br />
Wales<br />
Number of<br />
previous<br />
abortions 18-24 25-29<br />
0 55,086 23,817<br />
1 17,746 12,392<br />
2 — 3,262<br />
3 — 828<br />
4 — 242<br />
5 — 70<br />
6ormore — —<br />
Abortions by age group, strategic health authority and number of<br />
previous abortions, residents of England and Wales, 2009<br />
Age group<br />
Strategic<br />
health<br />
authority<br />
East of<br />
England<br />
East<br />
Midlands<br />
Number of<br />
previous<br />
abortions 18-24 25-29<br />
Total 76,900 40,634<br />
0 4,616 1,969<br />
1 1,434 1,020<br />
2 — 277<br />
3ormore — 98<br />
Total 6,383 3,364<br />
0 3,898 1,485<br />
1 1,021 660<br />
2 — 164<br />
3ormore — 57<br />
Total 5,121 2,366<br />
London 0 10,691 6,505<br />
1 4,556 3,662<br />
2 — 1,103<br />
3 or more — 462<br />
Total 16,555 11,732<br />
North East 0 2,490 883<br />
1 630 415<br />
2 — 102<br />
3ormore — 28<br />
Total 3,230 1,428<br />
North West 0 8,070 3,078<br />
1 2,467 1,530<br />
2 — 353<br />
3 or more — 108<br />
Total 11,016 5,069<br />
South Central 0 3,190 1,392<br />
1 993 631<br />
2 — 176<br />
3ormore — 53<br />
Total 4,402 2,252<br />
South East 0 3,671 1,429<br />
1 1,212 865<br />
2 — 219<br />
3ormore — 81<br />
Total 5,172 2,594<br />
South West 0 4,209 1,520<br />
1 1,096 702<br />
2 — 144<br />
3ormore — 44<br />
Total 5,520 2,410
887W<br />
Written Answers<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
Written Answers<br />
888W<br />
Abortions by age group, strategic health authority and number of<br />
previous abortions, residents of England and Wales, 2009<br />
Age group<br />
Strategic<br />
health<br />
authority<br />
West<br />
Midlands<br />
Yorkshire and<br />
the Humber<br />
Number of<br />
previous<br />
abortions 18-24 25-29<br />
0 6,028 2,361<br />
1 2,044 1,303<br />
2 — 354<br />
3ormore — 95<br />
Total 8,546 4,113<br />
0 5,295 2,045<br />
1 1,527 1,065<br />
2 — 258<br />
3ormore — 95<br />
Total 7,101 3,463<br />
Wales 0 2,928 1,150<br />
1 766 539<br />
2 — 112<br />
3ormore — 42<br />
Total 3,854 1,843<br />
‘—’ = Suppressed value less than 10 (between 0 and 9) or w<strong>here</strong> a<br />
presented total would reveal a suppressed value when used with<br />
previously published tables. This is in line with Office for National<br />
Statistics guidance for the release of abortion statistics 2005.<br />
Abortion: Marriage<br />
Mr Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Health<br />
what proportion of women who had an abortion in<br />
2009 were married at the time of the abortion; what the<br />
modal (a) age of the women, (b) length gestation of<br />
the pregnancy, (c) number of previous children born<br />
to the women and (d) number of previous abortions<br />
undergone by the women was; and what the most<br />
common legal grounds was under which such abortions<br />
were performed. [26413]<br />
Anne Milton: The information requested can be found<br />
in the following table.<br />
Most likely 1 conditions for married women 2 having abortions in 2009, residents<br />
of England and Wales<br />
England<br />
and<br />
Wales<br />
Total<br />
abortions<br />
to<br />
married<br />
women<br />
Age<br />
Gestation<br />
weeks<br />
Number<br />
of<br />
previous<br />
children<br />
Number<br />
of<br />
previous<br />
abortions Ground<br />
3<br />
26,971 29 7 2 0 C<br />
1<br />
Statistical mode (highest frequency).<br />
2<br />
Includes civil partnership.<br />
3<br />
15% of total abortions.<br />
Note:<br />
Ground C: that the pregnancy has not exceeded its twenty-fourth week and that<br />
the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk: greater than if the<br />
pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the<br />
pregnant woman.<br />
Accident and Emergency Departments<br />
Mr Evennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Health<br />
how many people were treated in the accident and<br />
emergency department in (a) Queen Mary’s Hospital,<br />
Sidcup (b) Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Woolwich and<br />
(c) Princess Royal Hospital, Farnborough in each of<br />
the last five years. [26266]<br />
Mr Simon Burns: This information is not collected in<br />
the format requested. The information that is available<br />
is shown in the following table.<br />
Attendances at accident and emergency departments, 2005-06 to 2009-10<br />
First attendances<br />
Org name 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10<br />
Bromley Hospitals<br />
NHS Trust<br />
Queen Elizabeth<br />
Hospital NHS Trust<br />
Queen Mary’s Sidcup<br />
NHS Trust<br />
South London<br />
Healthcare NHS<br />
Trust<br />
82,418 86,132 84,202 84,162 —<br />
98,280 98,798 99,534 98,224 —<br />
71,241 71,802 74,060 80,273 —<br />
— — — — 274,634<br />
Notes:<br />
1. Data is provided by NHS Trust.<br />
2. Data provided are first attendances at the trusts A&E departments.<br />
Source:<br />
Department of Health form Quarterly Monitoring of Accident and<br />
Emergency<br />
Barnet General Hospital: Private Finance Initiative<br />
Mike Freer: To ask the Secretary of State for Health<br />
what proportion of the running costs of Barnet<br />
General Hospital was paid to the private finance<br />
initiative provider in each year from 2005 to 2009; and<br />
if he will estimate the proportion to be paid to the<br />
private finance initiative provider in (a) 2010 and (b)<br />
2011. [26643]<br />
Mr Simon Burns: The information is not available in<br />
the format requested. However, data for net operating<br />
expenses for Barnet and Chase Farm Hospitals National<br />
Health Service Trust in respect of its private finance<br />
initiative (PFI) scheme are set out in the following table.<br />
Data are not held centrally for 2010-11 or 2011-12.<br />
Barnet and Chase Farm Hospitals NHS Trust: Proportion of total<br />
operating expenses relating to PFI<br />
Percentage of total revenue<br />
expenditure relating to PFI<br />
2005-06 5.5<br />
2006-07 4.8<br />
2007-08 4.0<br />
2008-09 3.6<br />
2009-10 3.3<br />
Notes:<br />
1. The source of the data is the audited summarisation schedules of<br />
the trust for 2005-06 to 2009-10.<br />
2. The percentages provided represent the net operating expenses in<br />
respect of PFI schemes as a proportion of total operating expenses.<br />
3. 2005-06 to 2008-09 figures compiled under UK generally accepted<br />
accounting practice.<br />
4. 2009-10 accounts were compiled under international finance reporting<br />
standards.<br />
Basophobia: NHS<br />
Mr Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Health<br />
(1) what treatments for basophobia are available on the<br />
NHS; whether he expects new treatments to be available<br />
in the next two years; and if he will make a statement;<br />
[26493]
889W<br />
Written Answers<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
Written Answers<br />
890W<br />
(2) what steps his Department has taken to increase<br />
the standard of healthcare for people diagnosed with<br />
basophobia since 1990; and if he will make a<br />
statement; [26494]<br />
(3) whether he has made an estimate of the number of<br />
(a) men and (b) women in each age group in each<br />
health authority area who were diagnosed with basophobia<br />
in each of the last three years; [26495]<br />
(4) whether his Department has commissioned research<br />
into (a) basophobia and (b) conditions related to<br />
basophobia in the last three years; and if he will make a<br />
statement; [26496]<br />
(5) whether his Department has commissioned research<br />
into the (a) causes and (b) prevention of basophobia<br />
since 1990; and if he will make a statement. [26497]<br />
Paul Burstow: Basophobia, a fear of falling, is one of<br />
a large number of specific phobias that generally respond<br />
well to cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) although it<br />
is important that physical health issues that might make<br />
someone more likely to fall, such as low blood pressure,<br />
are checked out before psychological treatment is started.<br />
CBT is now increasingly available on the national health<br />
service as a result of the Improving Access to Psychological<br />
Therapies programme which began in 2008 and is about<br />
half-way through its nationwide roll-out. The Chancellor<br />
announced further funding in the spending review to<br />
complete this roll-out by 2014-15. These local psychological<br />
therapies services, which are delivered in primary care,<br />
are ideal for patients with specific phobias like basophobia<br />
because of the ease with which therapists can link with<br />
the patient’s general practitioner.<br />
With regard to research into the condition, the usual<br />
practice of the Department’s National Institute for<br />
Health Research (NIHR) is not to ring-fence funds for<br />
expenditure on particular topics: research proposals in<br />
all areas compete for the funding available.<br />
British Medical Association: Competition<br />
Derek Twigg: To ask the Secretary of State for Health<br />
what representations he has received from the (a) British<br />
Medical Association, (b) Royal College of Nursing<br />
and (c) Royal Colleges on competition in the provision<br />
of health services. [26533]<br />
Mr Simon Burns: The Department received over 6000<br />
responses to the White Paper consultation and these are<br />
being considered carefully. The Government’s response<br />
will be published in due course.<br />
The British Medical Association, Royal College of<br />
Nursing and other Royal Colleges responded to<br />
Government’s consultation document: “Liberating<br />
the NHS: Regulating healthcare providers”. A copy of<br />
the consultation document has already been placed in<br />
the Library.<br />
Details of their responses to consultation can be<br />
found at:<br />
British Medical Association:<br />
www.bma.org.uk/healthcare_policy/nhs_white_paper/<br />
consultationpaperswp.jsp<br />
Royal College of General Practitioners:<br />
www.rcgp.org.uk/policy/liberating_the_nhs.aspx<br />
Royal College of Midwives:<br />
www.rcm.org.uk/college/policy-practice/consultations/pastconsultations/nhs-white-paper-consultations/<br />
Royal College of Psychiatrists:<br />
www.rcpsych.ac.uk/policy/policyandparliamentary/projects/<br />
live/whitepaper.aspx<br />
Cancer: Waiting Lists<br />
Derek Twigg: To ask the Secretary of State for Health<br />
(1) what estimate he has made of the average waiting<br />
time to see a cancer specialist in each year of the<br />
comprehensive spending review period; [26526]<br />
(2) what the average waiting time to see a cancer<br />
specialist was in each primary care trust area in England<br />
in the latest period for which figures are available.<br />
[26527]<br />
Paul Burstow: The Department has made no projections<br />
of performance for the all cancer two week wait and<br />
does not hold information on average waiting times for<br />
these services. In the most recent period for which<br />
statistics are available (Quarter 1 2010-11) 95.5% of<br />
patients urgently referred with suspected cancer by their<br />
general practitioner (GP) were seen within two weeks.<br />
Statistics on average waiting times for cancer services<br />
are not collected centrally. However, primary care trust<br />
(PCT) based performance statistics for the all cancer<br />
two week wait were published for the first time in<br />
September this year and can be found at the following<br />
link:<br />
www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/<br />
PublicationsStatistics/DH_119478<br />
The most recent statistics available are for the year<br />
2009-10 and show that between 1 April 2009 and 31 March<br />
2010 94.9% of patients urgently referred by their GP<br />
with suspected cancer were first seen by a specialist<br />
within two weeks. Information on the number of patients<br />
urgently referred by their GP with suspected cancer<br />
who were first seen by a specialist within two weeks,<br />
broken down by PCT in England, has been placed in<br />
the Library.<br />
Cataracts: Surgery<br />
Mike Weatherley: To ask the Secretary of State for<br />
Health what steps he is taking to widen choice for<br />
patients undergoing cataract surgery in the NHS; and if<br />
he will make a statement. [26281]<br />
Mr Simon Burns: We are committed to extending<br />
choice for all national health service patients and service<br />
users, including those who are referred for elective care<br />
such as cataract treatment. We are currently consulting<br />
on proposals for giving patients and service users greater<br />
choice and control over their care and we will publish<br />
our response along with more detailed policy proposals<br />
early next year.<br />
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease<br />
Nick Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Health<br />
whether his Department made an estimate of the effect<br />
on the number of (a) emergency hospital admissions<br />
and (b) inpatient bed days of increasing the rate of<br />
early diagnosis for chronic obstructive pulmonary<br />
disease. [26125]
891W<br />
Written Answers<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
Written Answers<br />
892W<br />
Mr Simon Burns: The consultation on a strategy for<br />
services for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease,<br />
published earlier this year, included publication of an<br />
impact assessment which included estimates of the impact<br />
of the strategy as a whole on the numbers and costs of<br />
emergency hospital admissions. No explicit estimates<br />
were made relating to in-patient bed days, or to the<br />
specific impact of improving the rate of early diagnosis<br />
of the disease. The consultation documents have already<br />
been placed in the Library, and can be found on the<br />
Department’s website at:<br />
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/www.dh.gov.uk/<br />
en/Consultations/Liveconsultations/DH_112977<br />
Nick Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Health<br />
what recent assessment he has made of the stage of<br />
disease at which chronic obstructive pulmonary disease<br />
is most frequently diagnosed; and whether his Department<br />
holds information for benchmarking purposes on the<br />
diagnosis of that disease in other EU member states.<br />
[26128]<br />
Mr Simon Burns: The information the Department<br />
holds on the stage at which chronic obstructive pulmonary<br />
disease is diagnosed was published as part of the<br />
Department’s consultation on a strategy for services for<br />
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in England and<br />
is included in the consultation impact assessment. The<br />
consultation documents have already been placed in the<br />
Library and can be found on the Department’s website<br />
at:<br />
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/www.dh.gov.uk/<br />
en/Consultations/Liveconsultations/DH_112977<br />
The Department does not hold information for<br />
benchmarking purposes on the stage of diagnosis in<br />
other European Union member states.<br />
Clostridium Difficile<br />
Mr Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for Health<br />
what penalties may be imposed on NHS hospital trusts<br />
which fail to meet his Department’s targets for reducing<br />
the incidence of clostridium difficile. [26395]<br />
Mr Simon Burns: Poor performance in relation to<br />
Clostridium difficile is covered within the NHS Standard<br />
Contracts that commissioners are expected to use for<br />
NHS funded services as a basis for setting out their<br />
expectations in terms of performance by their providers.<br />
It falls into the Nationally Specified Events aspect of<br />
the contract, which introduces a sliding scale of deductions<br />
of up to 2% of the annual contract value if the provider<br />
breaches the number of cases of Clostridium difficile<br />
infections in a contract year compared with the previous<br />
year’s performance. The primary care trust is required<br />
to make the year-end deduction under the provisions of<br />
the relevant clause within the contract.<br />
Clostridium Difficile: Screening<br />
Mr Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for Health<br />
what steps he is taking to increase the proportion of<br />
patients screened for the early detection of clostridium<br />
difficile. [26394]<br />
Mr Simon Burns: For patients who develop diarrhoea,<br />
existing guidance, ‘Clostridium difficile infection: How<br />
to deal with the problem’, published by the Department<br />
and the Health Protection Agency, makes clear prompt<br />
testing is crucial. A copy has been placed in the Library.<br />
Expert advice is that screening of patients without<br />
symptoms for Clostridium difficile infection is unnecessary,<br />
as current evidence indicates that it is not clinically<br />
effective.<br />
Day Care: Greater London<br />
Lyn Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Health<br />
whether he has made an estimate of the likely change in<br />
the number of (a) daycare centres and (b) residential<br />
homes in (i) West Ham constituency and (ii) Newham<br />
in the next 12 months. [26485]<br />
Mr Simon Burns: Care homes are operated by local<br />
councils or independent—private and charitable/<br />
voluntary—organisations. Day care is not a regulated<br />
service; councils are free to take their own decisions on<br />
its provision.<br />
It is for local councils to ensure, through their planning<br />
and commissioning of all social care services, that t<strong>here</strong><br />
is sufficient capacity to meet local need. T<strong>here</strong>fore no<br />
such estimate has been made by the Department.<br />
In recognition of the pressures on the social care<br />
system in a challenging fiscal climate, the Government<br />
have allocated an additional £2 billion by 2014-15 to<br />
support the delivery of social care.<br />
This means, with an ambitious programme of efficiency,<br />
that t<strong>here</strong> is enough funding available both to protect<br />
people’s access to services and deliver new approaches<br />
to improve quality and outcomes.<br />
Dental Services: Yorkshire and Humber<br />
Jason McCartney: To ask the Secretary of State for<br />
Health what steps his Department is taking to increase<br />
the number of NHS dental service centres available in<br />
Yorkshire and the Humber; and what steps he is taking<br />
to improve provision for emergency treatment. [26547]<br />
Mr Simon Burns: It is for primary care trusts to<br />
decide how local services, including dental access centres<br />
and urgent care, should develop to meet local needs and<br />
service priorities.<br />
Departmental Grants<br />
Anas Sarwar: To ask the Secretary of State for Health<br />
(1) what the monetary value of grants awarded by his<br />
Department was in 2009-10; and how much he expects<br />
to award in grants in (a) 2010-11 and (b) 2011-12;<br />
[27261]<br />
(2) what grants have been awarded by his<br />
Department in 2010-11 to date; what grants he plans to<br />
award in each of the next two years; what the monetary<br />
value is of each such grant; and to which organisations<br />
such grants are made. [27264]<br />
Paul Burstow: Information about grants awarded to<br />
voluntary organisations is routinely published on the<br />
Department’s website at:<br />
www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/<br />
PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_118373
893W<br />
Written Answers<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
Written Answers<br />
894W<br />
Specific information about all of the Departments<br />
grant awards for 2009-10 and 2010-11 has been placed<br />
in the Library. In 2009-10 the total value of grants<br />
awarded to voluntary organisations was £104,942,584.<br />
In 2010-11 the total value of grants awarded to voluntary<br />
organisations was £109,843,051.<br />
The monetary value of the Department’s grants to<br />
third sector organisations in 2011-12 will not be agreed<br />
until primary care trust allocations have been decided.<br />
However, the Government are committed to ensuring<br />
that appropriate support is available to voluntary<br />
organisations to enable them to contribute to improving<br />
health and well-being, building strong and resilient<br />
communities as part of the Big Society.<br />
Departmental Postal Services<br />
Brandon Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for<br />
Health what steps his Department has taken to identify<br />
those of its services that could be provided through the<br />
Post Office network. [24931]<br />
Mr Simon Burns: “Securing the Post Office Network<br />
in the Digital Age” published on 9 November 2010 set<br />
out the Government’s policy for the Post Office and the<br />
provision of government services. The Department is<br />
currently consulting on an information revolution for<br />
health and social care. One of the key challenges will be<br />
to ensure that information can reach all sections of<br />
society. We want to hear from people as to how that can<br />
happen and very much welcome responses and ideas,<br />
including any views on how or whether making specific<br />
services available through Post Offices can play a role<br />
within that broader strategy.<br />
A copy of the consultation document, “Liberating<br />
the NHS: An Information Revolution” has already<br />
been placed in the Library and is available on the<br />
Department’s website at<br />
www.dh.gov.uk/en/Consultations/Liveconsultations/<br />
DH_120080<br />
Diabetes<br />
Lisa Nandy: To ask the Secretary of State for Health<br />
how many people have been diagnosed with diabetes<br />
through the NHS vascular screening programme; and<br />
what steps the NHS is taking to inform members of the<br />
public of their entitlement to screening. [26918]<br />
Paul Burstow: The primary purpose of the programme<br />
is risk assessment and risk management rather than<br />
diagnosis. However, the modelling undertaken by the<br />
Department indicates that, at full roll out, as well as<br />
preventing over 4,000 people a year developing diabetes,<br />
the programme will detect a significant amount of<br />
hitherto undiagnosed disease.<br />
Primary care trusts (PCTs) began phased implementation<br />
of the programme from April 2009 and it is for them to<br />
decide how to inform local eligible populations about it.<br />
Most PCTs have been inviting people individually and<br />
informing them of their entitlement to an NHS health<br />
check by letter of invitation. As they become more<br />
experienced in managing demand for the risk assessment<br />
element of the check and confident about their capacity<br />
to deliver the risk management, PCTs are increasingly<br />
running awareness campaigns.<br />
Disability: Children<br />
Bridget Phillipson: To ask the Secretary of State for<br />
Health what plans he has for his Department’s funding<br />
of disabled children’s services (a) after March 2011<br />
and (b) in Sunderland from 2010 to 2015; and if he<br />
will make a statement. [26376]<br />
Anne Milton: Primary care trust (PCT) revenue<br />
allocations are not broken down by policy or service<br />
area. Once allocated, it is for PCTs to commission the<br />
services they require to meet the health care needs of<br />
their local populations, taking account of both local<br />
and national priorities.<br />
PCTs have been informed of their revenue allocations<br />
up to 2010-11. Sunderland Teaching PCT received revenue<br />
allocations of £510 million in 2009-10 and £538 million<br />
in 2010-11.<br />
PCT revenue allocations post 2010-11 will be announced<br />
in December 2010.<br />
Freedom of Information<br />
Mr Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Health<br />
with reference to the answers of 1 July 2008, Official<br />
Report, column 862W, and 1 September 2008, Official<br />
Report, column 1675W, on departmental freedom of<br />
information, if he will place in the Library a copy of the<br />
information provided on each topic in respect of which<br />
the request was (a) agreed to and answered in full and<br />
(b) agreed to and answered in part since November<br />
2009; and if he will make a statement. [26412]<br />
Anne Milton: Copies of the information requested by<br />
my hon. Friend have been placed in the Library.<br />
General Practitioners<br />
Derek Twigg: To ask the Secretary of State for Health<br />
which private health providers (a) he, (b) Ministers in<br />
his Department and (c) officials in his Department<br />
have met to discuss the proposed GP consortia since 6<br />
May 2010. [26521]<br />
Mr Simon Burns: T<strong>here</strong> have been several meetings<br />
with private health providers specifically to discuss general<br />
practitioner (GP) consortiums and issues such as<br />
commissioning support for them.<br />
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my<br />
noble Friend the <strong>Parliament</strong>ary Under-Secretary of State<br />
held a meeting with a group of companies who provide<br />
commissioning support to GP consortiums. The companies<br />
represented were <strong>United</strong>Health UK, Tribal UK, Humana<br />
Europe, Aetna UK and Ingenix.<br />
Departmental officials have met with The Practice,<br />
Aetna UK, Tribal, Dr Foster Intelligence, PPP-Axa<br />
Healthcare, NHS Shared Business Services, <strong>United</strong>Health<br />
UK, and GE Healthcare.<br />
Derek Twigg: To ask the Secretary of State for Health<br />
whether the provisions of the Transfer of Undertakings<br />
(Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 will apply<br />
in respect of the transfer of staff from primary care<br />
trusts to GP consortia. [26524]
895W<br />
Written Answers<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
Written Answers<br />
896W<br />
Mr Simon Burns: For those staff transferring from<br />
primary care trusts to general practitioner (GP)<br />
commissioning consortiums, transfers will be covered<br />
by either the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of<br />
Employment) Regulations 2006 (TUPE) and/or the Cabinet<br />
Office Staff Transfers in the Public Sector Statement of<br />
Practice which provides terms that are overall no less<br />
favourable than if TUPE was applied.<br />
Derek Twigg: To ask the Secretary of State for Health<br />
(1) which reserve powers will be retained by his Department<br />
following the transfer of commissioning from primary<br />
care trusts to GP consortia; [26525]<br />
(2) what powers his Department will have to take<br />
action in respect of a GP consortium becoming<br />
financially unsustainable after the implementation of<br />
his proposals for practice-based commissioning. [26532]<br />
Mr Simon Burns: General practitioner (GP)<br />
commissioning consortia will be authorised and held to<br />
account by the NHS Commissioning Board. The NHS<br />
Commissioning Board will have powers to intervene in<br />
the event that a consortium is failing to manage their<br />
finances effectively or deliver acceptable outcomes for<br />
their patients.<br />
The Secretary of State for Health will remain accountable<br />
for the health service with powers to set the legislative<br />
framework within which the NHS Commissioning Board<br />
and GP consortia will operate but will not have powers<br />
to intervene in relation to individual consortia. Further<br />
details will be set out in the Government’s forthcoming<br />
response to the consultation on the White Paper “Equity<br />
and Excellence: Liberating the NHS”.<br />
Derek Twigg: To ask the Secretary of State for<br />
Health what estimate he has made of the likely average<br />
amount of time per week GPs will allocate to running<br />
GP consortia as a result of his proposals to transfer<br />
commissioning from primary care trusts to GPs.<br />
[26531]<br />
Mr Simon Burns: The Department has not made an<br />
estimate of the likely average amount of time per week<br />
general practitioners (GPs) will allocate to running GP<br />
consortia.<br />
A fundamental principle of the new commissioning<br />
arrangements will be that every GP practice will be a<br />
member of a consortium and contribute to its goals.<br />
However, our proposed model will mean that not all<br />
GPs have to be actively involved in every aspect of<br />
commissioning. Their predominant focus will continue<br />
to be on providing high quality primary care to their<br />
patients. It is likely to be a smaller group of primary<br />
care practitioners who will lead the consortium and<br />
play an active role in the clinical design of local services.<br />
Consortia are likely to carry out a number of<br />
commissioning activities themselves. In other cases,<br />
consortia may choose to act collectively, adopting a<br />
lead commissioner arrangement. They may also choose<br />
to buy in support from external organisations, including<br />
local authorities and private and voluntary sector bodies,<br />
which might include analytical activity to profile and<br />
stratify healthcare needs, support for procurement of<br />
services, and contract monitoring.<br />
Haemophilia<br />
Mr Kennedy: To ask the Secretary of State for Health<br />
(1) whether the NHS took steps to advise haemophiliacs<br />
that plasma pool samples from factor VIII and IX<br />
products produced by the NHS for their use had been<br />
tested for pathogens; and if he will make a statement;<br />
[26354]<br />
(2) whether he plans to release further information<br />
held by his Department on the potential pathogenic<br />
side effects on haemophiliacs of factor VIII and IX<br />
products produced by the NHS for their use; and if he<br />
will make a statement. [26411]<br />
Anne Milton: It was and still is the responsibility of<br />
individual clinicians to advise their patients of the risks<br />
associated with their treatment. In addition, knowledge<br />
of both HIV and hepatitis C emerged gradually, over a<br />
period of time in the late 1970s and early 1980s.<br />
All of the relevant Government papers that are available<br />
from the period before 1985, when heat treatment for<br />
such products was introduced, are on the Department’s<br />
website at:<br />
www.dh.gov.uk/en/FreedomOfInformation/<br />
Freedomofinformationpublicationschemefeedback/<br />
FOIreleases/DH_076693<br />
Given the level of public interest in this matter, the<br />
Government are ready to release any more relevant<br />
documents should any come to light.<br />
Help is at Hand<br />
Mrs Moon: To ask the Secretary of State for Health<br />
(1) what estimate he has made of the number of copies<br />
of his Department’s leaflet entitled Help is at Hand<br />
distributed by (a) primary care trusts, (b) police forces<br />
and (c) local authorities in each of the last four years;<br />
and if he will make a statement; [26842]<br />
(2) what steps he has taken to ensure that his<br />
Department’s publication Help is at Hand is received<br />
by those whom it is intended to assist; and if he will<br />
make a statement. [26850]<br />
Paul Burstow: Help is at Hand is a resource pack to<br />
support people bereaved by suicide or other sudden or<br />
traumatic deaths, which was launched in 2006. We have<br />
not collected data in the format requested by the hon.<br />
Member. However, data provided by the Department’s<br />
publications orderline, PROLOG, were analysed to show<br />
the number of copies of each edition of the resource<br />
pack supplied to public institutions and private individuals<br />
between 12 September 2006 and 31 December 2009.<br />
The total number of packs distributed over this time<br />
period was 44,765.<br />
To ensure effective promotion and dissemination of<br />
this bereavement pack we undertook a full and<br />
comprehensive evaluation of this resource. This evaluation<br />
is now complete and will be published before the end of<br />
December. Once we have published this evaluation we<br />
will consider how best to ensure it is available to all of<br />
those who need it.<br />
Support for those bereaved by suicide is a priority for<br />
the new suicide prevention strategy currently being<br />
developed and due for publication in the new year.
897W<br />
Written Answers<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
Written Answers<br />
898W<br />
Hemofil T: Clinical Trials<br />
Alun Michael: To ask the Secretary of State for<br />
Health pursuant to the answer of 23 November 2010,<br />
Official Report, column 251W, on Hemofil T: clinical<br />
trials, what consideration his Department has given to<br />
obtaining information on the proportion of patients on<br />
the Hemofil T trial that were mild, moderate or severe<br />
haemophiliacs; and what assessment he has made of<br />
the levels of interest in the issue among (a) the public<br />
and (b) hon. Members and Members of the House of<br />
Lords. [27280]<br />
Mr Simon Burns: The Department and the Medicines<br />
and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency do not<br />
hold records of the Hemofil T trial and have not<br />
received previous correspondence regarding this specific<br />
trial from either the public or Members of the House of<br />
Commons or the House of Lords.<br />
Hereditary Diseases<br />
Jim Fitzpatrick: To ask the Secretary of State for<br />
Health pursuant to his answer of 8 November 2010,<br />
Official Report, column 147W, on <strong>here</strong>ditary diseases,<br />
whether his Department collects information on<br />
genetic conditions causing increased morbidity and<br />
mortality in children born to first cousin parents.<br />
[26003]<br />
Anne Milton: As stated in my previous answer, 8<br />
November 2010, Official Report, column 147W, the<br />
Department of Health does not routinely collect this<br />
specific type of information centrally.<br />
The Department recognises the value of adequate<br />
surveillance of congenital anomalies in order to detect<br />
any unforeseen increase of genetic defects due to this or<br />
any other causes. Surveillance helps develop local services<br />
specifically designed to deal with consanguineous<br />
relationships. This includes initiatives delivered through<br />
regional NHS genetic counselling services that work to<br />
raise awareness of the risks associated with cousin<br />
marriage.<br />
Most couples in consanguineous relationships will<br />
have healthy children. Overall the risk of a couple<br />
having a child with a severe genetic condition is still<br />
relatively small, estimated at 4% for cousin marriages<br />
compared to 2% for unrelated parents.<br />
Hereford County Hospital: Private Finance Initiative<br />
Jesse Norman: To ask the Secretary of State for<br />
Health what proportion of the total running costs for<br />
Hereford county hospital (a) was paid to the private<br />
finance initiative provider in each year from 2005-09<br />
and (b) is projected to be so paid in (i) 2011 and (ii)<br />
2011. [26280]<br />
Mr Simon Burns: The information is not available in<br />
the format requested. However, data for the proportion<br />
of total revenue expenditure by Hereford Hospitals<br />
NHS Trust in respect of its private finance initiative<br />
(PFI) scheme is set out in the following table.<br />
Data is not held centrally for 2010-11 or 2011-12.<br />
Hereford Hospitals NHS Trust—Proportion of total revenue<br />
expenditure relating to PFI<br />
Percentage of total revenue<br />
expenditure relating to PFI<br />
2005-06 13.3<br />
2006-07 13.3<br />
2007-08 13.3<br />
2008-09 12.0<br />
2009-10 1 10.8<br />
1<br />
2009-10 accounts were compiled under International Finance Reporting<br />
Standards under which PFI costs in the audited summarisation<br />
schedules of trusts are split between capital repayments and revenue<br />
expenditure elements, which does not make a precise like for like<br />
comparison with earlier years in this table possible. However, an<br />
estimate of the PFI unitary payment for 2009-10 is held centrally by<br />
the Department as well as the audited outturn revenue expenditure<br />
figure for the Trust for this year and the percentage figure for this year<br />
is calculated using these two figures<br />
Notes:<br />
1. The source of the data is the audited summarisation schedules of<br />
the trust for 2005-06 to 2009-10.<br />
2. The percentages provided represent the net revenue expenditure in<br />
respect of PFI schemes as a proportion of total revenue expenditure.<br />
3. 2005-06 to 2008-09 figures compiled under UK Generally Accepted<br />
Accounting Practice.<br />
Medical Schools<br />
Derek Twigg: To ask the Secretary of State for Health<br />
how many medical school places were available in 2009-10.<br />
[26544]<br />
Anne Milton: The intake to medical schools in England<br />
in autumn 2009, was 6,453 students, as shown in the<br />
following table.<br />
Medical school intake in England—2009-10 academic year<br />
University/college<br />
Total intake of students<br />
University of Birmingham 428<br />
University of Brighton 147<br />
University of Bristol 268<br />
University of Cambridge 306<br />
University of Durham 98<br />
University of East Anglia 169<br />
University of Hull 160<br />
Imperial College 309<br />
Keele University 135<br />
King’s College London 417<br />
University of Leeds 280<br />
University of Leicester 284<br />
University of Liverpool 397<br />
University of Manchester 406<br />
University of Newcastle 259<br />
University of Nottingham 348<br />
University of Oxford 185<br />
Peninsula School of Medicine<br />
218<br />
and Dentistry<br />
Queen Mary, University of<br />
387<br />
London<br />
St George’s Hospital Medical<br />
274<br />
School<br />
University of Sheffield 255<br />
University of Southampton 252<br />
University College London 285<br />
University of Warwick 186<br />
Total 6,453<br />
Note:<br />
These figures are provisional until November/December 2010 when<br />
revised figures will be reported to HEFCE.<br />
Source:<br />
Higher Education Funding Council for England—November 2009
899W<br />
Written Answers<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
Written Answers<br />
900W<br />
Medical Schools: Public Expenditure<br />
Derek Twigg: To ask the Secretary of State for Health<br />
what estimate he has made of the number of medical<br />
school places that will be available in each year of the<br />
Comprehensive Spending Review period. [26543]<br />
Anne Milton: T<strong>here</strong> are no current plans to change<br />
numbers but they will be kept under review based on<br />
forecast future demand with the advice of the Centre<br />
for Workforce Intelligence.<br />
Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus: Screening<br />
Mr Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for Health<br />
what progress has been made towards meeting his<br />
Department’s 2011 deadline for the screening of<br />
non-elective patients for MRSA. [26390]<br />
Mr Simon Burns: As outlined in the “NHS Operating<br />
Framework 2010/11”, t<strong>here</strong> is a requirement to introduce<br />
Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus screening.<br />
Good progress is being made by organisations to implement<br />
screening for this cohort of patients, with some organisations<br />
already having declared full implementation of the policy<br />
and all organisations planning to implement emergency<br />
screening for relevant emergency admissions within the<br />
expected time scale. Strategic health authorities will<br />
continue to monitor delivery towards the requirement<br />
by 31 December 2010.<br />
Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus<br />
Mr Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for Health<br />
what steps his Department is taking to reduce the<br />
incidence of MRSA. [26392]<br />
Mr Simon Burns: This Government are determined<br />
to do all they can to support the health and adult social<br />
care providers reduce Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus<br />
aureus (MRSA). From the outset, through the Coalition<br />
Agreement, this Government made clear that they expected<br />
the national health service to adopt a zero tolerance<br />
approach to all health care associated infections (HCAIs),<br />
including MRSA.<br />
In the revision of the 2010-11 Operating Framework<br />
published in June, it was made clear that the NHS<br />
should continue prioritising the achievement of the<br />
MRSA objective. The successful implementation of this<br />
objective will deliver both an overall reduction nationally<br />
and, importantly, will reduce variation by moving all<br />
organisations towards the performance of the best.<br />
At the same time, the revision of the Operating<br />
Framework confirmed that it expected and required the<br />
NHS to implement MRSA screening of all relevant<br />
emergency admissions by the end of this year.<br />
[n terms of using the availability of data as a driver to<br />
supporting further reductions in MRSA, we have introduced<br />
weekly data publication of both MRSA blood stream<br />
infections and Clostridium difficile infections at hospital<br />
site level.<br />
We are also committed to ensuring that the NHS<br />
continue to have access to evidence based guidance in<br />
order that they can reduce the number of all HCAIs,<br />
including MRSA, through the implementation of effective<br />
infection prevention and control practices. This guidance<br />
is available on the Department of Health’s “Clean, Safe<br />
Care” website.<br />
The Health and Social Care Act 2008 “Code of<br />
Practice for health and adult social care on the Prevention<br />
and Control of Infections and related guidance”, which<br />
the Care Quality Commission use as a basis for assessing<br />
compliance with the registration requirement on cleanliness<br />
and infection control has been a driver for improvement<br />
in the hospital setting. The scope of the Code has<br />
already been extended to adult social care settings and<br />
will include primary care in due course so that we can<br />
ensure that all settings w<strong>here</strong> patients receive care and<br />
treatment operate comparable infection prevention and<br />
control practices.<br />
Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: Screening<br />
Mr Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for Health<br />
what information his Department collates for the<br />
purpose of monitoring rates of MRSA. [26391]<br />
Mr Simon Burns: Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus<br />
aureus (MRSA) bacteraemia are subject to mandatory<br />
reporting to the Health Protection Agency. The Department<br />
uses the outputs from this system to assess and monitor<br />
rates of MRSA bacteraemia at both national and local<br />
levels.<br />
Multiple Sclerosis: Health Services<br />
Liz Kendall: To ask the Secretary of State for Health<br />
(1) what the membership is of the independent scientific<br />
advisory group of the multiple sclerosis risk-sharing<br />
scheme; [26893]<br />
(2) how many patients have taken part in the multiple<br />
sclerosis risk-sharing scheme; and what estimate he has<br />
made of the cost to the public purse of administering<br />
drug treatments under the scheme; [26894]<br />
(3) which organisation is responsible for monitoring<br />
outcomes for patients involved in the multiple sclerosis<br />
risk-sharing scheme; and when the results of the<br />
scheme will be published. [26895]<br />
Mr Simon Burns: The scientific advisory group of the<br />
multiple sclerosis risk sharing scheme (MS RSS) comprises<br />
individuals with expertise in clinical research, epidemiology<br />
and trials and health economics. The group is chaired<br />
by Richard Lilford, Professor of Clinical Epidemiology<br />
at Birmingham university and receives specialist advice<br />
from neurologists who specialise in the treatment of<br />
multiple sclerosis.<br />
The MS RSS collects data from a cohort of over<br />
5,000 patients. T<strong>here</strong> are an estimated 12,000 people<br />
receiving drug therapy in the <strong>United</strong> <strong>Kingdom</strong> through<br />
the scheme. Total national health service spend in England<br />
on the four drugs covered by the scheme is estimated at<br />
£50 million a year. The Department contributes £200,000<br />
per year to running the scheme.<br />
Parexel Ltd, a specialist clinical research organisation,<br />
is responsible for data collection, management and<br />
analysis for the MS RSS. Analysis of four year data<br />
from the scheme is due to be completed in 2011.
901W<br />
Written Answers<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
Written Answers<br />
902W<br />
Muscular Dystrophy: Yorkshire and Humber<br />
Diana Johnson: To ask the Secretary of State for<br />
Health if he will meet the Yorkshire and Humber<br />
Specialist Commissioning Group to discuss the<br />
proposed appointment of a muscular dystrophy care<br />
advisor for Hull. [27029]<br />
Paul Burstow: The appointment of a muscular dystrophy<br />
care adviser in Hull is a matter for the local national<br />
health service. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of<br />
State currently has no plans to meet the Yorkshire and<br />
the Humber Specialised Commissioning Group to discuss<br />
this matter.<br />
NHS<br />
Mr Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for Health<br />
what assessment he has made of the likely ability of<br />
NHS foundation trusts to meet patient safety targets in<br />
each of the next three financial years. [26393]<br />
Mr Simon Burns: We are informed by the Chairman<br />
of Monitor (the statutory name of which is the Independent<br />
Regulator of NHS Foundation Trusts) that the safety<br />
of patients at NHS foundation trusts is assessed by a<br />
number of bodies, principally the Care Quality Commission<br />
(CQC). The CQC registers providers of regulated activities,<br />
including NHS foundation trusts and monitors their<br />
compliance with the essential safety and quality<br />
requirements. W<strong>here</strong> t<strong>here</strong> is evidence of material safety<br />
concerns, CQC and Monitor will jointly consider the<br />
appropriate action.<br />
NHS: Armed Forces<br />
Derek Twigg: To ask the Secretary of State for Health<br />
how many armed forces reservists employed by the<br />
NHS have had requests for leave to undergo operational<br />
training refused by NHS trusts in the financial year<br />
2010-11 to date. [26534]<br />
Mr Simon Burns: This information is not collected<br />
centrally.<br />
We do not centrally monitor the number of national<br />
health service (NHS) staff serving in the reserve forces.<br />
T<strong>here</strong> is an option on the electronic staff record (ESR)<br />
to record reserve forces training as a reason for absence,<br />
however, entry of these data is not mandatory (although<br />
it is recommended as ESR best practice). Last year<br />
around 100 NHS organisations recorded reserve forces<br />
training as a reason for absence but we cannot be sure<br />
of a national figure or how many requests for this type<br />
of leave have been refused.<br />
NHS: Public Finance<br />
Derek Twigg: To ask the Secretary of State for<br />
Health what the budget deficit or surplus was for each<br />
NHS trust on the latest date for which figures are<br />
available. [26499]<br />
Mr Simon Burns: The latest figures available on the<br />
surplus or deficit positions for each national health<br />
service trust are the 2010-11 Quarter 1 forecasts, which<br />
were published on the Department’s website on 19<br />
November 2010.<br />
These figures can be found by region in annexes 1 to<br />
10 of David Flory’s, ‘The Quarter: quarter 1 2010-11’<br />
at:<br />
www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/<br />
PublicationsStatistics/DH_087335<br />
and a copy has been placed in the Library.<br />
Nurses: Public Expenditure<br />
Derek Twigg: To ask the Secretary of State for Health<br />
(1) what estimate he has made of the number of nurses<br />
who will leave the NHS in each year of the Comprehensive<br />
Spending Review period; [26537]<br />
(2) what estimate he has made of the number of<br />
nurses to be recruited in each year of the Comprehensive<br />
Spending Review period. [26540]<br />
Anne Milton: The information requested is not collected<br />
by the Department<br />
The precise numbers of national health service nurses<br />
required over the next five years will not be known until<br />
the new organisations that will underpin the new system<br />
have been designed in more detail.<br />
The Department of Health has consulted on how the<br />
new organisations should be designed and is analysing<br />
responses. Information on how the new organisations<br />
should be designed will be announced in due course.<br />
The Government have fulfilled their commitment to<br />
give the NHS a real terms increase in funding each year.<br />
The demands on the service are rising and to meet<br />
these, the NHS must make up to £20 billion of efficiency<br />
savings by 2014, by reducing bureaucracy and doing<br />
things differently. Savings will be reinvested to support<br />
the delivery of quality health care.<br />
Social Services: Elderly<br />
Catherine McKinnell: To ask the Secretary of State<br />
for Health (1) what estimate he has made of the likely<br />
percentage reduction in funding for social care for<br />
older people in Newcastle upon Tyne as a result of the<br />
comprehensive spending review; and if he will make a<br />
statement; [26950]<br />
(2) what assessment he has made of the likely effect<br />
of the outcome of the comprehensive spending review<br />
on the quality of social care services provided for older<br />
people in Newcastle upon Tyne; and if he will make a<br />
statement. [26952]<br />
Paul Burstow: The spending review recognised the<br />
importance of social care to hundreds of thousands of<br />
adults of all ages, backgrounds and identities: supporting<br />
their independence and helping them to make full and<br />
active contributions to their communities.<br />
In recognition of the pressures on the social care<br />
system in a challenging local government settlement,<br />
the coalition Government have allocated an additional<br />
£2 billion by 2014-15 to support the delivery of social<br />
care.<br />
We have achieved this by:<br />
The national health service transferring some funding from the<br />
health capital budget to health revenue, to be spent on measures<br />
that support social care, which also benefits health. This funding<br />
will rise to £1 billion in 2014-15, and will promote improved joint<br />
working between the health and social care systems. Further<br />
details will be set out in the NHS Operating Framework 2011-12.
903W<br />
Written Answers<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
Written Answers<br />
904W<br />
Additional grant funding, rising to £1 billion by 2014-15, will<br />
be made available for social care. This funding will be allocated in<br />
addition to the Department’s existing social care grants, which<br />
will rise in line with inflation. Total grant funding from the<br />
Department for social care will reach £2.4 billion by 2014-15. In<br />
order to support local flexibility and to reduce administrative<br />
burdens, this funding will go to authorities through the revenue<br />
support grant.<br />
This means that, with an ambitious programme of<br />
efficiency, t<strong>here</strong> is enough funding available both to<br />
protect people’s access to care and deliver new approaches<br />
to improve quality and outcomes.<br />
A key priority for the Government is a radical devolution<br />
of power away from central Government, freeing local<br />
government from central control and empowering local<br />
people to take an active role in services. Decisions on<br />
spending at a local level must be considered in the<br />
context of local priorities, which are crafted by local<br />
authorities in response to the needs and wishes of the<br />
people they serve. Spending on social care will t<strong>here</strong>fore<br />
be a decision for the relevant local authority, and it is<br />
not possible to provide a central estimate.<br />
South London Healthcare NHS Trust<br />
Mr Evennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Health<br />
what recent assessment he has made of the financial<br />
performance of South London Healthcare NHS Trust.<br />
[26268]<br />
Mr Simon Burns: The Department has identified six<br />
trusts as financially challenged, including South London<br />
Healthcare NHS Trust. The Department will continue<br />
to work with London strategic health authority to<br />
ensure that, during 2010-11, South London Healthcare<br />
NHS Trust has plans in place to return to financial<br />
balance, whilst at the same time maintaining and improving<br />
services to patients.<br />
Surgery: Waiting Lists<br />
Derek Twigg: To ask the Secretary of State for Health<br />
what estimate he has made of the average waiting time<br />
for elective surgery by the end of the comprehensive<br />
spending review period. [26528]<br />
Mr Simon Burns: Clinical priority will remain the<br />
main determinant of when patients should be treated.<br />
Patients should not experience undue delay at any stage<br />
of their treatment and would not expect a return to long<br />
waiting times for operations.<br />
The national health service (NHS) will be accountable<br />
locally to the public it serves and provide information to<br />
patients which will drive choice and competition in the<br />
NHS.<br />
Tuberculosis: Greater London<br />
Number of tuberculosis cases reported in the London borough of<br />
Bexley, 2007-09<br />
Number of cases<br />
2007 27<br />
2008 23<br />
2009 17<br />
Source:<br />
Health Protection Agency<br />
University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS<br />
Trust<br />
Mark Pawsey: To ask the Secretary of State for<br />
Health what his estimate is of the proportion of the<br />
running costs of University Hospital Coventry and<br />
Warwickshire (a) which was paid to the private finance<br />
initiative provider in each year from 2005-06 to 2009-10<br />
and (b) will be paid to that provider in 2010-11 and<br />
2011-12. [26153]<br />
Mr Simon Burns: The information is not available in<br />
the format requested. However, data for the proportion<br />
of total revenue expenditure by University Hospitals<br />
Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust in respect of its<br />
private finance initiative (PFI) scheme, is set out in the<br />
following table.<br />
Figures for 2005-06 and 2006-07 are not comparable<br />
with later years as the PFI hospital did not fully open<br />
until part way through 2006-07.<br />
Data are not held centrally for 2010-11 or 2011-12.<br />
University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust—<br />
proportion of total revenue expenditure relating to PFI<br />
Percentage of total revenue<br />
expenditure relating to PFI<br />
2005-06 4.3<br />
2006-07 12.7<br />
2007-08 14.6<br />
2008-09 14.6<br />
2009-10 1 14.3<br />
1<br />
2009-10 accounts were compiled under International Finance Reporting<br />
Standards under which PFI costs in the audited summarisation<br />
schedules of trusts are split between capital repayments and revenue<br />
expenditure elements, which does not make a precise like for like<br />
comparison with earlier years in this table possible. However, an<br />
estimate of the PFI unitary payment for 2009-10 is held centrally by<br />
the Department as well as the audited outturn revenue expenditure<br />
figure for the trust for this year and the percentage figure for this year<br />
is calculated using these two figures.<br />
Notes:<br />
1. The source of the data is the audited summarisation schedules of<br />
the trust for 2005-06 to 2009-10.<br />
2. The percentages provided represent the net revenue expenditure in<br />
respect of PFI schemes as a proportion of total revenue expenditure.<br />
3. 2005-06 to 2008-09 figures compiled under UK Generally Accepted<br />
Accounting Practice.<br />
Young People: Autism<br />
Mr Evennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Health<br />
how many cases of tuberculosis have been diagnosed in<br />
the London Borough of Bexley in each of the last three<br />
years. [26267]<br />
Anne Milton: The information requested is shown in<br />
the following table.<br />
Jessica Lee: To ask the Secretary of State for Health<br />
whether his Department issues guidance on referring<br />
young people with autism who receive support from<br />
child and adolescent mental health services and do not<br />
fulfil the criteria for adult mental health teams to<br />
appropriate support from other services on reaching<br />
adulthood. [26443]
905W<br />
Written Answers<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
Written Answers<br />
906W<br />
Paul Burstow: The Autism Act 2009 requires that the<br />
Government produce statutory guidance for health and<br />
social care bodies to support delivery of the autism<br />
strategy. The strategy highlights the need to improve<br />
transition planning to give people with autism the right<br />
start as adults and the guidance will include advice on<br />
the transition from child to adult services. I will launch<br />
this guidance at a meeting hosted by the National<br />
Autistic Society on 17 December 2010.<br />
Answers received for publication on<br />
Wednesday 1 December 2010.<br />
Cancer: Drugs<br />
Derek Twigg: To ask the Secretary of State for Health<br />
how much his Department has allocated to each strategic<br />
health authority from the NHS funding for cancer<br />
drugs announced on 10 November 2010. [27395]<br />
Paul Burstow: With regard to the additional funding<br />
for national health service cancer drugs in 2010-11, I<br />
refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon.<br />
Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) on 26 October<br />
2010, Official Report, column 297W.<br />
We are currently consulting on our proposals for the<br />
Cancer Drugs Fund to be introduced from April 2011,<br />
including on the most appropriate allocation of the<br />
£200 million per annum funding.<br />
Child Birth: Greater London<br />
Mr Evennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Health<br />
how many (a) hospital and (b) home births took place<br />
in the London borough of Bexley in each of the last<br />
five years. [26269]<br />
Mr Hurd: I have been asked to reply.<br />
The information requested falls within the responsibility<br />
of the UK Statistics Authority. I have asked the authority<br />
to reply.<br />
Letter from Stephen Penneck, dated November 2010:<br />
As Director General for the Office for National Statistics, I<br />
have been asked to reply to your recent question asking how many<br />
(a) hospital and (b) home births took place in the London<br />
Borough of Bexley in each of the last five years. (26269)<br />
The table below shows the numbers of live births occurring to<br />
mothers usually resident in the London Borough of Bexley in<br />
each year 2005 to 2009. These are presented by place of birth:<br />
NHS hospital, at home or other.<br />
Place of birth 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005<br />
NHS hospital 2,977 2,894 2,882 2,707 2,635<br />
At home 46 74 61 73 43<br />
Other 1 6 7 4 8 8<br />
Total live births 3,029 2,975 2,947 2,788 2,686<br />
1<br />
‘Other’ live births include those taking place in non-NHS establishments<br />
such as private maternity units, military hospitals, and private hospitals.<br />
They also include births occurring ‘elsew<strong>here</strong>’, for example in private<br />
residences that are not the mother’s own, or those occurring on the<br />
way to the hospital.<br />
Departmental Sponsorship<br />
Priti Patel: To ask the Secretary of State for Health<br />
what expenditure (a) his Department and (b) its nondepartmental<br />
public bodies incurred on sponsorship in<br />
each year since 1997 for which figures are available.<br />
[27515]<br />
Paul Burstow: The Department does not account for<br />
sponsorship separately within its accounting system. It<br />
would take disproportionate time and incur a<br />
disproportionate cost to collect the information requested.<br />
The Department does not collect sponsorship information<br />
from its non-departmental public bodies and this would<br />
also take a disproportionate time to commission the<br />
request.<br />
Football: South Africa<br />
Graham Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for<br />
Health how much his Department spent on entertainment<br />
activities related to the 2010 FIFA World cup. [27361]<br />
Mr Simon Burns: The Department has not funded<br />
entertainment related to the activities of the 2010 FIFA<br />
World cup.<br />
General Practitioners<br />
Mr Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State<br />
for Health whether GP consortia commissioning healthcare<br />
services by tender will be able to accept tenders from<br />
other NHS organisations; and if he will make a statement.<br />
[27093]<br />
Paul Burstow: It is essential that general practitioner<br />
(GP) consortia have the freedom to make commissioning<br />
decisions that they judge will achieve the best outcomes<br />
within the financial resources available to them. At the<br />
same time, the economic regulator and NHS<br />
Commissioning Board will need to develop and maintain<br />
a framework that ensures transparency, fairness and<br />
patient choice. We propose that, w<strong>here</strong>ver possible,<br />
services should be commissioned that enable patients to<br />
choose from any willing provider.<br />
The NHS Commissioning Board will be responsible<br />
for providing a framework to support GP consortia in<br />
commissioning services. This will include setting standards<br />
for the quality of NHS commissioning and procurement.<br />
Health Services<br />
Mr Sanders: To ask the Secretary of State for Health<br />
whether the proposals in respect of commissioning of<br />
health services in the Health White Paper will lead to<br />
(a) podiatry and (b) similar services being commissioned<br />
as single services. [27158]<br />
Paul Burstow: The White Paper ‘Equity and Excellence:<br />
Liberating the NHS’ set out our proposals to devolve<br />
power and responsibility for commissioning services to<br />
local consortiums of general practitioner (GP) practices.
907W<br />
Written Answers<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
Written Answers<br />
908W<br />
GP consortiums will be responsible for commissioning<br />
the great majority of national health service services.<br />
We will expect consortiums to involve relevant health<br />
and social care professionals from all sectors in helping<br />
design care pathways or care packages that achieve<br />
more integrated delivery of care, higher quality, and<br />
more efficient use of NHS resources. This will create an<br />
effective dialogue across all health, and w<strong>here</strong> appropriate,<br />
social care, professionals.<br />
To support GP consortiums in their commissioning<br />
decisions, we will also create an independent NHS<br />
Commissioning Board.<br />
‘Liberating the NHS: Commissioning for Patients’<br />
invited views on a number of areas of the commissioning<br />
agenda. The engagement exercise closed on 11 October<br />
and the Department is now analysing all of the<br />
contributions received.<br />
Health Services: Standards<br />
Liz Kendall: To ask the Secretary of State for Health<br />
how many and what proportion of patients spent (a)<br />
four hours or less and (b) more than four hours from<br />
arrival to admission, transfer or discharge at accident<br />
and emergency departments in each (i) month and (ii)<br />
quarter of (A) 2009 and (B) 2010 to date. [27637]<br />
Mr Simon Burns: The information is not available in<br />
the format requested. Such information as is available is<br />
in the table.<br />
Quarterly data on the number and proportion of<br />
patients who spend four hours or less from arrival to<br />
admission, transfer or discharge at accident and emergency<br />
(A&E) departments is available and published quarterly<br />
via the Department’s Quarterly Monitoring Accident<br />
and Emergency Services (QMAE) dataset. QMAE is<br />
the official source for monitoring performance against<br />
the four hour A&E waiting time standard.<br />
Monthly data on the number and proportion of<br />
patients who spend four hours or less from arrival to<br />
admission, transfer or discharge at A&E departments<br />
are only available monthly for August to October 2010<br />
from situation report (SitRep) management data. These<br />
data do not undergo the same validation processes as<br />
official QMAE data.<br />
For the months prior to August 2010 SitRep data<br />
were collected on a weekly basis and monthly figures<br />
would be difficult to obtain from the weekly data as<br />
different months would contain different numbers of<br />
weeks, meaning a month on month comparison would<br />
be distorted.<br />
A&E attendances and performance, England, calendar year, 2009 and 2010 by quarter, 2010, August, September, October<br />
All A&E/Minor Injuries Unit/Walk in Centre (Type 1, 2, 3)<br />
Calendar year Quarter Month OrgID Name<br />
Attendances w<strong>here</strong> patient<br />
spent:<br />
Four hours<br />
or less in<br />
A&E<br />
More than<br />
four hours<br />
in A&E<br />
Percentage of attendances<br />
w<strong>here</strong> patient spent:<br />
Four hours<br />
or less in<br />
A&E 1,2<br />
More than<br />
four hours in<br />
A&E 1,2<br />
QMAE data<br />
2009 1 — Eng England 4,591,401 108,816 97.7 2.3<br />
2009 2 — Eng England 5,113,295 74,693 98.6 1.4<br />
2009 3 — Eng England 5,025,722 66,023 98.7 1.3<br />
2009 4 — Eng England 4,925,381 110,738 97.8 2.2<br />
2010 1 — Eng England 4,731,558 102,163 97.9 2.1<br />
2010 2 — Eng England 5,396,369 86,501 98.4 1.6<br />
2010 3 — Eng England 5,214,746 106,710 98.0 2.0<br />
Monthly SitRep data<br />
2010 — August Eng England 1,723,360 33,180 98.1 1.9<br />
2010 — September Eng England 1,701,826 41,151 97.6 2.4<br />
2010 — October Eng England 1,753,711 47,414 97.4 2.6<br />
1<br />
From Q1 2010-11 (calendar year 2010 Q2), the calculation of quarterly A&E performance on the QMAE has changed. Prior to 2010-11 the<br />
calculation has identified the proportion of breaches with respect to all A&E attendances, irrespective of whether the time spent in A&E was<br />
known. The new calculation shows the breaches as a proportion of total attendances for which the time spent in A&E is known. Any attendances<br />
for which the time spent in A&E is unknown are excluded from the total attendances for the purpose of the calculation.<br />
2<br />
The calculation of monthly A&E performance on the Monthly SitReps identifies the proportion of breaches with respect to all A&E<br />
attendances, irrespective of whether the time spent in A&E was known.<br />
Notes:<br />
Attendances with an unknown total time are not included in the quarterly QMAE data.<br />
Source:<br />
Department of Health dataset QMAE, Monthly SitReps<br />
Liz Kendall: To ask the Secretary of State for Health<br />
how many and what proportion of patients (a)<br />
received treatment within and (b) waited longer for<br />
treatment than 18-weeks after referral in each (i) month<br />
and (ii) quarter of (A) 2009 and (B) 2010 to date.<br />
[27638]<br />
Mr Simon Burns: The information is shown in the<br />
following table:
909W<br />
Written Answers<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
Written Answers<br />
910W<br />
Calendar year Quarter Month<br />
Referral to treatment (RTT) national statistics (England)<br />
Completed admitted adjusted RTT consultant-led pathways<br />
Number of patients<br />
who started treatment<br />
within 18-weeks<br />
Number of patients<br />
who started treatment<br />
after 18-weeks<br />
% of patients who<br />
started treatment<br />
within 18-weeks<br />
% of patients who<br />
started treatment<br />
after 18-weeks<br />
2009 — January 273,184 20,751 92.9 7.1<br />
2009 — February 261,111 20,364 92.8 7.2<br />
2009 — March 300,703 22,483 93.0 7.0<br />
2009 1 — 834,998 63,598 92.9 7.1<br />
2009 — April 267,357 19,295 93.3 6.7<br />
2009 — May 263,030 17,634 93.7 6.3<br />
2009 — June 299,763 20,350 93.6 6.4<br />
2009 2 — 830,150 57,279 93.5 6.5<br />
2009 — July 303,148 20,532 93.7 6.3<br />
2009 — August 262,624 17,986 93.6 6.4<br />
2009 — September 297,343 21,401 93.3 6.7<br />
2009 3 — 863,115 59,919 93.5 6.5<br />
2009 — October 299,077 22,478 93.0 7.0<br />
2009 — November 294,662 22,918 92.8 7.2<br />
2009 — December 260,308 18,811 93.3 6.7<br />
2009 4 — 854,047 64,207 93.0 7.0<br />
2010 — January 263,501 20,996 92.6 7.4<br />
2010 — February 275,335 24,172 91.9 8.1<br />
2010 — March 322,462 27,921 92.0 8.0<br />
2010 1 — 861,298 73,089 92.2 7.8<br />
2010 — April 265,895 22,774 92.1 7.9<br />
2010 — May 270,648 20,662 92.9 7.1<br />
2010 — June 300,549 22,440 93.1 6.9<br />
2010 2 — 837,092 65,876 92.7 7.3<br />
2010 — July 292,098 21,120 93.3 6.7<br />
2010 — August 268,301 19,553 93.2 6.8<br />
2010 — September 289,261 23,542 92.5 7.5<br />
2010 3 — 849,660 64,215 93.0 7.0<br />
Completed non-admitted RTT consultant-led pathways<br />
Calendar year Quarter Month<br />
Number of patients<br />
who started treatment<br />
within 18-weeks<br />
Number of patients<br />
who started treatment<br />
after 18-weeks<br />
% of patients who<br />
started treatment<br />
within 18-weeks<br />
% of patients who<br />
started treatment<br />
after 18-weeks<br />
2009 — January 811,077 22,252 97.3 2.7<br />
2009 — February 739,427 20,390 97.3 2.7<br />
2009 — March 873,636 23,407 97.4 2.6<br />
2009 1 — 2,424,140 66,049 97.3 2.7<br />
2009 — April 824,755 21,682 97.4 2.6<br />
2009 — May 793,540 18,005 97.8 2.2<br />
2009 — June 936,590 21,294 97.8 2.2<br />
2009 2 — 2,554,885 60,981 97.7 2.3<br />
2009 — July 928,721 21,549 97.7 2.3<br />
2009 — August 785,914 18,393 97.7 2.3<br />
2009 — September 913,825 22,784 97.6 2.4<br />
2009 3 — 2,628,460 62,726 97.7 2.3<br />
2009 — October 893,394 21,233 97.7 2.3<br />
2009 — November 887,612 20,488 97.7 2.3<br />
2009 — December 792,428 17,221 97.9 2.1<br />
2009 4 — 2,573,434 58,942 97.8 2.2
911W<br />
Written Answers<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
Written Answers<br />
912W<br />
Completed non-admitted RTT consultant-led pathways<br />
Calendar year Quarter Month<br />
Number of patients<br />
who started treatment<br />
within 18-weeks<br />
Number of patients<br />
who started treatment<br />
after 18-weeks<br />
% of patients who<br />
started treatment<br />
within 18-weeks<br />
% of patients who<br />
started treatment<br />
after 18-weeks<br />
2010 — January 794,900 18,346 97.7 2.3<br />
2010 — February 827,198 18,559 97.8 2.2<br />
2010 — March 955,792 21,050 97.8 2.2<br />
2010 1 — 2,577,890 57,955 97.8 2.2<br />
2010 — April 822,550 17,662 97.9 2.1<br />
2010 — May 842,612 15,557 98.2 1.8<br />
2010 — June 942,117 17,252 98.2 1.8<br />
2010 2 — 2,607,279 50,471 98.1 1.9<br />
2010 — July 921,418 18,036 98.1 1.9<br />
2010 — August 859,515 17,278 98.0 2.0<br />
2010 — September 927,225 20,583 97.8 2.2<br />
2010 3 — 2,708,158 55,897 98.0 2.0<br />
Note:<br />
The quarterly figures are calculated from an aggregation of the monthly data.<br />
Source:<br />
Department of Health RTT waiting times.<br />
Health Services: Weather<br />
Derek Twigg: To ask the Secretary of State for Health<br />
(1) whether any NHS trusts have reported issues related<br />
to (a) capacity of critical care services and (b) bed<br />
availability under his Department’s winter reporting<br />
arrangements since 2 November 2010; [27349]<br />
(2) whether he has received any reports of problems<br />
in patient handover between ambulance and acute<br />
services under his Department’s winter reporting<br />
arrangements during November 2010; [27350]<br />
(3) whether any (a) daily situation reports and (b)<br />
NHS trusts have identified services operation problems<br />
under his Department’s winter reporting arrangements<br />
since 2 November 2010. [27351]<br />
Mr Simon Burns: It is for individual local health<br />
areas, working with their strategic health authorities<br />
(SHAs), to ensure that appropriate services are available<br />
for their patients during winter.<br />
W<strong>here</strong> operational issues are identified through daily<br />
winter reporting, the Department works closely with<br />
SHAs to ensure local winter plans are escalated to<br />
mitigate operational risks.<br />
T<strong>here</strong> will, on occasion, be peak demands on services<br />
in certain places. This can mean temporary measures<br />
are necessary, but these are kept to an absolute minimum<br />
and patient safety and quality of care are always paramount.<br />
Hip Fractures: Older People<br />
Emily Thornberry: To ask the Secretary of State for<br />
Health what steps he is taking to reduce the variation<br />
in number of older people with hip fractures between<br />
different local authority areas. [27455]<br />
Paul Burstow: T<strong>here</strong> is a significant programme of<br />
work in development to address variation. This Government<br />
intended the commissioning toolkit to support<br />
organisations’ establishment of effective falls and fracture<br />
prevention and management, the best practice tariff<br />
that is in place which incentivises high quality care;<br />
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence<br />
guidance on hip fracture care and the focus on outcomes<br />
within the national health service.<br />
Insulin<br />
Julian Sturdy: To ask the Secretary of State for Health<br />
what plans his Department has for the future provision<br />
of testing strips for insulin users. [27100]<br />
Paul Burstow: Prescribing decisions about blood testing<br />
strips are for local determination. It is for the local<br />
national health service to ensure that they are<br />
commissioning for a comprehensive diabetes service<br />
that includes patient education as well as access to<br />
blood testing strips.<br />
In 2002, the National Institute for Health and Clinical<br />
Excellence issued clinical guidelines on ‘Management<br />
of Type 2 Diabetes—Management of Blood Glucose’.<br />
The guidelines include advice on the self-monitoring of<br />
blood glucose, and state that self-monitoring can have<br />
benefits, but it should be carried out as part of an<br />
integrated self-care package and if the purpose is clear<br />
and agreed with the patient. People with non-insulin-treated<br />
Type 2 diabetes, who believe it to be beneficial, and have<br />
clearly defined goals and objectives, should be encouraged<br />
to continue to monitor.<br />
Local Involvement Networks: Finance<br />
Ms Abbott: To ask the Secretary of State for Health<br />
what arrangements he plans to put in place to ensure<br />
continuity of funding to local authorities for Local<br />
Involvement Networks prior to the establishment of<br />
local HealthWatch organisations; and if he will make a<br />
statement. [28201]<br />
Mr Simon Burns: I refer the hon. Member to the reply<br />
given to the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry<br />
McCarthy) on 18 November, Official Report, columns<br />
957-958W.
913W<br />
Written Answers<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
Written Answers<br />
914W<br />
NHS Commissioning Board<br />
Graham Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for<br />
Health whether the NHS Commissioning Board will<br />
commission salaried primary dental care services.<br />
[27167]<br />
Mr Simon Burns: Yes, that is our intention. The<br />
White Paper “Equity and excellence: Liberating the<br />
NHS” proposed that the NHS Commissioning Board<br />
would commission primary care dental services.<br />
NHS Foundation Trusts<br />
Mr Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State<br />
for Health what steps he plans to take to ensure that<br />
NHS trusts continue to provide equal access for all<br />
patients upon becoming foundation trusts; and if he<br />
will make a statement. [27094]<br />
Mr Simon Burns: Each primary care trust (PCT)<br />
needs to ensure equality of access to national health<br />
service services through the providers it contracts with,<br />
including NHS foundation trusts (NHSFTs). Through<br />
contracting with a plurality of health service providers,<br />
PCTs should be able to secure improved access for the<br />
patients they serve.<br />
In the future, general practitioner consortia will<br />
commission the services that patients receive, helping<br />
them to navigate the system and ensure they get the best<br />
care.<br />
The general right to access NHS services will remain<br />
unchanged as NHS Trusts become authorised to operate<br />
as NHSFTs.<br />
NHS Litigation Authority<br />
Mr Sanders: To ask the Secretary of State for Health<br />
whether the NHS Litigation Authority will provide<br />
insurance cover for private providers of NHS services<br />
after the implementation of the proposals in the NHS<br />
White Paper. [27160]<br />
Mr Simon Burns: The NHS Litigation Authority<br />
does not currently provide insurance cover, but provides<br />
a discretionary indemnity to members of the statutory<br />
schemes established under section 71 of the National<br />
Health Service Act 2006. Membership of the schemes is<br />
voluntary.<br />
The Department is committed to making sure the<br />
same arrangements that provide clinical negligence cover<br />
to NHS bodies are also available to other providers that<br />
deliver NHS care, including other public sector providers<br />
and private providers. Changes will be implemented<br />
alongside the White Paper reforms.<br />
Osteoporosis: Health Services<br />
Annette Brooke: To ask the Secretary of State for<br />
Health what estimate he has made of the number of<br />
GP practices which have met the minimum thresholds<br />
set out in the Osteoporosis Directed Enhanced Service.<br />
[27181]<br />
Paul Burstow: The Department does not hold<br />
information on the number of practices that participate<br />
in the Osteoporosis Directed Enhanced Service. The<br />
information is held by primary care trusts (PCTs) who<br />
hold a contract with those general practitioner practices<br />
who have chosen to enter into an arrangement with a<br />
PCT to provide this service.<br />
Annette Brooke: To ask the Secretary of State for<br />
Health if he will fund a national programme of audits<br />
of falls and bone health in primary care. [27186]<br />
Paul Burstow: We already fund a national clinical<br />
audit of falls and bone health, delivered by the Royal<br />
College of Physicians. The audit measures the organisation<br />
of services and care provided to older people for falls<br />
prevention, bone health and fracture management. It<br />
provides national benchmarking data, using evidence<br />
based quality standards, for a variety of healthcare<br />
settings: acute, primary care, care homes and mental<br />
health care.<br />
Strokes: Health Education<br />
Derek Twigg: To ask the Secretary of State for Health<br />
(1) when he plans to release the remaining tranche of<br />
funding for the Act F.A.S.T. campaign; [27168]<br />
(2) what recent assessment he has made of the<br />
effectiveness of his Department’s Act F.A.S.T. campaign<br />
in raising stroke awareness. [27169]<br />
Mr Simon Burns: Approval has been received recently<br />
from the Cabinet Office Efficiency and Reform Group<br />
for a further wave of the Act FAST Stroke awareness<br />
campaign to go ahead. The current intention is for the<br />
television adverts to run in March 2011, supported by<br />
distribution of other materials locally.<br />
The evaluation we commissioned from the advertising<br />
agency which was awarded the contract for developing<br />
the stroke awareness campaign, showed that the campaign<br />
successfully achieved a rapid change in behaviour: within<br />
a year, an estimated 9,864 more people reached hospital<br />
faster, 642 of whom were saved from death or serious<br />
disability by receiving thrombolysis. The evidence<br />
demonstrated that the campaign achieved a payback of<br />
£3.16 for every £1 spent. On this basis the agency<br />
submitted an entry to the 2010 Institute of Professional<br />
Advertisers Effectiveness Awards and, in November,<br />
achieved a Gold Award.<br />
Tobacco: Sales<br />
Ms Abbott: To ask the Secretary of State for Health<br />
what timetable he proposes for implementation of any<br />
proposals requiring the sale of tobacco products in<br />
plain packaging; and if he will make a statement.<br />
[27434]<br />
Anne Milton: The Government’s consideration of<br />
policy on the plain packaging of tobacco products is in<br />
its early stages. The Government will look at whether<br />
the plain packaging of tobacco products could be an<br />
effective way to reduce further the numbers of young<br />
people taking up smoking and to help those who are<br />
trying to quit smoking. The Government want to make<br />
it easier for people to make healthy choices, but will<br />
clearly need to consider both the benefits and the costs<br />
of any new policy.
915W<br />
Written Answers<br />
1 DECEMBER 2010<br />
Written Answers<br />
916W<br />
Ms Abbott: To ask the Secretary of State for Health<br />
with reference to his press statement of 22 November<br />
2010, what the evidential basis was for his statement<br />
that (a) packaging helps to recruit smokers and (b)<br />
that children are being attracted to smoking by glitzy<br />
designs on packets; what plans he has to implement<br />
legislative provisions prohibiting the display in retail<br />
outlets of tobacco product packaging; and if he will<br />
make a statement. [27439]<br />
Anne Milton: A large number of documents, reports<br />
and studies have been published about the effect of<br />
packaging in the marketing and promotion of tobacco<br />
products, and support the statements made by the Secretary<br />
of State.<br />
For example, the RAND Europe study “Assessing<br />
the Impacts of Revising the Tobacco Products Directive”<br />
commissioned by the European Commission Health<br />
and Consumer Directorate-General to support their<br />
assessment of the impacts of revising the Tobacco<br />
Products Directive 2001/37/EC and published in September<br />
2010, includes a section examining the evidence on the<br />
plain or generic packaging of tobacco products.<br />
The RAND report can be found at:<br />
http://ec.europa.eu/health/tobacco/docs/<br />
tobacco_ia_rand_en.pdf<br />
Also, the Australian Government have announced<br />
their intention to introduce a legislative requirement for<br />
the plain packaging of tobacco to commence on 1<br />
January 2012. The evidence supporting their action is<br />
summarised in their technical report “Australia: the<br />
healthiest country by 2020—Technical report 2 Tobacco<br />
Control in Australia”.<br />
The Australian technical report can be found at:<br />
www.preventativehealth.org.au/internet/preventativehealth/<br />
publishing.nsf/Content/tech-tobacco<br />
The Government are looking at options around the<br />
display of tobacco in shops, recognising the need to<br />
take action both to reduce tobacco consumption and to<br />
reduce burdens on businesses. No decisions have yet<br />
been made.
ORAL ANSWERS<br />
Wednesday 1 December 2010<br />
Col. No.<br />
PRIME MINISTER .................................................. 810<br />
Engagements.......................................................... 810<br />
SCOTLAND.............................................................. 801<br />
Asylum Seekers...................................................... 802<br />
Commonwealth Games.......................................... 807<br />
Economy................................................................ 804<br />
Economy................................................................ 807<br />
Col. No.<br />
SCOTLAND—continued<br />
Economy................................................................ 810<br />
Employment .......................................................... 809<br />
Energy.................................................................... 801<br />
HIV........................................................................ 803<br />
MOD Hospital Unit .............................................. 809<br />
Scotch Whisky ....................................................... 806<br />
VAT ....................................................................... 808<br />
WRITTEN MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS<br />
Wednesday 1 December 2010<br />
Col. No.<br />
BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND SKILLS ............. 73WS<br />
Telecoms Council................................................... 73WS<br />
Col. No.<br />
HEALTH................................................................... 78WS<br />
Stem Cell Transplant Services ................................ 78WS<br />
CABINET OFFICE...................................................<br />
Diamond Jubilee Civic Honours Competitions......<br />
COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT..<br />
London Reforms and the Localism Bill .................<br />
77WS<br />
77WS<br />
76WS<br />
76WS<br />
HOME DEPARTMENT...........................................<br />
Justice and Home Affairs Pre-Council Statement ..<br />
Local Licensing Act ...............................................<br />
Policing in the 21st Century ...................................<br />
78WS<br />
80WS<br />
78WS<br />
79WS<br />
ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL<br />
AFFAIRS............................................................... 77WS TREASURY ..............................................................<br />
Single Payment Scheme.......................................... 77WS Fair Pay in the Public Sector ..................................<br />
WRITTEN ANSWERS<br />
73WS<br />
73WS<br />
Wednesday 1 December 2010<br />
Col. No.<br />
ATTORNEY-GENERAL .......................................... 836W<br />
EU Law.................................................................. 836W<br />
BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND SKILLS............. 831W<br />
Agriculture: Training ............................................. 831W<br />
Credit: Regulation.................................................. 832W<br />
Departmental Food................................................ 833W<br />
Higher Education: Admissions .............................. 833W<br />
Higher Education: Finance .................................... 834W<br />
Local Enterprise Partnerships................................ 834W<br />
Manufacturing Industries: Trade Competitiveness. 834W<br />
Regional Growth Fund .......................................... 835W<br />
UK Trade and Investment: Bahrain ....................... 835W<br />
CABINET OFFICE................................................... 880W<br />
Banks: Finance ...................................................... 880W<br />
Big Society Bank.................................................... 880W<br />
Charity Commission .............................................. 880W<br />
Community Organisers .......................................... 881W<br />
Deaths: Winter....................................................... 881W<br />
Emergencies ........................................................... 882W<br />
Football: South Africa ........................................... 882W<br />
Iraq Committee of Inquiry: Public Appointments . 882W<br />
National Citizen Service......................................... 883W<br />
Third Sector: Finance ............................................ 883W<br />
Written Questions: Government Responses ........... 884W<br />
COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT.. 846W<br />
Affordable Housing: Construction......................... 846W<br />
Decentralisation and Localism Bill ........................ 846W<br />
Housing: Construction........................................... 846W<br />
Col. No.<br />
COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT—<br />
continued<br />
Housing: Costs....................................................... 847W<br />
Mortgages.............................................................. 848W<br />
Park Homes: Caravan Sites.................................... 848W<br />
Poverty: Children ................................................... 849W<br />
Squatting ............................................................... 849W<br />
Tenancy Deposit Schemes...................................... 849W<br />
Travellers: Caravan Sites ........................................ 849W<br />
Working Neighbourhoods Fund ............................ 850W<br />
CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT ..........................<br />
Arts: Cumbria County Council..............................<br />
Arts: Sunderland City Council...............................<br />
Broadband .............................................................<br />
Co-production Agreement between the UK and<br />
Israel..................................................................<br />
Copyright: Recordings ...........................................<br />
Departmental Sponsorship ....................................<br />
Newsquest Media Group .......................................<br />
DEFENCE.................................................................<br />
Afghanistan: Peacekeeping Operations ..................<br />
Armed Forces: Aircraft ..........................................<br />
Armoured Fighting Vehicles ..................................<br />
Defence Exports Group .........................................<br />
Nimrod Aircraft.....................................................<br />
Rescue Services ......................................................<br />
Strategic Defence and Security Review ..................<br />
Trident Submarines................................................<br />
USA: Nuclear Weapons .........................................<br />
836W<br />
836W<br />
836W<br />
837W<br />
837W<br />
838W<br />
838W<br />
838W<br />
816W<br />
816W<br />
816W<br />
816W<br />
817W<br />
817W<br />
818W<br />
818W<br />
818W<br />
819W
Col. No.<br />
DEFENCE—continued<br />
Warships: Decommissioning .................................. 819W<br />
EDUCATION............................................................<br />
Business: Education ...............................................<br />
Departmental Redundancy ....................................<br />
Free School Meals: Ealing .....................................<br />
Kristallnacht: Education........................................<br />
Pre-School Education: Special Educational Needs.<br />
Pupils: Disadvantaged............................................<br />
Schools: Holocaust Memorial Day ........................<br />
Schools: Reading....................................................<br />
Schools: Standards.................................................<br />
Special Educational Needs: Children in Care.........<br />
Special Educational Needs: Lancashire..................<br />
UN Convention on the Rights of the Child ...........<br />
World War II: Education........................................<br />
Youth Services: Manpower ....................................<br />
ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE .....................<br />
Carbon Reduction Commitment Energy<br />
Efficiency Scheme ..............................................<br />
Departmental Contracts ........................................<br />
Energy: Prices ........................................................<br />
Natural Gas ...........................................................<br />
ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL<br />
AFFAIRS...............................................................<br />
Agricultural Wages Order ......................................<br />
Biofuels..................................................................<br />
British Waterways ..................................................<br />
Carbon Emissions: Businesses ...............................<br />
Common Agricultural Policy .................................<br />
Departmental Policy ..............................................<br />
Farming Futures: Finance......................................<br />
Genetically Modified Organisms............................<br />
National Parks.......................................................<br />
Salmon: Rivers.......................................................<br />
Woodland Grants Scheme......................................<br />
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE.....<br />
Akmyrat Rejepow ..................................................<br />
British Council: Finance ........................................<br />
Cayman Islands: Loans..........................................<br />
Diplomatic Service: Domestic Staff........................<br />
European Union ....................................................<br />
Football: South Africa ...........................................<br />
Government Hospitality: Wines.............................<br />
Iraq: Christianity ...................................................<br />
Israel: OECD .........................................................<br />
Palestinians: International Assistance ....................<br />
Piracy.....................................................................<br />
HEALTH...................................................................<br />
Abortion ................................................................<br />
Abortion: Marriage................................................<br />
Accident and Emergency Departments ..................<br />
Barnet General Hospital: Private Finance<br />
Initiative.............................................................<br />
Basophobia: NHS..................................................<br />
British Medical Association: Competition .............<br />
Cancer: Drugs........................................................<br />
Cancer: Waiting Lists.............................................<br />
Cataracts: Surgery..................................................<br />
Child Birth: Greater London .................................<br />
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease................<br />
Clostridium Difficile ..............................................<br />
Clostridium Difficile: Screening .............................<br />
Day Care: Greater London ....................................<br />
Dental Services: Yorkshire and Humber ................<br />
Departmental Grants.............................................<br />
850W<br />
850W<br />
851W<br />
851W<br />
852W<br />
853W<br />
853W<br />
854W<br />
854W<br />
854W<br />
855W<br />
855W<br />
855W<br />
856W<br />
856W<br />
808W<br />
808W<br />
808W<br />
808W<br />
809W<br />
800W<br />
800W<br />
801W<br />
802W<br />
802W<br />
802W<br />
803W<br />
805W<br />
805W<br />
806W<br />
807W<br />
807W<br />
825W<br />
825W<br />
826W<br />
826W<br />
827W<br />
827W<br />
827W<br />
827W<br />
830W<br />
830W<br />
830W<br />
831W<br />
885W<br />
885W<br />
887W<br />
887W<br />
888W<br />
888W<br />
889W<br />
905W<br />
890W<br />
890W<br />
905W<br />
890W<br />
891W<br />
891W<br />
892W<br />
892W<br />
892W<br />
Col. No.<br />
HEALTH—continued<br />
Departmental Postal Services................................. 893W<br />
Departmental Sponsorship .................................... 906W<br />
Diabetes ................................................................. 893W<br />
Disability: Children................................................ 894W<br />
Football: South Africa ........................................... 906W<br />
Freedom of Information ........................................ 894W<br />
General Practitioners ............................................. 894W<br />
General Practitioners ............................................. 906W<br />
Haemophilia .......................................................... 896W<br />
Health Services ...................................................... 906W<br />
Health Services: Standards..................................... 907W<br />
Health Services: Weather........................................ 911W<br />
Help is at Hand...................................................... 896W<br />
Hemofil T: Clinical Trials....................................... 897W<br />
Hereditary Diseases ............................................... 897W<br />
Hereford County Hospital: Private Finance<br />
Initiative............................................................. 897W<br />
Hip Fractures: Older People................................... 911W<br />
Insulin.................................................................... 912W<br />
Local Involvement Networks: Finance................... 912W<br />
Medical Schools..................................................... 898W<br />
Medical Schools: Public Expenditure..................... 899W<br />
Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus:<br />
Screening ........................................................... 899W<br />
Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus........... 899W<br />
Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus:<br />
Screening ........................................................... 900W<br />
Multiple Sclerosis: Health Services......................... 900W<br />
Muscular Dystrophy: Yorkshire and Humber ........ 901W<br />
NHS....................................................................... 901W<br />
NHS: Armed Forces .............................................. 901W<br />
NHS Commissioning Board .................................. 913W<br />
NHS Foundation Trusts......................................... 913W<br />
NHS Litigation Authority...................................... 913W<br />
NHS: Public Finance ............................................. 901W<br />
Nurses: Public Expenditure.................................... 902W<br />
Osteoporosis: Health Services ................................ 913W<br />
Social Services: Elderly .......................................... 902W<br />
South London Healthcare NHS Trust ................... 903W<br />
Strokes: Health Education ..................................... 914W<br />
Surgery: Waiting Lists............................................ 903W<br />
Tobacco: Sales........................................................ 914W<br />
Tuberculosis: Greater London ............................... 903W<br />
University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire<br />
NHS Trust ......................................................... 904W<br />
Young People: Autism............................................ 904W<br />
HOME DEPARTMENT........................................... 811W<br />
Aviation: Security................................................... 811W<br />
Crime..................................................................... 811W<br />
Homosexuality: Criminal Records ......................... 812W<br />
Immigration........................................................... 812W<br />
Migration............................................................... 812W<br />
Vetting ................................................................... 813W<br />
HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION.............. 823W<br />
Meat: Ritual Slaughter........................................... 823W<br />
<strong>Parliament</strong>ary Archives: Manpower....................... 824W<br />
Smartphone Applications ...................................... 824W<br />
INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT.................... 799W<br />
Departmental Sponsorship .................................... 799W<br />
Developing Countries: Education .......................... 799W<br />
Developing Countries: HIV Infection .................... 799W<br />
EU Law.................................................................. 800W<br />
Football: South Africa ........................................... 800W<br />
Trade Unions: Finance........................................... 800W<br />
JUSTICE...................................................................<br />
Arrest Warrants .....................................................<br />
820W<br />
820W
Col. No.<br />
JUSTICE—continued<br />
Departmental Grants............................................. 820W<br />
EU Law.................................................................. 822W<br />
Prisons: Visits......................................................... 822W<br />
PRIME MINISTER .................................................. 836W<br />
Pupils: Bullying...................................................... 836W<br />
PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION ................... 824W<br />
Departmental Written Questions ........................... 824W<br />
SCOTLAND.............................................................. 819W<br />
Departmental Sponsorship .................................... 820W<br />
Devolution............................................................. 820W<br />
Elections ................................................................ 819W<br />
VAT ....................................................................... 820W<br />
TRANSPORT ........................................................... 813W<br />
Biofuels.................................................................. 813W<br />
East Midlands Airport: Security ............................ 814W<br />
Lake Windermere: Speed Limits ............................ 814W<br />
Official Cars: Liquefied Natural Gas ..................... 815W<br />
Parking: Fines........................................................ 815W<br />
Stourbridge to Walsall Freight Rail Line................ 815W<br />
Transport: Expenditure.......................................... 815W<br />
TREASURY .............................................................. 838W<br />
Air Passenger Duty ................................................ 838W<br />
Banks: Finance ...................................................... 839W<br />
Banks: Loans ......................................................... 839W<br />
Copyright: Music................................................... 839W<br />
Employers’ Liability: Asbestos............................... 839W<br />
Income Tax ............................................................ 840W<br />
Members: Correspondence .................................... 840W<br />
Mortgages.............................................................. 840W<br />
Private Finance Initiative: Newton Abbot.............. 842W<br />
Revenue and Customs: Marketing ......................... 842W<br />
Tax Yields .............................................................. 843W<br />
Taxation: Music ..................................................... 845W<br />
VAT: Churches....................................................... 845W<br />
Col. No.<br />
WALES...................................................................... 813W<br />
Grants.................................................................... 813W<br />
UN Food and Agriculture Organisation ................ 813W<br />
WOMEN AND EQUALITIES.................................. 809W<br />
Black Asian and Minority Ethnic Women<br />
Councillors Taskforce: Expenditure................... 809W<br />
WORK AND PENSIONS .........................................<br />
Asbestos: Employers’ Liability...............................<br />
Atos Healthcare .....................................................<br />
Children: Maintenance ..........................................<br />
Cold Weather Payments .........................................<br />
Departmental Contracts ........................................<br />
Departmental Grants.............................................<br />
Departmental Regulation.......................................<br />
Disability Living Allowance: Care Homes .............<br />
Employment Schemes ............................................<br />
Employment Schemes: Scotland ............................<br />
Housing Benefit .....................................................<br />
Housing Benefit: Newham .....................................<br />
Housing Benefit: North East..................................<br />
Housing Benefit: Worcestershire ............................<br />
Industrial Accidents: Construction ........................<br />
Industrial Health and Safety: Inspections ..............<br />
Jobcentre Plus: Rural Areas ...................................<br />
Jobseeker’s Allowance: Fraud ................................<br />
Jobseeker’s Allowance: Hearing Impaired ..............<br />
Mobility Allowance: Children................................<br />
Mortgage Payments ...............................................<br />
Poverty: Children ...................................................<br />
Private Finance Initiative Scheme ..........................<br />
Social Rented Housing: Reform.............................<br />
Social Security Benefits..........................................<br />
Social Security Benefits: Adoption.........................<br />
Social Security Benefits: Fraud ..............................<br />
Social Security Benefits: Reform ............................<br />
Universal Credit: Welfare.......................................<br />
Vacancies: Peterborough ........................................<br />
856W<br />
879W<br />
856W<br />
857W<br />
860W<br />
860W<br />
860W<br />
861W<br />
862W<br />
863W<br />
864W<br />
864W<br />
865W<br />
866W<br />
866W<br />
866W<br />
867W<br />
867W<br />
868W<br />
869W<br />
869W<br />
870W<br />
870W<br />
871W<br />
871W<br />
871W<br />
872W<br />
873W<br />
877W<br />
878W<br />
879W
Members who wish to have the Daily Report of the Debates forwarded to them should give notice at the Vote<br />
Office.<br />
The Bound Volumes will also be sent to Members who similarly express their desire to have them.<br />
No proofs of the Daily Reports can be supplied, nor can corrections be made in the Weekly Edition. Corrections<br />
which Members suggest for the Bound Volume should be clearly marked in the Daily Report, but not<br />
telephoned, and the copy containing the Corrections must be received at the Editor’s Room, House of Commons,<br />
not later than<br />
Wednesday 8 December 2010<br />
STRICT ADHERENCE TO THIS ARRANGEMENT GREATLY FACILITATES THE<br />
PROMPT PUBLICATION OF THE VOLUMES<br />
Members may obtain excerpts of their Speeches from the Official Report (within one month from the date of<br />
publication), on application to the Stationery Office, c/o the Editor of the Official Report, House of<br />
Commons, from whom the terms and conditions of reprinting may be ascertained. Application forms are<br />
available at the Vote Office.<br />
PRICES AND SUBSCRIPTION RATES<br />
DAILY PARTS<br />
Single copies:<br />
Commons, £5; Lords, £3·50.<br />
Annual subscriptions:<br />
Commons, £865; Lords, £525.<br />
WEEKLY HANSARD<br />
Single copies:<br />
Commons, £12; Lords, £6.<br />
Annual subscriptions:<br />
Commons, £440. Lords, £225.<br />
Index:<br />
Annual subscriptions:<br />
Commons, £125; Lords, £65.<br />
LORDS VOLUME INDEX obtainable on standing order only. Details available on request.<br />
BOUND VOLUMES OF DEBATES are issued periodically during the session.<br />
Single copies:<br />
Commons, £105; Lords, £40.<br />
Standing orders will be accepted.<br />
THE INDEX to each Bound Volume of House of Commons Debates is published separately at £9·00 and can be supplied to standing<br />
order.<br />
WEEKLY INFORMATION BULLETIN compiled by the House of Commons, giving details of past and forthcoming business,<br />
the work of Committees and general information on legislation, etc. The Annual Subscription includes also automatic<br />
despatch of the Sessional Information Digest.<br />
Single copies:<br />
£1·50.<br />
Annual subscriptions:<br />
£53·50.<br />
All prices are inclusive of postage
Volume 519<br />
Wednesday<br />
No. 82 1 December 2010<br />
CONTENTS<br />
Wednesday 1 December 2010<br />
Oral Answers to Questions [Col. 801] [see index inside back page]<br />
Secretary of State for Scotland<br />
Prime Minister<br />
Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964 (Amendment) [Col. 822]<br />
Motion for leave to bring in Bill—(Alison McGovern)—agreed to<br />
Bill presented, and read the First time<br />
Fixed-term <strong>Parliament</strong>s Bill [Col. 825]<br />
Further considered in Committee<br />
National Policy Statements [Col. 889]<br />
Motion—(Charles Hendry)<br />
Motion lapsed<br />
Libel Law [Col. 930]<br />
Debate on motion for Adjournment<br />
Constitutional Law [Col. 939]<br />
Motion, on a deferred Division, agreed to<br />
Westminster Hall<br />
Candour in Health Care [Col. 269WH]<br />
PACE (Stop and Search) [Col. 291WH]<br />
HIV [Col. 299WH]<br />
Metal Theft [Col. 323WH]<br />
Health Care (North Yorkshire and York) [Col. 332WH]<br />
Debates on motion for Adjournment<br />
Written Ministerial Statements [Col. 73WS]<br />
Written Answers to Questions [Col. 799W] [see index inside back page]