View PDF - United Kingdom Parliament

Wednesday Volume 523 

16 February 2011 No. 120 

HOUSE OF COMMONS 

OFFICIAL REPORT 

PARLIAMENTARY 

DEBATES 

(HANSARD) 

Wednesday 16 February 2011 

£5·00

© Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2011 

This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Parliamentary Click-Use Licence, 

available online through the Office of Public Sector Information website at 

www.opsi.gov.uk/click-use/ 

Enquiries to the Office of Public Sector Information, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 4DU; 

e-mail: licensing@opsi.gov.uk

939 16 FEBRUARY 2011 

940 

House of Commons 


The House met at half-past Eleven o’clock 

PRAYERS 

[MR SPEAKER in the Chair] 

Oral Answers to Questions 

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT 

The Secretary of State was asked— 

Haiti 

1. Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con): What recent 

assessment he has made of the humanitarian situation 

in Haiti. [40971] 

The Secretary of State for International Development 

(Mr Andrew Mitchell): Although the number of people 

in camps in Haiti has fallen by half to 800,000 since last 

July, Haiti continues to face serious humanitarian challenges. 

Caroline Dinenage: The President of Haiti famously 

said that it would take a thousand trucks a thousand 

days to clear the devastation, but the people do not have 

a thousand days, because they are suffering disease and 

crime, and they do not have a thousand trucks. What 

more can the international community do to tackle the 

problem? 

Mr Mitchell: My hon. Friend is right to identify the 

scale of the damage and of what is required to put it 

right. We are working directly on tackling the threat of 

cholera, and working through the UN and the World 

Bank on some of the more serious aspects of what 

needs to happen to bring the relief that is required . 

Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/ 

Co-op): I advise you, Mr Speaker, and the House, that 

my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for 

Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), the shadow 

Secretary of State, cannot be here today because she is 

on jury service. 

As well direct assistance to Haiti, which we support, 

Britain has contributed more than $100 million through 

multilateral organisations such as the World Bank and 

the European Union, as the Secretary of State said. 

Does he agree that it is important for the UK to 

continue to make substantial contributions to such 

organisations if the world community is to provide the 

scale of long-term support for reconstruction that Haiti 

requires? 

Mr Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman is right to put it 

that way. Britain was a key part of the immediate, 

emergency relief in the aftermath of those dreadful 

events in Haiti. There was generous support from across 

Britain through the Disasters Emergency Committee 

appeal, and we made a number of specific surgical 

interventions towards the end of last year, including the 

one to which I referred. Britain is not in the lead on 

Haiti—this is very much an American, French and 

Canadian lead—but we are, as he explained, giving 

strong support through international and multilateral 

agencies, including the UN and the World Bank. 

Mark Lazarowicz: We certainly welcome the fact that 

British aid is helping the poor and most vulnerable in 

Haiti. We support that, but unfortunately, it is a different 

story just 100 miles north of Haiti in the Turks and 

Caicos Islands, to which the Department for International 

Development has just agreed to write an unprecedented 

loan of £160 million, which is much greater than any 

previous support for a British overseas territory. Surely 

the priority for DFID in the Caribbean should be 

meeting the needs of the poorest and most vulnerable in 

places such as Haiti, so may I ask the Secretary of 

State— 

Mr Speaker: Order. The question must relate to Haiti 

and only to Haiti. 

Mr Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman refers to problems 

some miles away from Haiti. However, if I may say so, 

he has a bit of a brass neck. We inherited a terrible mess 

in the area not far from Haiti to which he refers, and it is 

thanks to the brilliant work conducted by the Minister 

of State that the British taxpayer has now given a 

guarantee, which hopefully will allow the place not far 

from Haiti to sort out its problems without further cost 

to the British taxpayer. 

Mr Speaker: We now know more about Haiti and 

some miles away. 

India 

2. Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con): What his 

Department’s policy is on providing aid to India; and if 

he will make a statement. [40972] 


(Mr Andrew Mitchell): From now on in India, we will 

focus our support on three of the poorest states. Our 

programme will change to reflect the importance of the 

role of the private sector and private enterprise. 

Philip Davies: India spends $36 billion a year on 

defence and $750 million on a space programme. It has 

one of the fastest-growing economies in the world and 

is developing its own overseas aid programme. Given 

that we must cut public expenditure in this country, will 

the Secretary of State accept that many of my constituents 

will think that such aid to India is now unjustifiable? 

Mr Mitchell: That is why our programme in India is 

in transition, why we will focus on three of the poorest 

states in the country and why, over the next four years, 

up to half the programme will transition into pro-poor 

private sector investment. That is the right way for us to 

position our development work in the partnership with 

India, which is of course much wider than development, 

and which the Prime Minister very significantly re-energised 

in his major visit last year. 

Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab): I congratulate 

the Secretary of State on continuing with the £280 million 

each year to India. That is vital given that India has a 

quarter of the world’s poorest people living within its

941 Oral Answers 

16 FEBRUARY 2011 

Oral Answers 

942 

borders. How does he intend to focus the aid in those 

three states, particularly with regard to the health of 

young women? 

Mr Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman is right that there 

are more poor people in India than in the whole of 

sub-Saharan Africa. He is right, too, that we should 

focus on the poorest areas, and particularly on the role 

of girls and women. Over future years, we expect to be 

able to assist in ensuring that up to 4 million women 

have access to income through micro-finance and through 

focusing particularly on livelihoods. We will also support, 

of course, the strong programme on education in India. 

About 60 million children have been got into school 

over the last four or five years, which is a tremendous 

tribute to the work of the Indian Government, but it 

would not have been possible without the intervention 

of aid and support from Britain and elsewhere. 

Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD): Does the Secretary 

of State agree that it is worth recording that to lift the 

poorest people in India out of poverty by $1 a day 

would cost $166 billion a year, so it is appropriate to 

continue our transitional arrangements with India? The 

International Development Committee will visit India 

next month and we will want to see how DFID’s 

relationship with the country, albeit with a relatively 

small amount in comparison with the challenge of the 

problem, can deliver an accelerated reduction of poverty 

there. 

Mr Mitchell: I am grateful to the Chairman of the 

Select Committee for that comment and also to the 

Select Committee itself for going to look with care at 

development in India and the operation of our programme 

there. He accurately identifies the scale of need. It is 

worth noting that the number of the Indian population 

living on less than 80p a day is 7.5 times the total 

population of Britain. That puts in context the basic 

nature of this need and shows why Britain’s partnership 

is so important. 

Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP): Is 

the Secretary of State aware of the claims made by the 

Jubilee Debt Campaign and Jubilee Scotland that the 

work of the UK’s Export Credits Guarantee Department 

has been funding work in India that is undermining 

development and human rights? I declare an interest in 

that I was until recently a board member of Jubilee 

Scotland. I ask the Secretary of State to investigate and 

report back to the House on that matter. 

Mr Mitchell: The hon. Lady will have heard what has 

been said about the Export Credits Guarantee 

Department—that it is at the moment being looked at 

carefully to ensure that it supports our development 

aims. She might also like to look at the trade White 

Paper published last week, which specifically addresses 

the role of the ECGD in development and in supporting 

British exports overseas. 

Friends of Yemen 

3. Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con): 

On what date he expects the next Friends of Yemen 

meeting to take place; and if he will make a statement. 

[40973] 

5. Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con): On what date 

he expects the next Friends of Yemen meeting to take 

place; and if he will make a statement. [40975] 

The Minister of State, Department for International 

Development (Mr Alan Duncan): We expect the next 

Friends of Yemen meeting to take place in Riyadh at 

the end of March. I visited Saudi Arabia last weekend 

and was afterwards with the Foreign Secretary in Yemen. 

We are continuing to work with both countries to agree 

a firm date for the next meeting. 

Rehman Chishti: Given the turmoil in the region, 

what is the Minister’s assessment of the situation in 

Yemen and of the Friends of Yemen process? How will 

it stop the state failing and assist in an orderly succession 

and economic progress following the commitment by 

the President not to stand at the next election? 

Mr Duncan: Recent events demonstrate more than 

ever the importance of the Friends of Yemen process to 

prevent state failure in that country. I welcome President 

Saleh’s speech on 2 February, committing to follow the 

constitution of Yemen and not to seek re-election after 

2013. Through the Friends of Yemen process, we will 

work to support political reform and the right of all 

Yemenis to participate legitimately and democratically 

in their political future. 

Mark Pritchard: Is it not the case that a secure and 

prosperous Yemen is very much in the UK national 

security interest? Will my right hon. Friend inform the 

House what new measures have been put in place to 

ensure that those objectives are delivered? 

Mr Duncan: We have seen substantial progress on 

many fronts since the New York Friends of Yemen 

meeting, and I particularly highlight the Yemeni 

Government’s adherence to an International Monetary 

Fund financial reform programme and progress made 

towards completing their five-year development plan 

for poverty reduction. We are close to establishing a 

multi-donor trust fund for Yemen. The Riyadh Friends 

of Yemen meeting will continue the support of Yemen’s 

friends for political and economic reform in the pursuit 

of democracy, stability and prosperity. 

Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab): I warmly welcome 

the Minister’s visit to Yemen last week. I ask him to put 

one item on the agenda of the Friends of Yemen 

meeting—namely, the redevelopment and refurbishment 

of the Aden hospital, which has been ongoing for a 

number of years. Good health facilities would be of 

huge benefit to local people in what is one of the 

poorest countries on earth. 

Mr Duncan: We do not tend to get involved in large 

infrastructure projects, but health in Yemen is at the top 

of our agenda. I well appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s 

close personal association with Aden, and I undertake 

to give the matter a special personal look. 

Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) 

(Lab): Although I acknowledge the link between poverty 

and security, not least in Yemen, may I invite the 

Minister of State to confirm that DFID sees addressing 

poverty among the poorest people in the poorest countries 

as its supreme challenge and as being at its heart?



Oral Answers 

944 

Mr Duncan: Yes, poverty reduction is at the core of 

everything that the Department does, but I urge the 

right hon. Gentleman to appreciate that no fragile 

country has ever achieved a single millennium development 

goal. Preventing state failure is much less costly than 

dealing with a failed state afterwards. 

Palestine 

4. Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con): What 

development support his Department provides to the 

Palestinian Authority and to Israeli non-governmental 

organisations working in the west bank. [40974] 


Development (Mr Alan Duncan): We provide financial 

and technical assistance to the Palestinian Authority. In 

this financial year, our support will total £31.1 million. 

DFID also co-funds the UK conflict pool, which supports 

five Israeli human rights NGOs operating in the west 

bank. 

Mr Walker: I recently took part in a delegation to 

Jerusalem and the occupied Palestinian territories of 

the west bank, and I refer the House to my related entry 

in the register. During the visit, we met many Israeli 

human rights organisations and NGOs involved in the 

peace process, some of which receive financial support 

from the UK Government. All of them were concerned 

at moves by elements of the nationalist right to crack 

down on and embarrass organisations in receipt of 

overseas funding, no matter how legitimate— 

Mr Speaker: Order. I am extremely grateful to the 

hon. Gentleman, but this is Question Time. 

Mr Duncan: My hon. Friend refers to a proposed 

panel of inquiry on the Israeli side, to look into the 

funding of its NGOs. Our ambassador to Tel Aviv 

discussed the issue with the Israeli ambassador to the 

UK, Ron Prosor, shortly after the Knesset vote on the 

issue. Officials raised the matter with one of the two 

members of the Knesset who had pressed for such 

funding investigation. We do not want such investigations 

to impede the legitimate work of NGOs in the west 

bank and elsewhere in the Palestinian territories. 

Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab): In 

light of the Minister’s reply, does he share the concern 

expressed by Norwegian Foreign Minister Støre about 

the Israeli Foreign Minister’s comments, which appear 

to delegitimise the work of brave NGOs such as B’Tselem 

and Physicians for Human Rights? It is important that 

the voices of those organisations, which are Israeli 

Jewish but express a different view from the Israeli 

Government, should continue to be heard. 

Mr Duncan: I think that I can give the hon. Gentleman 

the assurance that he seeks. We are watching closely the 

treatment of the five NGOs concerned and we will do 

our utmost to ensure that they remain free to do their 

good work, even though some of their conclusions 

might disagree with the those of the Israeli Government. 

Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con): Is the Minister aware 

that an increasing amount of aid to the Palestinian 

territories ends up in the hands of extremists and is 

used for extremist purposes? Will he take steps to stop 

that and ensure that aid gets to the Palestinians who 

need it most? 

Mr Duncan: I do not share my hon. Friend’s conclusion. 

We are very careful how we spend our money in the 

occupied Palestinian territories and have done our utmost 

to support the legitimate government of Salam Fayyad 

with, I think, great success. We would abhor any money 

falling into the hands of extremists, and we do everything 

possible to ensure that such an accusation can never be 

verified or proved valid. 

Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab): The 

Minister will know that many in the House and beyond 

continue to be deeply concerned about the desperate 

situation in Gaza. What efforts are the Government 

making to ensure that Israel lifts the blockade of Gaza, 

which leaves many dependent on UN aid? Given the 

situation in Egypt, will the Minister update us on the 

position at the Rafah crossing, and on what action will 

be taken to ensure that humanitarian aid can be delivered 

to those who need it most? 

Mr Duncan: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary 

and all Ministers make our views clear on this matter. 

Prime Minister Netanyahu and Tony Blair announced a 

package covering the west bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem 

on 4 February. Gaza measures included new reconstruction 

project approvals and a timetable for exports. We have 

welcomed that, but implementation in practice will be 

the key. 

Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) 

(LD): The Department’s work on conflict prevention 

and resolution is much appreciated. Can the Minister 

assure the House that this work in the middle east— 

Palestine, Israel and elsewhere—will be continued in the 

forthcoming years, and that the budget for it will be 

protected, and perhaps grown, even given the wider 

budget obligations? 

Mr Duncan: I absolutely share the views of my right hon. 

Friend. This is a crucial part of DFID’s agenda, and 

essential to all the work we are doing in such a sensitive 

part of the world, so the answer is an unequivocal yes. 

UN Women Agency 

6. Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland 

West) (Lab): What plans he has to provide support for 

the new UN Women agency; and if he will make a 

statement. [40976] 

9. Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con): What plans he has 

to provide support for the new UN Women agency; 

and if he will make a statement. [40979] 


(Mr Andrew Mitchell): The coalition Government strongly 

support the new UN Women agency, which has the 

chance to make a hugely positive impact on the lives of 

millions of girls and women in the developing world. I 

look forward to receiving its strategic results plan, 

which will allow us to decide on funding by the British 

taxpayer for future years.



Oral Answers 

946 

Mrs Hodgson: I thank the Secretary of State for that 

encouraging response, and for the part he and his 

colleagues have played in the establishment of UN 

Women so far. When does he anticipate he will come to 

a decision on funding for UN Women? 

Mr Mitchell: We expect to see a strategic plan from 

UN Women probably in June this year, and as soon as 

we see it, we will be able to make decisions about British 

support for the agency. I am sure the hon. Lady and 

other Members will understand that I want to see the 

plan first, before committing hard-earned British taxpayers’ 

money to it. 

Tony Baldry: From the experience of the many visits 

my right hon. Friend has made across the world, does 

he agree that very often it is women who are the agents 

for change in development? Just as UNICEF has helped 

to support the focus on children, so it is to be hoped 

that UN Women can help support women as agents for 

change and development. 

Mr Mitchell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We 

cannot even begin to address development without 

realising the centrality of girls and women in every 

aspect of what we do, and we share his aspirations for 

the role of UN Women within the international structures. 

Sri Lanka 

7. Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab): 

What recent assessment he has made of the 

humanitarian situation in Sri Lanka; and if he will 

make a statement. [40977] 


Development (Mr Alan Duncan): The number of internally 

displaced people in camps in Sri Lanka has declined 

from 300,000 in 2009 to 18,000 today. DFID has provided 

£13.5 million in humanitarian assistance since 2008, but 

our bilateral aid to Sri Lanka will cease in March, 

except for a new demining programme valued at £3 million. 

Mr Sharma: Among those affected by the floods are 

many people who were earlier displaced by the conflict 

and who had recently returned to their homes only to be 

displaced again. Even before the floods, these people 

had been struggling to access much-needed protection 

and assistance because of Government restrictions on 

humanitarian organisations’ access to the return areas. 

What pressure is the Minister putting on the Government 

to allow humanitarian organisations to have access to 

the former conflict areas, so that the suffering people 

there can be given the full help they desperately need? 

Mr Duncan: We will continue to press the Sri Lankan 

Government to grant access to such areas for humanitarian 

purposes. More than 1 million people have been affected 

by the flooding. We looked very closely into the sort of 

support we should give, but the most immediate needs 

are covered by Sri Lankan authorities and other donors, 

so we are working principally through multilateral 

organisations to give the help that is needed. 

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con): The United 

Nations estimates that some 90% of Sri Lanka’s rice 

crop will be destroyed by the recent flooding. That 

makes the Government’s decision to stop all aid with 

effect from March quite worrying, because on top of all 

the troubles in that unfortunate country there is a very 

real risk of food security problems or starvation in the 

years to come. What is the Department prepared to do 

about that? 

Mr Duncan: I urge my hon. Friend to appreciate the 

distinction between a continuing bilateral programme 

and humanitarian aid, which can be given as needs 

must. We will continue to review the humanitarian 

needs of Sri Lanka and work through multilateral 

organisations as required. 

Sub-Saharan Africa (Midwives) 

8. Dr Daniel Poulter (Central Suffolk and North 

Ipswich) (Con): What support his Department is 

providing for the training of midwives and maternal 

health specialists in sub-Saharan Africa. [40978] 

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for 

International Development (Mr Stephen O’Brien): With 

more than half of maternal deaths globally occurring in 

sub-Saharan Africa, DFID funds the training of midwives 

and other health care workers through various channels— 

[Interruption.] 

Mr Speaker: Order. I apologise for having to interrupt 

the Minister. Far too many private conversations are 

taking place. It is the height of discourtesy for Members 

to witter away, including from the Government Back 

Benches, when the Minister is trying to be heard. 

Mr O’Brien: I am grateful, Mr Speaker. 

DFID bilateral programmes directly support national 

health sector plans of partner countries and nongovernment 

organisation-implemented projects, and give 

support through multilateral organisations such as the 

World Bank and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, 

Tuberculosis and Malaria. 

Dr Poulter: I am sure the Minister is aware of data 

collected for the World Health Organisation that show 

disparity between the provision of maternal health services 

in more rural areas and in the slightly better-funded 

urban areas in many countries in Africa? Will he outline 

what the Department will do to help to address that 

problem? 

Mr O’Brien: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for 

pointing out that important disparity. The UK Government 

recently announced the framework for results on 

reproductive, maternal and neonatal health, which directly 

seeks to address how that disparity can be narrowed. I 

have seen for myself in northern Nigeria how DFID 

supports midwifery services, with a scheme to train 

200 midwives who are then posted to rural facilities, 

which is vital to ensure that the disparity is addressed. 

Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab): I am proud to 

support Save the Children’s “No child born to die” 

campaign, which seeks to make more life-saving vaccines 

available to the world’s poorest and most vulnerable 

children. The Global Alliance for Vaccines and 

Immunisation summit is to take place in the UK later 

this year, and Save the Children is lobbying for the 

Prime Minister to represent the UK at that summit. 

What steps will the Minister to take to make sure that 

the Government are represented at the highest level?



Oral Answers 

948 

Mr O’Brien: The hon. Gentleman is right; the Save 

the Children campaign is one that we follow closely. The 

GAVI conference will be hosted in London and we can 

confirm that it will have the full support of my right 

hon. Friend the Prime Minister, to show our commitment. 

Official Development Assistance 

10. Mr Michael McCann (East Kilbride, Strathaven 

and Lesmahagow) (Lab): When he expects to bring 

forward legislative proposals in respect of the 0.7 per 

cent. target for official development assistance. [40980] 


(Mr Andrew Mitchell): The coalition Government have 

set out how we will meet our commitment to spend 

0.7% of national income as aid from 2013, and will 

enshrine that commitment in law as soon as the 

parliamentary timetable allows. 

Mr McCann: Some may be reassured by the Secretary 

of State’s answer and some may even be convinced by it, 

but I can tell him about a group of people who are not: 

his own loyal staff at DFID in East Kilbride who in 

August 2010 were told that there would be no mass loss 

of jobs from the Department, but last Thursday were 

told that a third of their jobs would be cut. Is it not the 

case that when this Government meet commitments, 

the truth and their commitments are strangers? 

Mr Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that 

all Departments across Whitehall are having to make 

economies because of the coalition Government’s dreadful 

economic inheritance from his party. DFID is not immune 

from the cuts and will see reductions of some 33% in its 

administrative spend. I had the opportunity of speaking 

to all the staff at Abercrombie house just a few days ago 

to make sure that that was understood. 

Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD): I applaud the 

Government’s commitment to aid, but can the Secretary 

of State confirm that climate change adaptation funding, 

beyond the fast-start finance up to 2012, will be additional 

to the overseas development assistance pledge? 

Mr Mitchell: As part of the Government’s fulfilment 

of our historic pledge, we have set out specifically how 

climate change funding will rise as part of the overall 

budget. 

Jim Dobbin (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab/Co-op): 

Will the Secretary of State congratulate the Government 

of Kenya, the Global Alliance for Vaccines and 

Immunisation and all its funding partners, which include 

the United Kingdom, on the roll-out of their programme 

of pneumococcal vaccine on Monday? It will save thousands 

of children in Kenya and across Africa. We hope that it 

will be a rolling programme across the developing world. 

Mr Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right 

to underline the tremendous success of the vaccination 

programme. When we announce the results of the 

multilateral aid review, we shall show how Britain will 

give a real impetus to vaccination. As the Under-Secretary 

has just said, we shall host the GAVI conference in 

London in June and it will be opened by the Prime 

Minister. 

Aid Transfers 

11. Chris White (Warwick and Leamington) (Con): 

What progress his Department is making on 

transferring aid from middle-income states to 

developing countries in greatest need. 

[40981] 


(Mr Andrew Mitchell): We have a clear responsibility to 

ensure that we target our aid where it is most needed 

and where it will have the greatest impact. I will shortly 

announce to the House the outcome of our major root 

and branch review of bilateral aid, which looked in 

detail at each country. 

Chris White: Although I strongly support the 

Government’s decision to stop aid to China, can my 

right hon. Friend explain what impact that will have on 

his ability to engage with China on development issues? 

Mr Mitchell: My hon. Friend is right to say that the 

coalition made it clear on day one that we would end all 

aid to China and Russia, but we need to have a powerful 

and reinvigorated partnership with China on development 

issues, not only in the areas where we share deep concerns, 

such as on freeing up the trading system and on climate, 

but in working in third countries. For example, Britain 

is working with China now in the Democratic Republic 

of the Congo on a major infrastructure roads programme. 

We are doing that work together and it is extremely 

effective and successful. 

PRIME MINISTER 

The Prime Minister was asked— 

Engagements 

Q1. [40932] John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab): If he will 

list his official engagements for Wednesday 16 February. 

The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron): I am sure 

the whole House will wish to join me in paying tribute 

to the following servicemen who have lost their lives in 

Afghanistan: Private Lewis Hendry from 3rd Battalion 

the Parachute Regiment and Private Conrad Lewis 

from 4th Battalion the Parachute Regiment, who died 

last Wednesday; and Lance Corporal Kyle Marshall 

from 2nd Battalion the Parachute Regiment, who died 

on Monday. They were all brave and dedicated soldiers 

who were serving in Afghanistan for the safety and 

security of the British people. Our thoughts and deepest 

condolences should be with their families, their loved 

ones and their colleagues. They will never be forgotten. 

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues 

and others, and in addition to my duties in the House, I 

shall have further such meetings later today. 

John Mann: Like other Members, I associate myself 

and my constituents with the Prime Minister’s tribute to 

our fallen heroes. 

One man who also served his country is my constituent 

Doug Hunt who, with his wife Gladys, lives in 

Westwood care home, which is currently being fattened 

for privatisation by increasing its fees by £400—not 

£400 a year, not £400 a month, but an increase of £400 a



Oral Answers 

950 

week. Would the Prime Minister like to answer Mr and 

Mrs Hunt, who are listening now, show some leadership 

and have these Tory cuts removed, or would he like to 

justify these increases to Mr and Mrs Hunt? 

The Prime Minister: I will certainly look at the individual 

case that the hon. Gentleman raises, but far from cutting 

the money that is going into social care, we have increased 

by £2 billion the money going into adult social care 

because we know how important it is. It is not right to 

draw a false distinction between care homes run by 

local authorities and those run by the private sector. 

There is good practice and bad practice in both, but as 

we have seen in our hospitals in recent days, we need a 

change of culture in caring for our elderly to make sure 

they have the dignity that they deserve in old age. 

Mark Lancaster (Milton Keynes North) (Con): My 

six-year-old constituent, Millie d’Cruz, is one of just 

17 people in the United Kingdom to be diagnosed with 

the rare genetic disorder, MLD—metachromatic 

leukodystrophy. Unfortunately, the family must try to 

raise £200,000 to send her for treatment in Holland, 

even though the treatment may be available here in the 

UK. Can the Prime Minister look into the case and 

ensure that the family get the support that they deserve? 

The Prime Minister: I am happy to do as my hon. 

Friend asks. A big change is taking place in medicine, 

where far more interest needs to be directed at genetic 

data and genetically inherited diseases, as this is how we 

will reduce disease and illness in the future. We are 

looking, for instance, at value-based pricing, whereby 

we try to share between companies developing new 

treatments and the taxpayer the cost of developing 

them, which could be a good way forward to make sure 

we get more treatments to more people more quickly. 

Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab): I join the 

Prime Minister in paying tribute to Private Lewis Hendry 

from 3rd Battalion the Parachute Regiment, Private 

Conrad Lewis from 4th Battalion the Parachute Regiment, 

and Lance Corporal Kyle Marshall from 2nd Battalion 

the Parachute Regiment. All these men showed 

extraordinary bravery and dedication. Our thoughts are 

with them and their families and friends as they grieve 

for them. 

We now know that inflation is rising, growth has 

stalled and an extra 66,000 young people are out of 

work. Can the Prime Minister tell us whether he thinks 

his strategy is working? 

The Prime Minister: Of course today’s unemployment 

figures are a matter of great regret, particularly in terms 

of higher youth unemployment, but I have to say to the 

right hon. Gentleman that youth unemployment has 

been a problem in this country for well over a decade, in 

good years and in bad. The level of youth unemployment 

actually went up by 40% under the last Government—an 

extra 270,000 young people unemployed. What we have 

to do is sort out all the things that help young people get 

back into work. There is a welfare system that does not 

help you get work, an education system that does not 

prepare you for work and back-to-work programmes 

that, under the last Government, simply did not work. 

The right hon. Gentleman asked me what is happening 

in our economy. We are no longer linked with Greece 

and Ireland and those countries in the danger zone. We 

have a situation where market interest rates have fallen. 

Our credit rating is secured. There are 218,000 more 

people in work than there were a year ago. Above all, 

what I would say to him is what the Governor of the 

Bank of England said this morning: 

“There has to be a plan A… This country needs fiscal consolidation 

to deal with the biggest budget deficit in peacetime”. 

Edward Miliband: The right hon. Gentleman says 

that we are doing so well compared with the rest of 

Europe, but we were the only major European economy 

in the last quarter of 2010 that had no economic growth 

and where growth went into reverse. Let me ask him 

specifically about youth unemployment. His own former 

chief economist said this morning that he thought that 

they were wrong to scrap the education maintenance 

allowance, wrong to scrap the future jobs fund and that 

they should have been building on it. I know that he 

likes to make an industry out of saying that the future 

jobs fund was the wrong thing to do, but what did he 

say before the election? He went to Liverpool and said 

that it was “a good scheme” and that he had been 

“inspired” by what he saw. Why does he not listen to 

young people and their families up and down the country 

and take real action to help them? 

The Prime Minister: First, the economist from the 

Cabinet Office whom the right hon. Gentleman has just 

quoted also said this: 

“I would not excuse the previous Government on this; they 

failed to wake up to the problem early enough.” 

What matters is whether work programmes are effective. 

I now have the figures for the flexible new deal, which 

was the absolute centrepiece of the last Government’s 

approach to this matter. Let me give the House of 

Commons the figures, because I think that they show 

what has been going wrong. Of the 279,000 people who 

took part in the flexible new deal, how many got a 

long-term job? The answer is 3,800. It is not good 

enough. What we have been doing on welfare, education 

and back-to-work programmes is not good enough. All 

those things need to change. 

Edward Miliband: What we actually discovered today 

is that the right hon. Gentleman’s great new Work 

programme, which he is trumpeting as the answer to all 

the nation’s problems, will have 250,000 fewer opportunities 

than were provided under the last Labour Government. 

We know that his view of social mobility is auctioning 

off a few City internships at the Conservative party 

ball, but frankly he is going to have to do better than 

that. The truth is that he is betraying a whole generation 

of young people. He is trebling tuition fees, abolishing 

the education maintenance allowance and abolishing 

the future jobs fund. Why does he not change course 

and help those young people who need help up and 

down this country? 

The Prime Minister: First, let me answer the right 

hon. Gentleman on the Work programme, because this 

is important. For the last 20 years, in this House and 

elsewhere, people have been arguing that we should use 

the savings from future benefits and invest them now in 

helping people to get a job, and for 20 years the Treasury



Oral Answers 

952 

has said no, including the time when he and the right 

hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) were 

sitting in the Treasury advising. Now, for the first time, 

under this coalition Government, we will be spending 

the future benefits in order to get people training and 

into work. That will include, in some cases, spending up 

to £14,000 to get people, particularly those on incapacity 

benefit, a job. 

The figures the Leader of the Opposition gives are 

wrong. The Work programme is the biggest back-to-work 

scheme this country has seen since the 1930s. Instead of 

being cash-limited and patchy, like his schemes, it has 

no limit and can help as many people as possible from 

all of those different categories. He mentions internships. 

I did a little research into his: he did one for Tony Benn 

and one for the deputy leader of the Labour party. No 

wonder he is so left-wing, so politically correct and so 

completely ineffective. 

Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con) rose— 

Hon. Members: More! 

Mr Speaker: Order. I want, and the House wants, to 

hear Mr Nicholas Soames. 

Nicholas Soames: Does my right hon. Friend the 

Prime Minister agree that deregulation is an extremely 

powerful weapon in economic reform? Is he aware that 

the programme is not proceeding fast enough, and will 

he take personal charge to see that the whole process is 

hurried up? 

The Prime Minister: I completely agree with my hon. 

Friend. One of the problems is the huge amount of 

regulations—particularly coming out of Europe—that 

we need to put a stop to before they are introduced. My 

right hon. Friend the Business Secretary is doing an 

excellent job with his one in, one out scheme, so that 

another regulation cannot be introduced until one has 

been scrapped, but I think we probably have to go 

further and faster and be more ambitious in scrapping 

the regulation that is holding back job creation in our 

country. 

Q2. [40933] Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) 

(Lab): Can I invite the Prime Minister to look ahead to 

the summer of 2012, when we will welcome millions of 

overseas visitors to this country? What does he think 

will be the abiding images that they take home with 

them? Will they be images of a brilliantly, successfully 

staged Olympic games? Will it be a fond memory of the 

warm welcome to London extended by the newly 

elected Mayor Livingstone? Or will it be a memory of 

the shocking images of homeless people all over the 

streets of London because of his Government’s 

economic failure and harsh housing benefit cuts? 

The Prime Minister: I notice that the right hon. 

Gentleman could not keep a straight face when backing 

Labour’s candidate for Mayor, but I have to say that, if 

the Member who represents Greenwich cannot speak 

up for the Olympics, there really is a problem. This is 

going to be a great festival, and something that everyone 

who comes to our country is going to enjoy—and I look 

forward to welcoming them alongside Mayor Boris 

Johnson. 

Q3. [40934] Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con): 

This weekend, hundreds of people will arrive in Ripon 

to celebrate winning the Government’s pilot for 

super-fast broadband in North Yorkshire, and to work 

out how we can connect the rest of the county in the 

years ahead. What message would my right hon. Friend 

give to delegates about the Government’s commitment 

to rural broadband? 

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely 

right: we have made a big commitment to that, with 

£530 million going into broadband investment, and that 

is absolutely vital, particularly for rural parts of the 

country, because we do not want them to be cut off 

from the information superhighway. I hope my hon. 

Friend will advise them about the opportunities of 

super-fast broadband—the business creation and job 

creation that it can mean right across this country. 

Edward Miliband: Can the Prime Minister tell us 

whether he is happy with his flagship policy on forestry? 

The Prime Minister: The short answer to that is no. 

As I have said before in this House, it is a consultation 

that has been put forward, and we have had a range of 

interesting responses to it, but what is important is that 

we should be making sure that, whatever happens, we 

increase access to our forests, we increase biodiversity 

and we do not make the mistake that was made under 

the last Government, where they sold forests with no 

access rights at all. 

Edward Miliband: Even the right hon. Gentleman 

must appreciate the irony: he, the guy who made the 

tree the symbol of the Conservative party, flogging 

them off up and down this country. He says that they 

are consulting on the policy; they are actually consulting 

on how to flog off the forests, not on whether to flog off 

the forests. Is the Prime Minister now saying that he 

might drop the policy completely? 

The Prime Minister: I would have thought that the 

whole point of a consultation is that you put forward 

some proposals, you listen to the answer and then you 

make a decision. I know it is a totally alien concept, but 

what is so complicated about that? 

Edward Miliband: Everybody knows that the right 

hon. Gentleman is going to have drop this ludicrous 

policy. Let me give him the chance to do so. Nobody 

voted for the policy; 500,000 people have signed a 

petition against it. When he gets up at the Dispatch 

Box, why does he say not that he is postponing the sale, 

but that he is cancelling it? 

The Prime Minister: I think, once again, that the right 

hon. Gentleman wrote the questions before he listened 

to the answers, and I think the bandwagon has just hit a 

bit of a tree. 

Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con): 

May I take this opportunity to inform my right hon. 

Friend and, indeed, the House that the Public 

Administration Committee is today launching an inquiry 

into the big society? Does he share my hope that as we 

consider things such as volunteering, promoting charitable 

giving and decentralising public services, we will receive 

positive evidence from all parts of the House?



Oral Answers 

954 

The Prime Minister: I do, and I am sure that, like 

everything that my hon. Friend does, it will be wholly 

supportive of the Government’s position. He makes a 

very good point, which is that the big society is about 

more than just volunteering or support for charitable 

groups; it is about opening up public services, devolving 

power to the lowest level, and giving people the opportunity 

to play a greater part in the lives of their communities. I 

would have thought that people from across the House 

would recognise that the big state approach has failed 

and that it is time for something different. 

Q4. [40935] Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab): Is the 

Prime Minister’s upheaval of the health service 

resulting in longer or shorter waiting times? 

The Prime Minister: We want to see waiting times 

come down; that is the whole point of the reforms. I 

think that anyone who has watched what has been 

happening over the past few days, where we have seen 

the standards of care that some elderly people— 

[Interruption.] Well, I think that the country is also 

interested in the standards of care that old people are 

getting in our hospitals. This idea that everything is 

right and rosy in the health service after what happened 

under the former Government opposite has just been 

shown to be completely untrue. Do we need to change 

the system and make it more related to what GPs and 

patients want? Yes, we absolutely do. 

Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con): 

Will the Prime Minister join me in praising the work of 

the Conservative administration in my constituency, 

which has saved £1 million a year by cutting senior 

management and bureaucracy and protecting front-line 

services—measures unfortunately opposed by the local 

Labour group on the council? 

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes an important 

point, which is that we have made available all this 

information. Now, local councils have to set out their 

expenditure on every item over £500, so people can see 

how much money is being spent on salaries, how much 

is being spent on bureaucracy, and how much could be 

put into voluntary sector and other organisations. We 

have given local people the tools to hold their local 

politicians to account, and that is a thoroughly progressive 

step. 

Q5. [40936] Mr Brian H. Donohoe (Central Ayrshire) 

(Lab): Can I first put on record my thanks to the Prime 

Minister for meeting a small delegation from my 

constituency on the whole question of unemployment 

in the Ayrshire area? Does he really think, however, 

that being part of the big society that he talks about 

means throwing youngsters on to the streets of the UK 

as a result of the cuts in housing benefit? 

The Prime Minister: What we are doing in terms of 

housing benefit is what was set out in the manifesto that 

the hon. Gentleman stood on, which is to say that we 

should not be subsidising housing benefit for people to 

live in houses that taxpayers themselves cannot afford. 

That is the principle behind the welfare Bill, which will 

be coming before this House shortly, and I look forward 

to it getting wide-ranging support. 

Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD): The Prime Minister 

has drawn comparisons between care homes and hospitals 

when discussing changes to disability allowance, which 

are out for consultation until Friday. Yet for those who, 

for reasons of disability, spend not just their latter years 

but their whole lives in care homes, this comparison 

simply is not valid. Will he ask his Ministers to look 

again at this? 

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes a good 

point. This is exactly what we have been looking at. The 

whole intention of the change that was announced in 

the Budget and the spending review was to make sure 

that there was not an overlap in the way that we were 

judging people in care homes and people in hospitals. I 

think that when he sees what is proposed in the welfare 

Bill, he will see that it meets his concerns. 

Q6. [40937] Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East 

Falkirk) (Lab): Sadly, since I first asked the Prime 

Minister about human trafficking in September, he has 

collapsed every Government initiative on the issue, 

including the excellent POPPY project, which rescues 

women from prostitution. Tomorrow, when I meet my 

colleagues from the Portuguese Parliament who are 

signing up to the human trafficking directive, where 

will I tell them that our Prime Minister has lost his 

moral compass on the issue of human trafficking? 

The Prime Minister: What the hon. Gentleman says is 

completely wrong. The Government are supporting 

organisations that are helping on the issue of human 

trafficking. We are committed to ensuring that we have 

the best and toughest laws on human trafficking. I 

know that he works on this issue, as does my hon. 

Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), as 

have Members in previous Parliaments. It is not necessary 

to opt in to the human trafficking directive to give 

ourselves the strongest laws here in the UK. It is that 

that we should be doing, and that that I am committed 

to making sure we are doing. 

Q7. [40938] Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con): 

Labour-led Kirklees council is still obsessed with 

top-down housing targets, leaving my constituents 

worried that the beautiful green fields of the Colne and 

Holme valleys will be bulldozed—quite a few trees 

could be chopped down too. Will the Prime Minister 

confirm that the Localism Bill will give my constituents 

a real say in what developments go on in their area? 

The Prime Minister: I can give that assurance, but I 

also make the point that under the top-down targets of 

the Labour party, house building in this country fell to 

its lowest level since 1923. The top-down, big-state 

solutions did not work. Through the new homes bonus 

and by rewarding local authorities that build houses, we 

are benefitting local communities that opt to have more 

homes and businesses, because that is part of the economic 

development that we badly need. 

Q8. [40939] Tony Lloyd (Manchester Central) (Lab): 

The overwhelming majority of my constituents believe 

that the cuts to local government spending are not only 

too fast and too deep, but cruel and politically 

motivated. Will the Prime Minister tell the House why 

my constituents are wrong?



Oral Answers 

956 

The Prime Minister: I tell the hon. Gentleman directly 

that I think the cuts being made by Manchester city 

council are politically driven and too deep. Manchester 

city council is having its grant cut by 15%—less than my 

council, for instance, which is being cut by 23%—and 

yet it is cutting services by 25%. I notice that it still has 

£100 million in bank balances, and that its chief executive 

is paid more than £200,000 a year. I think that people in 

Manchester will look at their council and say, “Cut out 

the waste, cut out the bureaucracy, start to cut the chief 

executive’s salary, and only then should you look at 

services.” 

Q9. [40940] Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con): After votes 

for prisoners, we now have the potential for human 

rights legislation to give sex offenders the opportunity 

to come off the sex offenders register. Is the Prime 

Minister aware that my constituents are sick to the 

back teeth of the human rights of criminals and 

prisoners being put before the rights of law-abiding 

citizens in this country? Is it not time that we scrapped 

the Human Rights Act and, if necessary, withdrew 

from the European convention on human rights? 

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend speaks for many 

people in saying how completely offensive it is, once 

again, to have a ruling by a court that flies in the face of 

common sense. Requiring serious sexual offenders to 

sign the register for life, as they now do, has broad 

support across this House and across the country. I am 

appalled by the Supreme Court ruling. We will take the 

minimum possible approach to this ruling and use the 

opportunity to close some loopholes in the sex offenders 

register. For instance, we will make it compulsory for 

sex offenders to report to the authorities before any 

travel and will not allow them to change their name by 

deed poll to avoid having their name on the register. I 

can also tell my hon. Friend that a commission will be 

established imminently to look at a British Bill of Rights, 

because it is about time we ensured that decisions are 

made in this Parliament rather than in the courts. 

Q10. [40941] Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab): Given the 

difference in tone between “Drink Responsibly” and 

“Smoking Kills”, what action will the Prime Minister 

take in response to the heartfelt pleas of my constituent 

Rachel Jones, who wants to see much harder-hitting 

labels on alcoholic drinks following the tragic death of 

her boyfriend, Stuart Cable, the former Stereophonics 

drummer? 

The Prime Minister: I think we should be looking at 

what action we can take through the tax system to deal 

with problem drinks, which we are looking at, and at 

tougher minimum pricing for alcohol. That is where we 

should be putting our attention, rather than necessarily 

looking at labelling. Many of the problems that we 

have, such as people—particularly young people—preloading 

before they go for a night out, are related to 

deeply discounted drinks in supermarkets and elsewhere. 

That is what we should deal with first. 

Q11. [40942] Jonathan Evans (Cardiff North) (Con): 

Thousands of younger women drivers in the UK face 

the prospect of massive hikes in their motor insurance 

premiums as the result of a perverse reinterpretation of 

the EU gender equality directive, carried forward by 

those on the Opposition Benches. What will my right 

hon. Friend say to encourage better risk assessment to 

avoid such unintended consequences? 


point, which is that because of how this issue has been 

handled, many people who face lower insurance premiums 

because of their risk profiles will have to pay more. I am 

afraid that it falls to me to speak an eternal truth to the 

House of Commons: on the whole, women have better 

safety driving records than men, but as a result of that 

judgment, they will not benefit from lower insurance 

payments. What that says to me is that we have to work 

much better at risk-assessing and then stopping so 

much of the damaging regulation coming out of Brussels. 

Hazel Blears (Salford and Eccles) (Lab): The importance 

of internships in helping young people to get on in life 

has been much in the news lately. Will the Prime Minister 

therefore take this opportunity to express his support 

for the Speaker’s new parliamentary placements scheme? 

It is a cross-party initiative backed by the hon. Members 

for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw) and 

for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) that will give 

people from working-class backgrounds the chance to 

come to Parliament, get vital experience of political life 

and be paid a living wage; and—who knows?—they 

may well be the politicians of the future. 

The Prime Minister: I fully support what the right 

hon. Lady says. This is a very important scheme. As 

shadow Cabinet members in opposition we worked 

with the Social Mobility Foundation to give internships, 

and we will be doing it again as Cabinet members. It is a 

very important initiative and I very much welcome what 

the Speaker is doing. 

Q12. [40943] Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con): What 

investigation has the Prime Minister made into the 

allegation that the IMF was bullied into toning down 

its assessment of the dangers facing the UK economy? 

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes an incredibly 

important point, which is that the IMF was reporting 

on the state of the British economy, and was arguing 

that we did have a structural deficit and that it was a 

problem. However, Labour attempted to gag the IMF 

when it was in power, because the previous Government 

did not want to own up to the mess that they had got 

this country into. Even now, the Opposition are still 

denying the fact that they left us with a dangerous fiscal 

deficit that is the cause of many of the problems that we 

face today. 

Q13. [40944] Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP): The 

Prime Minister will be aware of people’s concerns 

about the coastguard. This week a cross-party 

deputation from Northern Ireland consisting of four 

MPs from this House met coastguard officials. Is the 

Prime Minister aware that the figures from Bangor 

coastguard station show 654 responses over this past 

year? Does he think that one station could 

satisfactorily handle almost 10 times the current 

number of calls, should Bangor coastguard station be 

closed or the service be reduced from 19 coastguard 

stations UK-wide to an inadequate two stations?



Oral Answers 

958 

The Prime Minister: I am very aware of this issue, and 

I know that the hon. Gentleman will be speaking to the 

Secretary of State for Transport about it. The point is 

this: the coastguard agency has to prove in the consultation 

that it wants to co-ordinate the number of offices that 

receive calls, in order to put more money and resources 

into the front-line service—the number of boats, rescue 

facilities and helpers. That is the aim of the policy, but I 

fully accept that that has to be proved to people in order 

to go ahead with the proposals being made. 

Q14. [40945] Gavin Williamson (South Staffordshire) 

(Con): At my surgery on Saturday, a constituent 

explained to me that, with an ill husband and a young 

family, she had been told that she would be better off 

giving up her part-time job and relying on benefits. 

Will the Prime Minister assure this House that we will 

give people the incentive and the support to go into 

work and end the culture of welfare dependency left by 

the Opposition? 

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend speaks about 

this issue in an absolutely correct way. The fact is that 

for too long we have had a welfare system that pays 

people—it gives them an incentive—not to go out and 

work. The universal credit, which will be introduced 

through the welfare Bill, will mean that in every case, no 

matter how few hours someone works, they will always 

be better off in work and working more. That is absolutely 

right and long overdue, and I hope that it will have 

support from right across the House of Commons. 

Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP): In a week in 

which we have had revelations about the appalling level 

of health care for our pensioners, what is the Prime 

Minister saying to the elderly population of this country 

by proposing to change the inflation link for the uprating 

of benefits and pensions from the retail prices index to 

the consumer prices index, which will cost present and 

future pensioners millions of pounds in lost income? 

How is that fair? How does it protect the vulnerable? 

The Prime Minister: The first point that I would 

make is that the state pension, under the triple lock, will 

be linked with whichever is highest, but we are also 

taking the step, which the last Government did not for 

10 years, of re-linking the state pension with earnings. 

That is an absolutely vital step in giving people the 

dignity and security that they deserve in old age. 

Q15. [40946] Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD): 

The Government are planning to ask the House to 

extend the control orders regime until it is replaced by 

terrorism prevention and investigation measures. I am 

sure that the Prime Minister would not want the House 

to act without having all the necessary information, so 

will he assure all hon. Members that we will have sight 

of the TPIMs legislation before being asked to vote on 

the extension? 


point. Obviously, this is a very big change that we are 

making from control orders to the new system, and I 

am sure that the House will be consulted properly, and 

that proper prior sight of what is being proposed will be 

made. But he can get involved right now if he wants to, 

as the policy is being developed. 

Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland 

West) (Lab): Mr Speaker, in 2008, your review into 

communication needs described speech therapy services 

as a “postcode lottery”, and, sadly, in 2010, a national 

survey of primary special educational needs co-ordinators 

showed that 57% had never heard of the Bercow review, 

and that services remain as inequitable now as they 

were then. In the national year of communication, and 

with “The King’s Speech” having done so much to raise 

awareness of this issue, will the Prime Minister clarify 

whether the Government are planning to implement the 

recommendations of your review, and how they are 

planning to do that when local authorities are facing 

such huge cuts? 

The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady will shortly see 

the Green Paper on special educational needs, in which 

we are giving priority to this area because, as I know 

from my own experience, getting hold of a speech and 

language therapist is often extremely difficult. Of course, 

as in every other area, there will be constraints in terms 

of resources, but I think we can do better by having a 

less confrontational system and making sure that more 

resources actually get to the parents who need them and 

who want to do the right thing for their children.

959 16 FEBRUARY 2011 Sex Offenders Register 

960 

Sex Offenders Register 

12.31 pm 

The Secretary of State for the Home Department 

(Mrs Theresa May): The sex offenders register has 

existed since 1997. Since that time, it has helped the 

police to protect the public from those most horrific of 

crimes. Requiring serious sexual offenders to sign the 

register for life, as they do now, has broad support 

across the House, but the Supreme Court ruled last 

April that not granting sex offenders the opportunity to 

seek a review was a breach of their human rights—in 

particular, the right to a private or family life. Those are 

rights, of course, that those offenders have taken away 

from their victims in the cruellest and most degrading 

manner possible. 

The Government are disappointed and appalled by 

that ruling. It places the rights of sex offenders above 

the right of the public to be protected from the risk of 

their reoffending, but there is no possibility of further 

appeal. The Government are determined to do everything 

we can to protect the public from predatory sexual 

offenders, so we will make the minimum possible changes 

to the law in order to comply with the ruling. I want to 

make it clear that the Court’s ruling does not mean that 

paedophiles and rapists will automatically come off the 

sex offenders register. The Court found only that they 

must be given the right to seek a review. 

The Scottish Government have already implemented 

a scheme to give offenders an automatic right of appeal 

for removal from the register after 15 years. We will 

implement a much tougher scheme. Offenders will be 

able to apply for consideration of removal only after 

waiting 15 years following release from custody. In 

England and Wales, there will be no automatic appeals. 

We will deliberately set the bar for those reviews as high 

as possible. Public protection must come first. A robust 

review, led by the police and involving all the relevant 

agencies, will be carried out so that a full picture of the 

risks to the public can be considered. 

The final decision on whether an offender should 

remain on the register will be down to the police, and 

not, as in Scotland, the courts. The police are best 

placed to assess the risk of an offender committing 

another crime, and they will rightly put the public first. 

There will be no right of appeal against the police’s 

decision to keep an offender on the register. That decision 

will be final. Sex offenders who continue to pose a risk 

will remain on the register, and will do so for life if 

necessary. 

When we are free to take further action to protect the 

public, we will do so. We will shortly launch a targeted 

consultation aimed at closing four existing loopholes in 

the sex offenders register. We will make it compulsory 

for sex offenders to report to the authorities before 

travelling abroad for even one day. That will prevent 

them from being free to travel for up to three days, as 

they are under the existing scheme. We will force sex 

offenders to notify the authorities whenever they are 

living in a household containing a child under the age of 

18. We will require sex offenders to notify the authorities 

weekly of where they can be found when they have no 

fixed abode. We will tighten the rules so that sex offenders 

can no longer avoid being on the register when they 

change their names by deed poll. 

Finally, I can tell the House that the Deputy Prime 

Minister and the Justice Secretary will shortly announce 

the establishment of a commission to investigate the 

creation of a British Bill of rights. It is time to assert 

that it is Parliament that makes our laws, not the courts; 

that the rights of the public come before the rights of 

criminals; and, above all, that we have a legal framework 

that brings sanity to cases such as these. 

I commend my statement to the House. 

Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) 

(Lab): This is an important matter involving some of 

the most serious crimes in society. I thank the Home 

Secretary for supplying me with the statement within 

the last half hour, but I must say that it is worrying that 

the Home Office has again allowed information to be 

given to the media before it has been given to the House. 

The depravity and seriousness of sex offences, and 

the harm and damage that they do to victims, mean that 

the systems that we operate to protect the public must 

be paramount. We have an obligation to ensure that 

vulnerable children and other victims can be protected 

from such terrible crimes. As the Home Secretary knows, 

that is why the sex offenders register was established in 

the first place. The law rightly requires people who have 

been convicted of such serious crimes to meet further 

registration requirements once their sentences have been 

served, in the interests of public protection and to 

prevent further terrible crimes from taking place. 

The priority now must still be public safety, and the 

protection of our young and vulnerable people. Those 

victims of crime have suffered and continue to suffer 

greatly because of the actions of sex offenders. We 

know, too, that many such offenders can still pose a 

serious threat to the public. The court judgment to 

which the Home Secretary has responded today itself 

quotes the research finding that just over a quarter of 

those imprisoned for such offences did reoffend. Those 

offences included some that were very serious, a large 

number of which were committed many years later. 

Does the Home Secretary agree that, while of course 

proper and fair processes must always be followed for 

individuals through the courts, the protection of families 

and communities up and down the country is paramount? 

She has said that the new system will be tough. Let me 

say to her that it is vital to the safety and protection of 

children in particular, but also to that of other victims, 

that the new system is extremely tough if it is to have the 

support of the House. 

The Home Secretary said that Parliament should 

decide the level of protection that is needed, and that 

Parliament should set the laws. However, she has given 

Parliament very little information today about the way 

in which the new system will operate. Will the new 

framework be enshrined in legislation? Will Parliament 

have an opportunity to debate the details? The Home 

Secretary will know that many Members of Parliament 

and members of the public will be very concerned about 

the possibility that any new framework might enable 

serious offenders to manipulate the system. It is essential 

that that is not allowed to happen, but it is also important 

for Parliament to have an opportunity to debate it to 

ensure that it does not happen. 

Will the Home Secretary ensure that the focus is on 

public protection, rather than on the convenience or 

rights of those who have been convicted of serious

961 Sex Offenders Register 16 FEBRUARY 2011 Sex Offenders Register 

962 

[Yvette Cooper] 

crimes? Will she tell us how many offenders will be 

affected? Will she tell us what the level of the police 

assessment will be, and what standards the police will 

seek to meet as part of their review? 

Will the police be given additional resources to do 

this? She will know that there is concern in the House 

about the police’s resources and about whether they are 

stretched already as a result of the cuts the Government 

are making. Will she say what additional resources the 

police will have, what additional resources they will 

require and the number of people on whom they will be 

expected to carry out reviews as a result of the changes 

she is proposing? She will know that some police forces 

have already expressed concern that as a result of the 

20% cuts they are facing, their need to respond and 

their need to try to keep as many people in neighbourhood 

policing as possible, many specialist units within police 

forces are coming under the greatest pressure as a result 

of the decisions she has made. What reassurance can 

she give the House and the public that there will be no 

increased risk to the public as a result of these changes 

and of pressure on the police? 

I welcome the Home Secretary’s proposal to consider 

other tighter measures on sex offenders, but does that 

have any implications for the changes that she appears 

to be making in the opposite direction to the vetting 

and barring provisions? She has also raised, as part of 

her statement, discussion of a Bill of rights. We would 

welcome a debate about that, although wider issues 

associated with written constitutions can also be debated. 

However, I am concerned at the form that this 

announcement has taken, because it is, in itself, a major 

announcement and the House should have an opportunity 

to have that debate and raise questions. 

In conclusion, the Home Secretary will know that the 

public would be horrified if the rights, or even the 

convenience, of people who have been convicted of very 

serious crimes were to be put above the right to safety 

and family life of the public and of vulnerable people 

and vulnerable victims. She will know that Labour 

Members will not support any changes that will do that, 

and I hope that she intends not to do that. I look 

forward to her answers to the questions. 

Mrs May: I can say categorically to the right hon. 

Lady that it is indeed the Government’s intention to put 

the protection of the public first. Had she listened to my 

statement or read it beforehand, she would have noted 

that it says that in a number of places. We are appalled 

by the Court’s decision. I would far rather not have to 

stand here saying that we have to make a change to the 

sex offenders register, but we do have to make a change. 

We will do so in the most minimal way possible to 

ensure that we do put public protection first, and that 

we give the police and others the ability to ensure that 

the public are protected from such serious and appalling 

crimes as have been committed by individuals on this 

register. 

The right hon. Lady asked quite a number of questions. 

She asked whether we are making the protection of 

families paramount, and I have said that we are. She 

said that the system should be extremely tough and, yes, 

our intention is that it will be as tough as possible. That 

is why we have looked not only at what we can do in the 

minimal way to put this judgment into effect, but at 

ways to toughen up the sex offenders register regime—for 

example, by the requirement that we want to introduce 

for individuals on the register to have to notify when 

they are going abroad for at least a day. That is a 

toughening of the current system. 

The right hon. Lady asked about Parliament’s 

opportunity to debate this measure. It will be introduced 

through an order—a statutory instrument—so there 

will be an opportunity to debate it. She asked about the 

numbers who will be affected. That will be set out in the 

regulatory impact assessment that will accompany the 

statutory instrument. She asked about the process of 

consideration that the police will go through. They will 

be talking to all other agencies that have an interest in 

this area, so they will talk to the probation service, local 

authorities, social services, youth offending teams and a 

variety of other agencies to ensure that they have the 

best possible picture of the individual concerned in 

order to make the best possible judgment. I am sure 

that she will agree that the police are very clear about 

the importance of public protection. That is why I want 

the police to make these decisions; I believe that they 

will put public protection first. They will examine a 

series of issues, such as the seriousness of the offences 

originally committed and the age of the victims. They 

will address a range of issues when they are considering 

whether a review should be upheld and whether the 

individual should stay on the register. 

The right hon. Lady asked about the ability of the 

police to deal with this. ACPO and the National Offender 

Management Service have been actively involved in 

putting together and shaping the policy. One of their 

considerations has, of course, been its deliverability. We 

are confident that the policy can be delivered, as is 

ACPO. Like us, ACPO wants to ensure that we have the 

toughest possible policy to protect the public. It is 

different from the vetting and barring scheme, where 

the problem was that lots of innocent people found 

themselves on it and were subject to its requirements. 

This proposal is about the people who have been found 

guilty of heinous crimes and is about making sure that 

we reduce the risk of reoffending to members of the 

public. As I have announced in relation to the Bill of 

rights, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Justice Secretary 

will make further announcements about that imminently. 

Mr Peter Lilley (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con): 

May I astonish my right hon. Friend by saying that I 

think there is some merit in the Court’s decision, particularly 

in the way she has interpreted it? Does not this case 

illustrate the fact that rights are not absolute and that 

the rights of the victim have to be balanced against the 

rights of children and the public in general? The process 

of reconciliation is ultimately as much political as legal 

and Parliament should therefore always have the last 

word. Is it not a relief that this decision was taken by 

the Supreme Court and not by the Court in Strasbourg? 

Does she agree that we should resile from that as soon 

as possible? 

Mrs May: My right hon. Friend tempts me down a 

route that it would not be appropriate to go down. On 

his first point, rights are not absolute. The article 8 right 

against which the judgment was made clearly is not an 

absolute right. I am sure that many right hon. and hon.


964 

Members—indeed, all of them, I hope—are as concerned 

as I am when a court makes a judgment that puts the 

rights of a perpetrator above the rights of the public 

and individual victims. In a similar area, I find it 

incredible that we are not able to deport people who are 

linked to al-Qaeda and who have terrorist intent in this 

country because the court says that their rights mean 

that we cannot deport them, but the court is not looking 

at the rights of members of the British public. That is 

what we should be doing. 

Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab): I support the 

Home Secretary’s views on the merits of the existing sex 

offenders register and her concern about the Court’s 

decision, but will she confirm that under section 4 of 

the Human Rights Act 1998 there is absolutely no 

obligation on her or the House to change the law one 

bit? All the Court did was to issue a declaration of 

incompatibility and section 4 makes it absolutely clear 

that any decision following that is a matter for the 

sovereign Parliament. It would be entirely lawful for the 

House and her to say that the existing regime will 

continue without any amendment. 

Mrs May: The right hon. Gentleman makes a point 

about the application of the Human Rights Act and the 

European convention on human rights and about 

Parliament having the final decision about what should 

happen. In this case, Parliament will have the final 

decision on what happens. 

Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD): Does 

the Home Secretary agree that the right to respect for 

private life must not trump the safety of our children? 

Given the impossibility of tackling some offending 

behaviour of a sexual nature, even if reviews of notification 

requirements are granted, presumably she expects that 

those reviews will insist that the notification requirements 

are maintained. Is it also her understanding that the 

police decision could be subject to judicial review? 

Mrs May: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments 

about the balance of rights. It is the case, I believe, that 

the police decision could be subject to judicial review. It 

is absolutely right that the police will look at all aspects 

of cases and take every consideration into account 

when deciding whether a review should be upheld such 

that the individual no longer remains on the register. I 

cannot second-guess any decisions that the police will 

take, but they will be making every effort to ensure that 

they are, absolutely, looking properly at these cases to 

ensure that the decisions they take enable them to 

maintain public protection. 

Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab): The Home Secretary 

has struck exactly the right tone today, and it is heartening 

to hear both Front Benchers being very clear about 

where they stand on this issue. Protection of the public 

is the most important consideration, but, in view of 

what the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington 

(Tom Brake) has just said, will the Government ensure 

that the appeal process is examined very carefully indeed 

so that it is as robust as possible and there is not a legal 

challenge? That will mean proper consultation with 

Parliament and a proper scheme, so that people are well 

aware that it is very tough indeed. 

Mrs May: I take the right hon. Gentleman’s point, 

and it is absolutely our intention that we should make 

the scheme as tough as possible and make it clear that it 

is about an ability to seek a review of a decision. We will 

frame it in the toughest possible terms and ensure that 

the process is absolutely right, so that we reduce the 

opportunity for it to be subject to any sort of judicial 

review once the decision is taken. 

Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con): I support and 

welcome the Home Secretary’s statement, but may I ask 

for a little more clarity? She said that the final decision 

on whether an offender should remain on the register 

would be one for the police. Will that be a matter for the 

chief constable, as at present, or will it be one for the 

police commissioner in future? 

Mrs May: It will be for a senior police officer, who 

will be a chief constable or another senior police officer. 

It will not be a matter for the police and crime commissioner. 

Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab): In the unfortunate 

event of somebody being released from the sex offenders 

register because of this judgment, does the Secretary of 

State agree that it is imperative that the victim of the 

crime be informed of that variation? 

Mrs May: The right hon. Gentleman makes an interesting 

point, and I am certainly willing to take it away and 

consider it. 

Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con): I welcome 

the Home Secretary’s approach to this as being purely a 

police matter. There has been a common misapprehension 

that requirements to sign on the sex register are somehow 

court orders. They are not. They are not part of the 

sentence or the judicial process, and I therefore welcome 

the commitment to keep the matter firmly within the 

realms of police discretion. 

Mrs May: I thank my hon. Friend, who brings his 

experience in the law to that point. It is absolutely right 

that the police will deal with the matter and make the 

decision. 

Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab): I, 

too, welcome the rigorous approach that the Home 

Secretary is taking, and I say that as the Minister who 

took the Sexual Offences Act 2003 through Committee. 

Does she agree that given the highly secretive and 

manipulative behaviour of many sex offenders, it is 

highly unlikely that the offence of which they were 

convicted is the only crime that they have committed? 

Will she ensure in any review process that there is a clear 

onus on the offender to demonstrate beyond doubt that 

they are no longer a risk to the public? 

Mrs May: I have a number of points to make to the 

right hon. Gentleman. Throughout the House, we all 

agree that Parliament needs to get the answer right for 

the sake of public protection. The police will be able to 

take other offences into account when they consider 

whether an individual should remain on the sex offenders 

register, and they will look as widely as possible at the 

behaviour of the individual in question, consulting as 

wide a number of agencies as possible to ensure that 

they make the best possible decision for the public.


966 

Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con): I welcome the 

Home Secretary’s desire to tighten the loopholes in the 

sex offenders register, and particularly her proposal to 

prevent sex offenders from avoiding registering by changing 

their name by deed poll. I am sure she will be aware that 

deed poll is only one way in which a person can change 

their name. It is the most formal way, but not the most 

usual. Changing name by statutory declaration is quicker 

and easier. Perhaps she will consider that as another 

loophole that should be closed. 

Mrs May: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that 

point. It is important that we examine the process of 

changing a name by deed poll and tighten the rules so 

that sex offenders cannot use them as a means of 

avoiding the need to register. He makes a valid point 

about statutory declaration, and we will certainly take it 

into consideration. 

Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP): The Home Secretary 

has said that the police decision on these matters will be 

final. I hope she agrees that if one offender gets off the 

sex offenders register, it is one too many. Will the victim 

be able to appeal against that decision by the police and 

try to overturn it? 

Mrs May: No, there will be no appeal mechanism. 

Mr Aidan Burley (Cannock Chase) (Con): I welcome 

the Home Secretary’s statement, the key phrase in which 

was that public protection must come first. We may 

compare that with judges who have instead ruled that 

paedophiles’ and rapists’ rights to privacy must come 

first. What would she say to those out-of-touch judges 

in the Supreme Court who are now openly, proudly and 

provocatively saying that a paedophile’s right to privacy 

is more important than children’s protection from those 

who have committed evil sexual acts? 

Mrs May: It is important that we balance the public’s 

right to protection against the rights of the individual, 

but as I said at the end of my statement, it is time that 

we asserted that it is Parliament that makes our laws. 

Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab): I 

congratulate the Home Secretary on adopting a much 

tougher approach than the Scottish authorities. Does 

she have any regrets that she did not overrule her 

officials and similarly reject the much weaker Scottish 

model for the retention of DNA profiles? 

Mrs May: We have not in fact absolutely adopted the 

Scottish model in relation to DNA, and we have gone 

further than it. We have adopted protections for those 

who are innocent, and that is different from the situation 

that we are considering today, which is about people 

who have been found guilty and are at risk of reoffending. 

We must deal with public protection in that regard. The 

rules that we propose for the retention of DNA are 

about enabling the police to have the tools that they 

need, but at the same time not putting the DNA of a lot 

of innocent people on the database. 

Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con): I, like many 

others, am appalled by the Court’s decision, but I 

welcome the Home Secretary’s statement, particularly 

the part about tightening the rules. One concern will be 

about potential inconsistency of approach between different 

police forces. Highly manipulative people moving around 

the country may find themselves on the sex offenders 

register in one part of the country, but a decision may 

be made to take them off it in another part. How will 

she ensure that consistency is applied to the whole 

country? 

Mrs May: My hon. Friend obviously makes an important 

point, but of course ACPO has been actively involved in 

putting the proposals together, as I said earlier, and it 

will be for ACPO to ensure that its guidance to forces 

across the country is appropriately strong and followed 

by all forces. 

Mrs Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab): My constituent, 

17-year-old Ashleigh Hall, was murdered having been 

groomed by a registered sex offender on Facebook. 

When the Home Secretary is examining the loopholes, 

will she ensure that all sex offenders are required to 

register their online identities as well, and that any 

failure to do so is seen just as seriously as if they had 

failed to register the fact that they were living with 

young children? 

Mrs May: The hon. Lady raises a valid issue about 

the use of new technology and the internet by sex 

offenders. If she would like to write to me about it, I will 

be happy to look into it. 

Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con): My constituents will 

welcome the taking-on of the Human Rights Act and 

its replacement with a Bill of Rights, particularly as it 

was a manifesto commitment. Will my right hon. Friend 

reassure my constituents and the public that sex offenders 

who have a right of appeal will not be removed from the 

register if they continue to pose a threat to the public? 

Mrs May: The whole point of the review process is 

that it will be down to the police to assess whether there 

is a risk of reoffending. If there is considered to be a 

risk, the individuals in question will stay on the register. 

Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance): I thank the 

Home Secretary for her statement. She highlighted in it 

the difference in the approaches in Scotland and here at 

Westminster. Will she reassure us that differences between 

different devolved Administrations will not lead to people 

being able to be removed from the sex offenders register 

because of different thresholds being applied in different 

locations? 

Mrs May: I reassure the hon. Lady that we will talk 

to the devolved Administrations. What I have announced 

will cover England and Wales, but we will talk to 

Scotland and Northern Ireland about the approach that 

we are adopting to ensure as far as we can that sex 

offenders do not move from one jurisdiction to another 

to get around the rules. 

Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con): I thank the 

Home Secretary not only for the content of her statement, 

but for the fact that she has come to the House so 

quickly and that the statement was not leaked in advance. 

Yesterday, when the Justice Secretary was questioned 

on the establishment of a commission on the Bill of 

Rights, he said that it would be done very quickly.


968 

Unfortunately, he was unable to answer my question on 

when that commission will report. Until we have a 

British Bill of Rights, I am afraid that the Home 

Secretary will be coming to the Dispatch Box to make 

more such statements. 

Mrs May: I am tempted to point out to my hon. 

Friend that the statement may not have been leaked, but 

the Prime Minister covered one or two aspects of it in 

Prime Minister’s questions. 

On the Bill of Rights, the Deputy Prime Minister and 

Justice Secretary will imminently set out the arrangements 

for that commission and say how it will be formed, 

which I expect will include an end date. 

Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab): My right hon. 

Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and 

Castleford (Yvette Cooper) asked about funding for 

specialist units, many of which were formed because of 

a failure in normal policing to find people on the 

register, and because police forces did not talk to each 

other. What guarantees can the Home Secretary give on 

funding for such specialist units? 

Mrs May: Of course, how a police budget is distributed 

to the different departments of each police force is a 

matter for the chief constable. The hon. Gentleman will 

know what I am about to say because the Government 

have made this clear a number of times. Police forces 

can take a significant sum of money out of their budgets 

not by cutting specialist units and visible policing, but 

by dealing with procurement and IT, and through 

collaboration with other forces. It is not just me saying 

that; Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary says it 

too. 

Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con): I welcome the Home 

Secretary’s commitment to close the loophole that allows 

sex offenders to go abroad for up to three days without 

notifying the police. The previous Government had 

since 1997 to close that loophole, but did not take such 

action. 

Mrs May: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making 

that point. I am just pleased that we could take that 

action today to ensure that we closed that loophole and 

the others that I mentioned in my statement. 

Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab): The Home Secretary 

has been absolutely right in setting her face against the 

judgment, but will she confirm that it remains lawful to 

insist that sex offenders stay on the register for life? 

Although the measures she has announced are strong 

and seek to protect the public, she does not have to take 

them—it would be lawful for her to keep to the higher 

standard of keeping them on the register for life. 

Mrs May: We have already had one challenge on this 

ruled on by the Supreme Court, and there is the prospect 

of others. We have no further right of appeal through 

the Supreme Court mechanism, so we are introducing 

what we believe to be a tough set of measures that will 

address the issue. Of course, it will continue to be 

possible for sex offenders to stay on the register for life. 

Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con): I 

welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. I have appeared 

in Parole Board hearings. Can the Secretary of State 

confirm that the police officers who will make decisions 

will have all the information on an offender that is 

available in a Parole Board hearing, from judges’sentencing 

remarks on dangerousness, to pre-sentence reports and 

the offender’s full record in custody, so that they can 

make a thorough decision, so that the public are fully 

protected? 

Mrs May: That is absolutely our intention. The police 

should have the fullest information possible on which to 

base their decision on whether a sex offender should 

stay on the register. Indeed, I expect that when we lay 

the statutory instrument before the House, we will be 

able to go into more detail on the sort of information 

that will be available to the police. 

Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP): I assure 

the Home Secretary that my hon. and right hon. Friends 

wholeheartedly agree with her statement. It is time to 

assert that Parliament makes the laws, not the courts. It 

is our duty as a House to protect the general public 

from those who perpetrate such horrific crimes. If it is 

the will of the House to strengthen our laws, instead of 

weakening them in the light of the Court’s decision, we 

should assert the authority of the House. 

When will consultation be held with the Northern 

Ireland Executive? 

Mrs May: We will have discussions with the Northern 

Ireland Assembly and the Scottish Government shortly—we 

have held some discussions with the latter because they 

have taken some steps down this road already. These 

issues will come to Parliament for it to decide. The 

commission on the British Bill of Rights, which was 

announced today, is a step that the Government are 

taking to ensure that we bolster the ability of Parliament 

to set our laws. The previous Government introduced 

the Human Rights Act. I am afraid that they saw the 

problems that the Act created and did nothing—this 

Government are doing something about it. 

Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con): I welcome the 

Home Secretary’s statement, but how confident is she 

that the increasingly robust Supreme Court, and the 

European Courts with their extraterritorial reach, will 

not overrule her very firm and welcome announcement 

today? Is it not time to introduce a Bill of Rights very 

early indeed, rather than having a commission which 

may report sometime in the future— 

Mr Speaker: I call the Home Secretary. 

Mrs May: I see what my hon. Friend is getting at, but 

it is right to have a commission to look into the British 

Bill of Rights. The purpose of my statement was to set 

out a way forward that meets the requirement set by the 

Supreme Court, which should therefore not be subject 

to a further ruling by that Court. 

Mr Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) (Lab): Will the victims 

be not only told of the outcome of the decision, but 

consulted before the decision is made? 

Mrs May: As I said in response to the right hon. 

Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), we will consider what 

information is available to the victim and their role.

969 Sex Offenders Register 16 FEBRUARY 2011 

970 

Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con): Residents in 

my constituency are absolutely fed up to the back teeth 

with human rights legislation and the way in which it is 

being used to promote the rights of bad people over the 

rights of good people. My right hon. Friend the Home 

Secretary said that when the commission on the Bill of 

Rights is established, an end date will be published. 

May I urge her to urge the Deputy Prime Minister and 

the Justice Secretary to choose an early end date, which 

we need so that legislation can be introduced in the 

House in this Parliament, so that the issue can be 

resolved once and for all? 

Mrs May: Most Members of the House are fed up 

with the way in which decisions by the House are 

increasingly being overturned by the courts. I can reassure 

my hon. Friend that the Deputy Prime Minister and the 

Justice Secretary know well of his interest in this matter. 

As I said, we will ensure that we can take action to 

assert the rights of Parliament. 

BILL PRESENTED 

WELFARE REFORM BILL 

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) 

Mr Secretary Duncan Smith, supported by the Prime 

Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Chancellor of 

the Exchequer, Mrs Secretary May, Mr Secretary Clarke, 

Mr Secretary Lansley, Mr Secretary Pickles, Chris Grayling 

and Maria Miller, presented a Bill to make provision for 

universal credit and personal independence payment; to 

make other provision about social security and tax 

credits; to make provision about the functions of the 

registration service, child support maintenance and the 

use of jobcentres; and for connected purposes. 

Bill read the First Time; to be read a Second time 

tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 149) with explanatory 

notes (Bill 149-EN). 

Criminal Justice (Amendment) Bill 

Motion for leave to introduce a Bill (Standing Order 

No. 23) 

1.8 pm 

Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC): I beg 

to move, 

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision 

requiring certain prisoners due to be considered for early release 

to complete a relevant offender management programme, where 

available; to require courts to take regard of mental health 

problems in sentencing; to make provision regarding minimum 

and maximum sentences; and for connected purposes. 

There are currently too many anomalies in sentencing. 

People are given sentences that are not always appropriate 

to the crime they have committed, and sentences do not 

subsequently have regard to the progress that people 

make during their time in prison. The Bill would introduce 

new clauses to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 to address 

some of those anomalies, to ensure that courts have 

greater freedom to impose the sentence that they deem 

necessary, and to ensure that there is greater incentive 

for prisoners to partake of rehabilitation programmes 

so as to be considered for early release. 

I therefore propose to add three new measures to the 

aforementioned Act. First, I would add new clauses to 

warrant that early release from both indeterminate public 

protection sentences and determinate sentences is incentivebased, 

not automatic. Secondly, I would add new clauses 

on maximum and minimum sentences. Thirdly, I would 

ensure that courts are given the right to have regard to 

mental health problems when sentencing convicted persons. 

I shall speak first on the new conditions to be imposed 

on granting early release. Indeterminate public protection 

sentences have been a controversial measure since their 

inception. Under section 225 of the Criminal Justice 

Act 2003, where a person aged 18 or over is imprisoned 

for public protection but the court does not consider life 

imprisonment necessary, the convicted person may be 

imprisoned for a period of at least two years but less 

than life. The court sets a minimum period or tariff to 

be served before a prisoner can apply for parole. The 

measure was intended to be used sparingly but, presumably 

due to the inflexible requirements laid down by the 

Government, IPP sentences are being used more frequently 

than expected. 

I believe that not enough thought is put into determining 

a prisoner’s tariff and that because little focus is placed 

on putting these prisoners into rehabilitation programmes, 

there are thousands of prisoners on IPP sentences in 

our prisons who in many cases will be released without 

regard being given to the remorse shown or even to a 

prisoner’s rehabilitation. Because of amendments made 

to the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 by schedule 8 of the 

Crime and Disorder Act 1998, a person serving a sentence 

of imprisonment or detention for a term can be considered 

for early release after serving one half of that sentence. I 

believe that that needs to be put right. 

My Bill will add a new clause to section 255 of the 

2003 Act to the effect that a person serving an IPP 

sentence shall have that sentence reviewed by the Parole 

Board at least every two years. Furthermore, all persons 

serving IPP sentences must have access made available 

to relevant offender management programmes. When 

determining whether to recommend a person for release

971 Criminal Justice (Amendment) Bill 16 FEBRUARY 2011 Criminal Justice (Amendment) Bill 972 

on licence, the Parole Board should have regard to the 

availability and completion of these programmes. It is 

cost-effective to do this. 

On a daily basis, 5,659 people are serving an IPP 

sentence, of which 2,229 are beyond their tariff. On 

average, these prisoners are serving 244 days beyond 

their tariff. It costs roughly £30,000 to keep someone 

incarcerated for 244 days. If we multiply this sum by 

2,229, we get a figure of £68 million. By comparison, 

the cost of putting a prisoner through a rehabilitation 

programme would be £5,000 at most, which, multiplied 

by 2,229, comes to £11 million as opposed to the 

currently spent £68 million. Introducing this measure 

would thus be cost-effective and, I believe, beneficial to 

the protection of the public. 

Equally, for prisoners serving determinate sentences, 

the Parole Board must be satisfied that they are of low 

risk to the public before they are granted early release. 

Under section 244 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, 

when a fixed-term prisoner has served the requisite 

custodial period the Secretary of State shall release him 

on licence. Since 2005, those serving four years or more 

have come out after serving 50% of their sentence— 

regardless of the progress they have made while in 

prison. 

My Bill would add a further subsection to this section, 

which would ensure that before releasing a person sentenced 

to four or more years in prison, the Parole Board must 

be satisfied that the individual is at low risk of harm to 

the public and low risk of reoffending. These amending 

provisions would ensure that incentives for rehabilitation 

are rewarded, but it is just as important that the courts 

be given greater freedom to impose the sentences they 

deem fit and have regard to the individual circumstances 

of each case. 

To satisfy this requirement, I would add an additional 

new clause to the Act on maximum and minimum 

sentences. This would mean that when sentencing a 

person to a determinate prison sentence, the court shall 

state the maximum time that should be served and also 

the minimum term. The stated minimum term must be 

less than half the maximum sentence but no less than 

one third of that sentence. In passing sentence, the 

court should, of course, have regard to the seriousness 

of the offence and it may request a pre-sentence report 

from a suitably qualified employee of the relevant probation 

trust. The notion of introducing maximum and minimum 

sentences was included in the last Conservative manifesto. 

I referred earlier to the importance of courts being 

able when passing a sentence to pay greater regard to 

the individual circumstances surrounding a case. The 

final new clause of my Bill, added to the Criminal 

Justice Act 2003, would mean that the courts could pay 

greater regard to psychological or psychiatric problems 

diagnosed in a person who has committed a violent or 

sexual offence. Under section 277, persons of 18 years 

or older who commit certain violent or sexual offences 

are given an extended sentence. However, in cases where 

a person has committed a serious crime and has 

subsequently been diagnosed—I stress subsequently 

diagnosed—with psychological or psychiatric problems, 

it is the feeling of many sentencers that an extended 

period of licence would be more appropriate both for 

the individual concerned and for the protection of the 

public. In many such cases, the disposal of a hospital 

order would be preferable, but that disposal is not 

currently available to sentencers. 

In the Eriksson case decided on 26 November 2009, 

that was precisely the finding of Mr Justice Saunders, 

who presided over the prosecution of a person who 

stabbed and killed a man while she was suffering from a 

debilitating mental illness. In his sentencing remarks, 

Mr Justice Saunders said that this 

“would clearly have been a case for a hospital order”, 

but that “that disposal” was “not open” to him. He 

wished to pass a sentence that would provide an appropriate 

level of protection for the public, although not one 

designed to over-punish because the defendant’s culpability 

was low, owing to her mental illness. He expressed great 

frustration that Parliament does not allow sentencers to 

order an extended period of licence, which he called “an 

unfortunate omission” in sentencers’ powers. 

In that regard, I would add a new clause to section 277 

to the effect that in determining whether to impose 

extended supervision a court shall have regard to any 

psychological or psychiatric assessment that is carried 

out following the commission of the offence as well as 

the likelihood of the person being involved in further 

similar serious offending. I believe that these new clauses 

would make vital revisions to sentencing, would grant 

greater autonomy to courts to review the circumstances 

of each case and would reward the progress made in 

prison. I accordingly commend them to the House. 

Question put and agreed to. 

Ordered, 

That Mr Elfyn Llwyd, Mrs Linda Riordan, Claire 

Perry, Chris Evans, Hywel Williams, Jonathan Edwards 

and Mr Robert Buckland present the Bill. 

Mr Elfyn Llwyd accordingly presented the Bill. 

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on 

Friday 15 May, and to be printed. (Bill 150).

973 16 FEBRUARY 2011 Youth Unemployment 

974 

Opposition Day 

[11TH ALLOTTED DAY] 

Youth Unemployment 

1.18 pm 

Mr Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab): I 

beg to move, 

That this House believes that the Government was wrong to 

cancel the Future Jobs Fund that would have created 200,000 jobs 

for young people; further believes that the Government’s economic 

policies have slowed economic growth, raised youth unemployment 

and created the highest graduate unemployment for over a decade; 

further believes that urgent action is now required to stop a 

generation of young people being lost to worklessness; and calls 

on the Government to commission an independent assessment of 

the Future Jobs Fund to report to Parliament before the Government’s 

Work Programme is implemented and to evaluate whether a 

guarantee and requirement of work incorporated into the Programme 

would bring down youth unemployment in the short and longer 

term and limit steep rises in welfare payments. 

I am glad that we have been able to force the Government 

to come to the House to debate the employment figures—or, 

rather, the unemployment figures—published this morning, 

because those figures will worry families, young and 

old, up and down the country. The headlines from this 

morning’s numbers are bad enough—five quarters after 

the recession ended, unemployment is not going down 

but up; employment is not rising but falling—but the 

details are, I am afraid, even worse. Private sector 

employment is flat, while the number of public sector 

jobs is falling fast. It is becoming clear that the private 

sector is not creating jobs fast enough to absorb the 

redundancies that we know are coming down the line. 

There are now more women on the claimant count than 

at any time since 1996. 

The consequences for young people are perhaps most 

serious of all. One in five of our young people are now 

out of work; the number of unemployed has risen 

again; we now confront youth unemployment of almost 

a million—the highest figure on record. That figure is a 

wake-up call to this Government to get their act together. 

The question we want the House to debate today is 

quite simply, what should the Government do next? 

As if we needed it, this morning’s figures are, if 

anything, fresh evidence of the need for a plan B on 

economic growth. We have rehearsed the debate in the 

House plenty of times over the past year, and I do not 

plan to do so again this afternoon. Suffice it to say that 

the Government are cutting spending too far and too 

fast. The recession having been over for a year, we 

would expect to see unemployment now falling fast, 

and yet it is not. Longer dole queues make the deficit 

not easier to pay down, but harder. The result is that 

working families end up paying the price. 

Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con): The right hon. 

Gentleman was part of a Government who presided 

over a record rise in youth unemployment. As his 

Government’s policies clearly did not work over 13 years, 

should he not, instead of carping from the sidelines, get 

behind the policies of the coalition Government, who 

are offering a fresh start to young people in this country? 

Mr Byrne: The hon. Gentleman makes a point that is 

central to the debate, to which I shall return in substance 

in a moment, after giving way to the Minister. 

The Minister of State, Department for Work and 

Pensions (Chris Grayling): For the record, will the right 

hon. Gentleman confirm that last month’s unemployment 

figure in this country was 2.498 million, and that this 

month’s is 2.492 million? 

Mr Byrne: The unemployment figures are getting 

worse, not better. This morning I heard the Minister 

quibble on the BBC that somehow unemployment in 

our country was stabilising, but the truth of today’s 

figures is that private sector employment is dead flat, 

and the number of announced redundancies is growing 

by the day. [Interruption.] The Minister of State, 

Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member 

for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb) carps from a 

sedentary position, but he would be better off reverting 

to the advice that he gave to the Conservative party 

before the election about the importance of taking 

further steps to help get young people back to work. 

Chris Grayling rose— 

Mr Byrne: Before I give way to the Minister, let me 

finish this point, as I want to put a question to him. 

As I said, the rise in the dole bill makes the deficit not 

easier, but harder, to pay down. Although the Chancellor 

likes to pretend that the welfare cuts are somehow 

hitting shirkers not workers, will the Minister confirm 

that once we factor out the lower uprating the truth is 

that more than half the cuts in welfare spending are 

hitting working families? 

Chris Grayling: As the one who is intervening, I think 

it is my job to ask the right hon. Gentleman questions. 

Will he confirm that one of the bits of good news this 

morning is that, for the second month in a row, job 

vacancies in the economy have increased significantly? 

Does he agree that that is an encouraging development? 

Mr Byrne: Any increase in vacancies is good news, 

but 40,000 is not an enormous increase, and when 

private sector employment is dead flat and public sector 

redundancies are mounting, I am afraid that it poses 

serious questions about whether unemployment will 

continue to rise over the next couple of years. 

Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab): Does my right 

hon. Friend agree that, worrying as the youth 

unemployment figures are, the complacency demonstrated 

by the Government in debate after debate is even more 

worrying. We heard today from the Prime Minister that 

youth unemployment has been a problem for a long 

time, but the Government’s policies are making the 

situation worse. In my constituency, 1,100 people will 

potentially lose their jobs as a result of Auto Windscreens 

going into administration this week. All we hear from 

the Government is complacency, rather than an admission 

that their policies are making this major problem worse. 

Mr Byrne: My hon. Friend is right to highlight his 

constituency case, which has caused concern to families 

up and down the country. We saw figures today showing 

that earnings growth is now about half the rate of

975 Youth Unemployment 16 FEBRUARY 2011 Youth Unemployment 

976 

inflation. At a time when the jobs market is weaker, that 

will contribute to a tighter and tighter squeeze on 

working families over the coming months. 

Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab): May I 

tell my right hon. Friend that in my constituency, in the 

first 10 years of the Labour Government, youth 

unemployment was halved? Then we had a recession, 

and of course it began to rise. Will not the Government’s 

cuts to the Connexions service, Opening Doors—one of 

our local facilities paid for by central Government—and 

education maintenance allowance for students who are 

in the middle of two-year courses result in more young 

people going on to the dole? 

Mr Byrne: My right hon. Friend is right. Unless we 

hear something of substance from the Minister, I am 

afraid that her prediction is all too likely to pan out. 

When the squeeze on living standards is about to get 

tougher and tougher, one would expect action from the 

Government to help. In fact, more than half the welfare 

cut will hit working families, and by the end of the 

Parliament £3.4 billion will be taken off benefits for 

children—far more than the amount being taken off 

bankers. Putting aside the question of what kind of 

Government take more money off children than off 

bankers, if the Chancellor had done what he should 

have done, and implemented a proper bonus tax on the 

banks, he would have about £3.5 billion to invest in jobs 

and growth, including in jobs for young people. That 

must be the substance of our debate this afternoon. 

Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con): On the simple 

numbers, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm whether 

youth unemployment was higher or lower at the end of 

Labour’s term in office, despite the golden economic 

inheritance that it had? 

Mr Byrne: Let me respond to that point in substance 

in a moment, and I will invite the hon. Gentleman to 

intervene again. Right hon. and hon. Members on both 

sides of the House will want to ensure that we draw the 

right lessons from the past 13 years, as they have a 

critical bearing on the programme that we want the 

Government to put in place for the future. 

There are real differences between Government and 

Opposition about the macro-economic approach that 

we should take. We also share some values. Many of us 

share a passion to attack poverty in all its manifestations. 

We believe that the poverty of some impoverishes us all, 

not only because it affects the chances of many to lead 

the life that they would choose, but because it denies 

many the chances, opportunities, free range and scope 

to contribute to our country’s progress. I happen to 

think that the Secretary of State shares that belief, 

about which I feel passionately, as my constituency has 

the second highest unemployment in the country and, 

as this morning’s figures confirm, the highest youth 

unemployment. I do not have to go far to see wasted 

talent—I see it, and think about it, when I go to work 

every day. That inspires the passion with which many of 

us think carefully about the programme that the country 

needs to get youth unemployment back down. 

Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab): If we are looking 

back on our period of stewardship and offering the 

Government lessons, does my right hon. Friend conclude, 

as I do, that one of our errors was not to introduce the 

future jobs fund earlier and put more resources into 

that than into the new deal? 

Mr Byrne: We have learned many lessons from the 

future jobs fund, and there are many successes on which 

we can build. I will turn to that question in substance 

when I dwell on what we should learn from the past 

10 years. 

The key point, which my right hon. Friend underlines, 

is that the right strategy for the Government during the 

recession and the worst financial crisis since the 1930s, 

was not to sit by and do nothing, or to watch as 

unemployment went through 3 million not once but 

twice, but to act, to save jobs, to keep people in their 

homes, and to keep businesses moving. 

Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP): 

The right hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact that, 

under a Scottish National party Government, only in 

Scotland is unemployment falling and employment rising. 

He will also welcome the fact that we introduced 25,000 

modern apprenticeships in our budget. Can he offer any 

explanation of Labour in Scotland’s opposition to that? 

Mr Byrne: The right approach in the Scottish 

economy—where GDP growth has unfortunately been 

weaker than growth in the UK generally over the last 

period—is to build on the success of the future jobs 

fund and put in place not 3,000 opportunities for the 

future, but 10,000. That is the approach Labour will 

propose in the run-up to the coming elections. 

Let us address Labour’s record in office, a substantive 

point which has already been mentioned. When Labour 

came to office in 1997 some 656,000 young people were 

out of work. As our economy grew, we introduced a 

welfare to work programme that included creating Jobcentre 

Plus and the new deal, and which made sure that three 

quarters of our young people who went on to jobseeker’s 

allowance were off JSA within six months. Setting aside 

those in full-time education—and we substantially increased 

the number of people in full-time education—that meant 

that the number of unemployed young people fell by 

some 20%. Indeed, between 1997 and the start of the 

global financial crisis the claimant count among young 

people fell by some 40%, and that was at a time when 

the number of young people in our country was rising; 

between 2000 and 2009 it rose by over 1 million. I think 

that Members will therefore forgive me for agreeing 

with the man who described the progress we made as 

“remarkable”, and who said: 

“There is no question that the UK has made significant 

progress in the labour market over the last ten years.” 

That man was the Government’s welfare reform Minister, 

Lord Freud. 

Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con): If 

the last Labour Government’s proposals and policies 

were such a success, why were one in five 16 to 24-year-olds 

out of work at the end of their period in office? 

Mr Byrne: This may not have come up on the hon. 

Gentleman’s radar, but there was the worst financial 

crisis since the 1920s at the end of Labour’s term in 

office. During that crisis, Labour did the right thing by 

acting to get people back to work, to keep people in


978 

[Mr Byrne] 

their homes and to help keep business on the move. 

That was a policy and approach which the hon. Gentleman’s 

party should have supported. 

Rehman Chishti: The right hon. Gentleman says that 

those economic difficulties arose towards the end of 

Labour’s time in office, but the increase in unemployment 

started back in 2001, not near the end of its time in 

office. 

Mr Byrne: The figures are very clear. Between 1997 

and the start of the global financial crisis the number of 

young people on the claimant count fell by 40%. 

Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con): The right hon. 

Gentleman and his party seem to blame the global 

financial crisis for every ill, but figures I received from 

the House of Commons Library this morning make it 

clear that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham 

and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) said, youth unemployment 

has been rising since 2001, yet the global financial crisis 

did not start until 2008. How does the right hon. 

Gentleman explain that? 

Mr Byrne: The facts speak for themselves. Between 

1997 and the start of the financial crisis the number of 

young people on the claimant count fell by 40%. Because 

of the changes we put in place, the number of young 

people coming off JSA within six months was about 

three quarters of the number going on. That is why 

Lord Freud—the Government’s own welfare reform 

Minister—was right to say that the progress we have 

made was “remarkable”. 

Damian Hinds: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman 

recognises the value of international comparisons as 

well as time series comparisons, so does he acknowledge 

that in years before the onset of the global financial 

crisis, such as 2005, the number of young people not in 

employment, education or training in this country was 

higher than the OECD average, higher than the EU 

average, higher than in France, higher than in Germany 

and higher than in the United States? 

Mr Byrne: The number of young people not in education, 

employment or training was lower, not higher, when 

Labour left office than when we came to office. Far too 

often, Conservative Members pray in aid that number—a 

number that is pretty static—but fail to acknowledge 

that the number of young people in our country increased 

by 1 million between 2000 and 2009. 

Rehman Chishti: On the effects of the previous 

Government’s policies, 279,000 people started on the 

flexible new deal, yet near the end only 3,000 were on it. 

That shows that the policy was a complete failure. 

Mr Byrne: The hon. Gentleman forgets to mention 

that the flexible new deal was introduced in the middle 

of the recession when unemployment was high, so that 

is possibly not the best way to evaluate the success of 

getting people back into work. I am sure we will learn 

later precisely which elements of the new deal the 

current Government are continuing with in their Work 

programme. 


Mr Byrne: I will give way to the Minister in a moment, 

but first I want to talk about the recession. As this 

afternoon’s interventions show, it is perfectly natural for 

Government Members to want to pray in aid figures 

from the beginning of 1997 and figures from the height 

of the recession. This point cuts to the heart of the 

debate we need to have this afternoon. When the recession 

hit, of course unemployment and the number of young 

people out of work rose, but we were not prepared to 

stand idly by and simply watch that happen, because we 

remember all too clearly the lessons of the 1980s when 

youth unemployment in this country spiralled up to 

26%. Instead, therefore, we chose to act: we chose to 

expand student numbers and apprenticeships and the 

chance to work. That is why in the final two quarters of 

our time in office youth unemployment was falling, not 

rising, and by 67,000 or 9% by the time we left office. 

When the Minister intervenes, perhaps he will explain 

why, all of a sudden, that has now gone into reverse. 

Chris Grayling: I am puzzled by a couple of points, 

and I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman can 

answer them for me. First, he keeps referring to the 

claimant count. Can he confirm that on the claimant 

count measure youth unemployment is 75,000 lower 

now than it was at the general election? He also talks 

about the period before the recession. Why did the 

OECD publish a report in 2008 saying it was profoundly 

concerned about youth unemployment in the UK because 

it was rising here but falling in every other developed 

country? 

Mr Byrne: I would expect the OECD to express 

concern about youth unemployment. Youth unemployment 

is a serious issue, which is why we are having this debate. 

We do not think the Government’s plan is adequate to 

deal with the problem. That is why youth unemployment 

is not falling at present, but is going up, which is what 

this morning’s figures said. 

Youth unemployment in the final period of Labour’s 

time in office, which was also a time of economic 

difficulty, fell by 67,000 or about 9%. Now all of that 

hard work has been undone. Since we left office, youth 

unemployment has not continued to fall. It has not even 

held steady; it has gone up and up and up. We cut youth 

unemployment even in the face of the economic storm, 

yet the current Government have failed to do so even 

with the winds of recovery at their back. They have 

watched it rise while the economy is growing. That takes 

some doing. 

Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab): Does my right 

hon. Friend recall that two years ago during the passage 

of the Education and Skills Bill, we sought to extend 

the school leaving and training age from 16 to 18 but 

Members now on the Government Benches opposed 

that? How did that help youth unemployment at that 

time? 

Mr Byrne: My right hon. Friend is right to raise that 

question, which underlines the dilemma so many young 

people now confront. With this morning’s numbers now 

on the public record, it is clear that young people face a 

summer of anxiety. If they do not make the grades to


980 

get into college—and we know the number of college 

places is now more limited—they will face a labour 

market that is tougher than ever. That is a worry for 

them and their families, and for older residents in this 

country who, having worked hard all their life, are now 

concerned about who will pay for the future. 

Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con): Does the right 

hon. Gentleman not understand that there is one significant 

distinction in respect of the figures he is discussing, in 

that there was massive over-reliance on putting people 

into the public sector through many of these programmes 

as a result of the legacy of economic failure that we 

have inherited? Therefore, there is naturally now some 

shrinkage in the public sector. That is the big difference. 

We have to create real jobs in the private sector for the 

long term. 

Mr Byrne: I genuinely appreciate the point that the 

hon. Gentleman is making and the argument he is 

rehearsing. Perhaps he could intervene again to let me 

know whether a job in the public sector is better than no 

job at all. 

Nick de Bois: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman 

for his invitation. A job is very important to the individual, 

no one doubts that; but we are talking about dealing 

with youth employment by creating work in a real 

sector that will last. That is the difference. We will only 

deal with the problem when the private sector has the 

opportunity to deliver long-term sustainable jobs—however 

well intentioned the programmes to which the right 

hon. Gentleman referred. 

Mr Byrne: The hon. Gentleman exposes the dilemma 

that now perplexes the Government’s entire back-to-work 

programme. Figures issued this morning reveal that 

private sector employment is dead flat, yet public sector 

employment is falling fast. What has become clear from 

those figures is that because the Government have put 

the recovery in the slow lane, the private sector is not 

creating jobs fast enough to absorb the scale of redundancies 

that are being announced. 

Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab): Before I became a 

Member I ran a centre for the unemployed during the 

1990s, so I know how painful things are for people who 

are unemployed long term. The hon. Member for Enfield 

North (Nick de Bois) referred to public sector jobs. Let 

us make it clear: nurses and teachers have real jobs and 

provide real service to our communities. 

My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, 

Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) is right to compare and contrast 

the recessions of the 1990s and the present. In my 

constituency, unemployment was 100% higher during 

the recession of the 1990s, because the programmes— 

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle): Order. I 

understand the point the hon. Gentleman is making, 

but we must have shorter interventions. I am sure the 

right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill has 

grasped the point. 

Mr Byrne: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the 

Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen). As many of my 

hon. Friends are doing this afternoon, he underlines the 

point that right across the country, over an extended 

period of Labour’s term in office, youth unemployment 

was falling fast. Unemployment can never be as low as 

Members want, but the question that confronts us is 

how to draw the right lessons from those overwhelming 

successes in getting people back into work and how to 

apply the lessons to the present crisis when one in five 

young people is not in work. 

Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con): Perhaps I can help 

the right hon. Gentleman by making a short intervention. 

Does he believe that the previous Government’s spending 

of £3.5 billion on programmes to get young people back 

to work while youth unemployment rose was good 

value for money? 

Mr Byrne: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman 

was in the Chamber at the beginning of the debate 

when we explained the simple point that during the 

latter months of our term in office, when the recession 

was difficult, youth unemployment was not rising but 

falling. All that progress—the fall between the peak of 

youth unemployment and when we left office—has 

been undone in the months since May. The hon. Gentleman 

shakes his head, but it is a fact. That is why earlier this 

week the former chief economist at the Cabinet Office, 

Mr Portes, told the Government bluntly that the challenge 

of youth unemployment is serious. He told The Times 

that the Government were failing to address the scale of 

the problem. Without urgent action, he warned, hundreds 

of thousands of youngsters face a bleak employment 

prospect throughout the rest of their lives. That is why 

our motion calls on the Government to reflect again on 

the lessons of the future jobs fund, to commission an 

independent evaluation, draw the right lessons, learn 

from them, establish a more substantial programme for 

the future, and do it with urgency. 

The future jobs fund is at the heart of the motion. 

Because we felt so strongly about the scourge of youth 

unemployment, a concern that is shared by many Members, 

we were determined to make sure that as it began to rise 

again after falling so far, something was in place that 

would help. We set up the future jobs fund because we 

knew that one of the greatest lessons from the 1980s is 

that when young people are allowed to drift too far 

from the jobs market they lose the habit of work, which 

is a curse that can stay with them for the rest of their 

lives. That is why we made substantial investment, 

which at the time was supported by the Conservatives, 

to get 150,000—rising to 200,000—new jobs that would 

last six months, 100,000 of them for young people and 

50,000 of them in areas of high unemployment. 

Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op): 

My right hon. Friend said that he thought that the 

Conservatives supported the future jobs fund. In March, 

before the general election, the present Prime Minister 

came to Liverpool to visit Merseystride, a social enterprise 

that employed many people through the future jobs 

fund. He described the future jobs programme as a 

“good scheme” and said that his Government would 

keep any good scheme. Why does my right hon. Friend 

think that the Prime Minister has backtracked on what 

he said when he saw that project? 

Mr Byrne: I think the answer is simple: despite good 

intentions, the Prime Minister has let the Chancellor get 

the upper hand. I am afraid that is a negotiation the


982 

[Mr Byrne] 

Department for Work and Pensions has lost, which is 

why its back-to-work programme is being slashed with 

such dangers for the future. 

I pay tribute to Steve Houghton, who was the leader 

of the local authority in Barnsley and did so much to 

pioneer the future jobs fund that has worked so well 

there. The Barnsley scheme is widely acknowledged to 

be one of the best in the country; it has 600 places for 

up to 12 months, a mixture of long-term and youth 

unemployed and a good track record on getting people 

into work. Barnsley, like other parts of the country, 

faces a future where that assistance is being pulled away. 

The challenge for our young people is that they now 

confront a triple whammy. Education maintenance 

allowance has been cut, tuition fees have been trebled 

and the future jobs fund is a thing of the past. Without 

the chance to work, without the chance to study, what 

are our young people supposed to do? Can Ministers 

tell us? There is not even a big society for young people 

to retreat to. Three quarters of youth charities are 

actually closing projects; 80% say that is because targeted 

support for young people is ending. 

In January, the Minister of State, Department for 

Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Epsom 

and Ewell (Chris Grayling), decided to act. I commend 

him for that. He introduced a work experience scheme. 

It was only for eight weeks, not six months, it did not 

pay the minimum wage and it did not cover people 

leaving higher or further education, but at least he was 

getting the idea. A fortnight ago, we learned that he was 

stepping up the pace—moving up a gear: at the Tory 

party’s black and white ball we had the spectacle of an 

auctioneer selling prized internships at top City firms to 

the highest bidder. What started as a crusade against 

poverty has in just nine months become an auction of 

life chances for the wealthy. No wonder the young 

people of this country feel that they face a lottery, and 

the Minister is selling the tickets. 

Five people now compete for every job opening, and 

this morning we heard that things are not getting better. 

According to the Library, in more than 120 of our 

constituencies, there are more than 10 people competing 

for every job. Those people would yearn for a ticket to 

the black and white ball. [Interruption.] We have just 

heard something very important: the Secretary of State 

is putting a ticket on the sale block. 

If there was something better to replace the future 

jobs fund, we might more easily comprehend its abolition. 

After all, this is what the Prime Minister promised when 

he told the BBC on Sunday 4 October 2009: 

“I want the new Conservative Party to be the party of jobs and 

opportunity and at the heart of it is a big, bold and radical 

scheme to get millions of people back to work.” 

I am afraid that last night we learned the truth from the 

BBC, when it reported: 

“The government’s new ‘work programme’”, 

described by the Prime Minister as the “biggest and 

boldest ever” plan to get people off benefits and back to 

work, 

“will actually help fewer people than the existing schemes that 

ministers are scrapping, the BBC has learned.” 

The Department for Work and Pensions has revealed 

that it expects 605,000 people to go through the Work 

programme in 2011-12, and 565,000 in 2012-13, but the 

Department admits that 250,000 more people, around 

850,000, went through the existing schemes in 2009-10. 


Mr Byrne: So there we have it—one more broken 

promise. Next year, in 2011, the Office for Budget 

Responsibility forecasts that the claimant count will be 

1.5 million, the same as this year—[HON. MEMBERS: 

“Give way!”] In a moment. 

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle): Order. One 

at a time. If Mr Byrne does not wish to give way, the 

Minister will have to accept it. I am sure he has noticed 

that the Minister wants to intervene. 

Mr Byrne: I will give way to the Minister in a moment. 

The whole House wants an explanation of why the 

promise to get more people back to work has been 

broken by the Prime Minister, because the Department 

for Work and Pensions has lost yet another battle to the 

Treasury. 

The Office for Budget Responsibility says that the 

claimant count next year will be 1.5 million, the same, 

by the way, as this year. The problem is undiminished, 

yet the help is being cut away—the Minister’s Department 

is projecting 250,000 fewer places. When the correspondent 

from the BBC checked the figures this morning, she was 

told by a DWP official that she was right. So how is the 

Government’s scheme the biggest back to work plan 

ever? Is not the truth that the Minister has been done 

over once more by the Chancellor? Let him explain. 

Chris Grayling: The right hon. Gentleman should not 

believe everything he hears on the television. It is absolutely 

clear that the Work programme will offer places through 

contracted-out providers to more people than was the 

case under the previous Government, and there is not 

one single person receiving JSA or employment and 

support allowance who wants and needs support through 

the Work programme who will not get it. 

Mr Byrne: Will the Minister explain why a DWP 

official confirmed to the BBC yesterday that 850,000 

places were available under a Labour Government, and 

that that would fall by 250,000 under the present 

Administration? 

Chris Grayling: If the shadow Secretary of State 

wants a briefing on the Work programme from the 

DWP, we will be delighted to offer him one. I suggest 

that he does not take his information from the media. 

Mr Byrne: That was not a straight answer to a simple 

question, which was why a DWP official confirmed the 

figures to the BBC yesterday and again this morning. 

The conclusion that the House can draw is a point that 

was made by the Office for Budget Responsibility—that 

there is not enough confidence that the Government 

have a plan in place to get people back to work. Indeed, 

the OBR has so much confidence in the Government’s 

plan to get people back to work that it is forecasting a 

declining rate of employment for the rest of this Parliament. 

I do not claim that the future jobs funds was some 

kind of celestial design. I am sure there are aspects of it 

that could be improved. As my hon. Friend the Member


984 

for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) mentioned a 

moment ago, it was labelled “a good scheme” by the 

Prime Minister on his trip to Liverpool. The evidence 

on which it was abolished was simply not there. 

In my constituency we have the highest youth 

unemployment in the country. The leaders of my jobcentre 

on Washwood Heath road have consistently said to me 

that the future jobs fund was one of the best programmes 

they have ever administered. Overwhelmingly, they say, 

the young people they send on the programme do not 

come back and join the dole queue. In their first months 

the Government rushed out some hasty research on its 

expense. This is what the Work and Pensions Committee 

had to say about that scribbled bit of analysis: 

“A robust evaluation of the FJF has yet to be 

undertaken…insufficient information was available to allow the 

Department to make a decision to terminate the FJF if this 

decision was based on its relative cost-effectiveness.” 

That is an extraordinary indictment of the Government’s 

rationale. The report says that half of future jobs fund 

graduates get benefits at seven months, but that is 

because the programme ends at six months. 

The Government dispute the claim that the scheme 

created real jobs. I am not sure what Jaguar Land Rover 

would say about that and the places that it created on 

the future jobs fund, but surely the point is that when 

people do not have a job, any job is a good job. 

Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab): Can my right 

hon. Friend suggest what Age Concern Wirral in my 

constituency might think of the slashing of the future 

jobs fund—a scheme that was not only providing work 

for my constituents, but helping intergenerational 

relationships in Wirral and looking after some of the 

most vulnerable people with early onset Alzheimer’s? 

Mr Byrne: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. 

In a recession private sector jobs are thin on the ground. 

Anything that keeps young people closer to the labour 

market, closer to the habits of work and closer to the 

disciplines of having a job must be a good thing. The 

lesson from the 1980s, when youth unemployment spiralled 

to 26%, is that if we let young people get too far away 

from the habits of work, they are scarred for generations 

to come. 

Dame Anne Begg (Aberdeen South) (Lab): When we 

looked into the future jobs fund in the Select Committee, 

it became clear that everyone who had experience of it, 

as a young person in a placement or as an employer, 

viewed it as a real job that lasted for six months, with a 

real wage, and was closer to the workplace than anything 

that could be offered by work experience. That is why it 

was successful. None of the providers had a bad word 

to say about it. They thought it was a very good scheme. 

Mr Byrne: My hon. Friend, who chairs the Work and 

Pensions Committee, makes an important intervention. 

I hope her comments allow us to strike a note of consensus. 

My final point is about the long-term costs. In all 

recessions and in all recoveries, it is our young people 

who face the toughest challenge. That is especially true 

of the fight that young women in our country now 

confront. Overwhelmingly, they are working in the public 

sector. Overwhelmingly, it is they who are exposed to 

the cuts and the redundancies that have been announced, 

which now number around 156,000. We must remember 

the lesson of the 1980s. When youth unemployment was 

allowed to soar, and allowed to fester for years, communities 

were damaged for generations. As the Cabinet Office’s 

former chief economist put it this week: 

“If the Government doesn’t act it will not only damage the 

employment prospects of young people now but hurt them for the 

rest of their lives”. 

The motion that we have tabled asks that the Government 

look again at the lessons of the future jobs fund, be 

ambitious about the programme that they put in place, 

and ensure that they learn the lessons from the 1980s. 

We fear that a generation is being lost to the clumsy 

behaviour of the present Administration, so I call on 

the Government this afternoon to think again, to preserve 

the promise that this country should make to its young 

people, to reconsider the action that they are taking to 

ensure that our children will do better and better than 

us, and to think again before we confront once again a 

lost generation. 

1.58 pm 


Pensions (Chris Grayling): Following Mr Speaker’s ruling 

last week, it is clear that it would be utterly unparliamentary 

to accuse any other hon. Member of being a hypocrite. 

I therefore give an absolute assurance that I will not do 

so this afternoon. It is clear, though, that the Opposition 

Front-Bench team is suffering from a bout of collective 

amnesia. We should be concerned for their welfare. I 

looked up the symptoms of amnesia, and it looks like 

an open and shut case to me. Amnesia is a condition in 

which memory is disturbed or lost. In some cases it is 

described as almost total disruption of short-term memory. 

What other possible explanation could there be for 

what we have just heard? I can only think that the right 

hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) 

cannot remember his time in office, so let me remind the 

House what happened. He and his party stayed in 

power for 13 years. One of their great missions was to 

tackle youth unemployment. Their former leader, his 

former boss, the former Prime Minister and Chancellor, 

the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath 

(Mr Brown), made his maiden speech on the subject 

back in 1983. When, 14 years later, he took office and 

became Chancellor of the Exchequer, he said that the 

problem was a “human tragedy”, “sickening” and “an 

economic disaster”. He had a mission for change. 

What happened? Nine years later, in the middle of 

one of the biggest booms that this country has seen—let 

us remember that that was at a time when the then 

Chancellor was saying he had abolished boom and 

bust—the youth unemployment rate had gone up compared 

with 1997. It was higher than it had been when the 

Labour Government took office. As my right hon. 

Friend the Secretary of State rightly said from a sedentary 

position a few moments ago, that was despite the billions 

of pounds spent on the new deal. In total, £3.8 billion 

was spent on new deal programmes to get more people 

into work, yet in the end youth unemployment had 

increased. 

Mr Byrne: Will the Minister explain why his colleague 

Lord Freud described the progress that we made in 

tackling youth unemployment, long-term unemployment 

and unemployment in the round as “remarkable”? Was 

he deluded, or was he right?


986 

Chris Grayling: Well, we are still waiting for an apology 

from the right hon. Gentleman for his Government’s 

record. If he wants to quote colleagues, let me quote 

one of his, the right hon. Member for Birkenhead 

(Mr Field)—sadly no longer in his place—who is one of 

the wisest figures in the House. When the statistics were 

produced in the latter part of the past decade, he said of 

youth unemployment: 

“We made huge gains at the expense of the Tories in 1997… 

and now we are not just back to where we started, but in a worse 

position.” 

That is not from someone on the Government side of 

the House, but from one of the shadow Minister’s right 

hon. Friends. That was not the half of it, because after 

that things got worse. More money was spent on more 

programmes to get more people into work, but youth 

unemployment continued to go up and up. If he wants 

to intervene, perhaps he can explain why that was. 

Mr Byrne: I am grateful to the Minister for his kind 

invitation. Will he accept that between 1997 and the 

beginning of the global financial crisis, the claimant 

count for youth unemployment fell by 14%? To return 

to my previous question, why did Lord Freud, the 

Minister responsible for welfare reform and his colleague 

in the Department, describe our progress as “remarkable”? 

Was he deluded? 

Chris Grayling: I think that the right hon. Gentleman 

should listen to his right hon. Friend the Member for 

Birkenhead, who said that in 2006 that youth unemployment 

was worse than when Labour took power, and it carried 

on getting worse after that. By the time of last year’s 

general election, youth unemployment was still 270,000 

higher than it had been in 1997, and still they remained 

in denial—they remain in denial to this day. The greatest 

brass neck of all was that two months ago the previous 

Prime Minister had the effrontery to claim: 

“Tragically Britain is entering yet another decade of youth 

unemployment.” 

Just what does the Labour party think had been happening 

for the past 10 years when it was in government? 

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman also does not 

remember that during the last disastrous years of the 

Labour Government he was Chief Secretary to the 

Treasury. For those who do not know, that is the person 

in Government responsible for keeping spending under 

control. It was not we who built up the biggest peacetime 

deficit this country has ever known, but him. What did 

he do to stop his Prime Minister promising to spend 

money he did not have and making promises to the 

unemployed that he could not keep? Of course, there 

was the notorious letter to his successor: 

“Dear Chief Secretary, I’m afraid to tell you there is no money. 

Kind regards and good luck!” 

What characterised the period that he and his colleagues 

have so conveniently forgotten is that the Labour party 

spent more and more money and made less and less 

difference. It is no wonder amnesia has set in. 

Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab): Will 

the Minister explain why the Conservative party committed 

itself to the previous Government’s spending plans 

when in opposition? 

Chris Grayling: We are taking decisions in the interests 

of the country. When I look back to 2005 and 2006, we 

always knew that Labour was making a mess of things, 

but we never imagined that they could do it quite so 

spectacularly. 

Toby Perkins: If you realised that they were making 

such a mess of things, why did you agree to follow those 

plans? Is it not the right hon. Gentleman who has the 

amnesia? 

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle): Order. Members 

should not be using “you”—I have no responsibility for 

this and am certainly not guilty for the unemployment 

figures. 

Chris Grayling: We spent years warning the Labour 

Government that their spending was getting out of 

control and that they were mismanaging our economy, 

and now we see the consequences of what they did. 

What are we to do about the mess they created? Let us 

start by debunking some of the myths that they are 

peddling. To listen to them, one might think that it was 

all the fault of the coalition. Only last night the shadow 

Secretary of State stated in a press release: 

“Labour’s legacy was falling youth unemployment and a pioneering 

programme to get 200,000 young people back to work. The Tories 

scrapped that programme and now youth unemployment has 

escalated to a record high.” 

What a load of complete tosh. 

The programme to which the shadow Secretary of State 

referred is the future jobs fund. Listening to him, one 

would think that we had scrapped that programme last 

May, but as we sit here today, young people are still 

being referred to placements through the future jobs 

fund. Although Labour’s attempts to support the 

unemployed had largely proved to be expensive failures, 

we decided early on that we would not remove them 

until our alternatives were in place. If the right hon. 

Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill is right and things 

are getting worse, even though all the programmes we 

inherited from his Government are still running, what 

on earth does that say about the quality of provision he 

put in place? 

Mr Byrne: It says that this Government have put the 

recovery in the slow lane. That is why the figures we saw 

this morning show that private sector employment is 

dead flat and public sector employment is falling. It is 

clear that the Government now need a plan B for the 

economy. It must start with a proper tax on bankers and 

the Government must use the money to do something 

to get young people back to work. 

Chris Grayling: I just do not think the right hon. 

Gentleman is listening to what I am saying. We have left 

in place the support programmes that his Government 

left to support young unemployed people, and as of 

today they are all still there. As he keeps pointing out, 

youth unemployment has risen, so what does that say 

about the quality of provision he left behind? It says 

that it was not much good. 

Mr Byrne: If the Minister was so dead against it, why 

is the right hon. Gentleman leaving it in place until the 

end of March? Since the Government took over, youth 

unemployment has started to rise, even though the


988 

economy has now been in recovery for five quarters. We 

were bringing youth unemployment down at a time of 

economic difficulty; since things have got easier, youth 

unemployment has gone up. How on earth did the right 

hon. Gentleman achieve that? 

Chris Grayling: What we know is that the programmes 

the right hon. Gentleman left behind were not fit for 

purpose. 

Mr Byrne: Well, why did you keep them? 

Chris Grayling: I happen to think that youth 

unemployment is a significant issue and would rather 

retain for a few months a programme that is 

underperforming while we prepare something better 

than do nothing at all. The right hon. Gentleman seems 

to think that we are doing nothing at all, but the truth is 

that we are doing just the opposite. It was his party that 

did nothing at all for a long period of time. 

Let us deal with the argument about the future jobs 

fund once and for all. It costs around £6,500 per start—net 

of benefit savings, just under £6,000. That is far more 

expensive that Labour’s other programme for young 

people, the new deal for young people, which costs 

around £3,500 per job, and several times more expensive 

than other elements of the young person’s guarantee. It 

is twice as expensive as an apprenticeship, which I 

happen to think is of much greater value. Even when we 

net off all benefit savings, the future jobs fund is still 

much more expensive than any other option that the 

previous Administration put in place, and it did not 

work. 

Colleagues may disagree, but to me a future job is one 

that lasts and on which a young person can build a 

career and sustain an opportunity for a lifetime. The 

future jobs fund did, and does, create temporary short-term 

placements, mostly through the public sector, where 

young people did not end up getting the kind of sustained 

work experience and training leading to a long-term 

career. The grants that funded the future jobs fund 

included no incentives whatever to move people into 

permanent jobs. 

Mr Lammy: The Minister mentioned apprenticeships, 

and of course the whole House will know that there is 

an ambitious target to deliver 50,000 apprenticeships 

over the next year. We are now eight months in, so can 

he tell us how many new apprenticeships have been 

delivered? 

Chris Grayling: The latest information I have received 

from my colleagues in the Department for Business, 

Innovation and Skills, who are responsible for this, is 

that apprenticeship vacancies are currently over-subscribed 

by both employers and employees. We are making good 

progress towards delivering on that target and will 

obviously publish full figures in due course. I am confident 

that we are making inroads in the apprenticeship market 

and creating opportunities for young people that will 

last a lifetime, not just six months. 

Pete Wishart: Will the right hon. Gentleman please 

take no lessons from the Labour party on apprenticeships? 

Some 25,000 were offered in the Scottish budget last 

week, but Labour, for some reason, voted against it. 

The Conservatives supported it, so does he know of any 

reason whatever why Labour cannot support an increase 

in apprenticeships in Scotland? 

Chris Grayling: It makes no sense at all. 

I have a theory. The hon. Gentleman and I agree that 

apprenticeships are by far the best way of delivering 

long-term, sustained career opportunities for young 

people, but the future jobs fund was introduced a few 

months before the general election, and it was designed 

to move a large number of young people into temporary 

placements. He will form his own judgments as to what 

might have motivated that decision. 

The reality is that, in early tracking—and I accept it 

is early tracking—of outcomes from the future jobs 

fund, the very first data showed that a substantial 

proportion, about 50%, of people who had been on the 

scheme were already back on benefits seven months 

after they started; and that did not take into account 

the fact that in many areas local authorities had extended 

future jobs fund placements by two or three extra 

months. In April, we will get a sense of the scheme’s real 

impact, but the first evidence suggests to me that it has 

not proved to be any more effective than previous new 

deals or other similar schemes that cost much less 

money. 

Pamela Nash (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab): On that 

point, do the Government honestly believe that for 

50% of young people to be in work a full month after 

their future jobs fund placements— 


Pensions (Steve Webb): That’s not what he said. 

Pamela Nash: My point comes from the same statistics. 

Do the Government honestly believe that 50% of young 

people being in full-time work a month later is a failure? 

In our opinion, it is a great success for the fund. 

Chris Grayling: If that were the case. In reality, we 

know that a number of placements continued for seven, 

eight or nine months after being funded by local money, 

so the first indications are that the final outcome of the 

future jobs fund will be no better than other employment 

programmes, but involve a much higher price. 

Mr Byrne: The Minister is helpfully rehearsing a 

series of his uncertainties about the effectiveness of the 

future jobs fund. Why will he not therefore back the 

part of our motion which says that a proper evaluation 

is needed before a further decision can be taken on what 

is put in place in the future? 

Chris Grayling: I fully accept that there is a difference 

between us. The right hon. Gentleman believes that the 

future jobs fund—six-month placements in the public 

and voluntary sectors—is the right approach. I happen 

to believe that apprenticeships—two years of training 

and the possibility of a longer-term career at half the 

price—is a better one. I am fully prepared to accept that 

that is a difference between us, but in reality our 

approach—tens of thousands of extra apprenticeships, 

which the Scottish Administration have also chosen 

but, I am surprised to discover, the Labour party opposes 

in Scotland—is a better route to follow.


990 

Albert Owen: I, too, have supported apprenticeships 

over the past decade, and they have been a great success, 

but companies in my constituency, and one in particular, 

say to me that they cannot take on apprentices because 

they are faced with a consumption tax rise of 2.5 percentage 

points in VAT. Is that not one reason why businesses are 

not taking on apprentices? Indeed, the Minister is unable 

to tell us how many additional apprenticeships there 

have been in the past eight months. 

Chris Grayling: Does the hon. Gentleman honestly 

think that businesses in his constituency would have 

been better off with a 1 percentage point jobs tax rise, as 

the previous Administration planned? That would have 

caused more of an increase in unemployment than 

anything else the Government could have done. 

The right hon. Member made one point, however, 

which is absolutely right and with which we absolutely 

agree. Youth unemployment is a major problem for our 

society and one that absolutely must be tackled. The 

failure to tackle youth unemployment with schemes 

that work contributes so much to many other issues that 

we have to deal with on streets and in neighbourhoods 

throughout the country. 

Endemic worklessness is underpinned by an ever 

more complex benefits system that traps people in 

unemployment. Inter-generational poverty is fuelled by 

welfare dependency, involving generation after generation 

of people who have not worked. There is a lack of 

aspiration, especially among young people who lack 

role models in a country where almost 2 million children 

are growing up in workless households. Worst of all, the 

young people who escape welfare dependency and poverty 

will still carry the economic scars of unemployment for 

years afterwards, in terms of lower wages and future 

employment gaps. That is the harsh reality of Labour’s 

legacy for our young people. 

Dame Anne Begg: I worry about the either/or in the 

Minister’s equation. He says that the answer is either 

apprenticeships or the future jobs fund, but it should be 

both, because the young people who go into apprenticeships 

are not the same cohort who suffer the inter-generational 

worklessness to which he refers. They need extra support, 

and that is where the future jobs fund has been very, 

very effective. 

Chris Grayling: I accept the principle but do not agree 

with the detail of what the hon. Lady says. I shall come 

on to discuss the Work programme and how I aim to 

use it to deal with the problem that she rightly highlights. 

Opposition Members should remember that over the 

years they made lots of promises about apprenticeships 

but consistently under-performed on them. Our job is 

to make sure we do not do that. 

Mr Byrne: The right hon. Gentleman surely accepts 

that the number of apprenticeships increased from about 

63,000 in 1997 to more than 250,000 by the time we left 

office. Surely that is a record of success in backing 

apprenticeships, and I am glad that it is a point of 

consensus on both sides of the House. 

Chris Grayling: I remember the right hon. Gentleman’s 

former boss standing in this House and promising 

about 400,000 apprenticeships. When Labour left office, 

the actual figure was 240,000, so I shall take no lessons 

from the Opposition about delivering promises on 

apprenticeships. We plan to deliver, and are already well 

on the way to delivering, 50,000 extra apprenticeships 

this year, 75,000 extra by the end of this Parliament and 

more apprenticeships for young people between 16 and 

18 years old. Those apprenticeships will cost about half 

that of each future jobs fund placement, but they will 

deliver the skills that last a young person a lifetime, and 

the opportunity to progress on to a secure career path. 

Alison McGovern: I thank the Minister for giving 

way, because this is a truly important point. When I 

have asked parliamentary questions about targets for 

the number of apprenticeships, the Government have 

told me that they no longer set such targets, so will the 

Minister make clear the status of the pledge that he has 

just made? 

Chris Grayling: We fund a certain number of 

apprenticeships, and there are 50,000 extra this year. 

They are being filled at the moment, as we speak. We 

will fund 50,000 extra apprenticeships this year and 

75,000 extra throughout the course of the comprehensive 

spending review. A few days ago BIS set out a clear goal 

to increase the number of apprenticeships in this country 

to 350,000. We have been in office for nine months; the 

Labour party was in office for 13 years, and it consistently 

under-delivered on apprenticeships throughout those 

13 years. 

Mr Lammy: The Minister has been extraordinarily 

generous in giving way, and I am very grateful, but he 

has not been able to tell the House how many 

apprenticeships he has delivered in the past nine months. 

I set up the graduate talent pool, which involved internships 

for graduates. Alongside the internships that were offered 

at the Conservative party event recently, how many 

internships have been delivered for our graduates in the 

past nine months? 

Chris Grayling: Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman 

what we are doing to get young people into the workplace 

for the first time. 

One of the first things I received on entering government 

was an e-mail from the mother of a young woman who 

had arranged a month’s work experience for herself but 

been told by Jobcentre Plus that she could not do it, 

because the rules, which the previous Administration 

put in place, prevented her from doing so. We have 

therefore changed things. 

We now encourage work experience. Through Jobcentre 

Plus, we will actively find work experience for young 

people, without their losing their benefits, and give 

them the opportunity to solve the age-old problem 

whereby, if someone cannot get the experience, they do 

not get the job, but, if they do not get the job, they 

cannot get the experience. 

We have also strengthened volunteering opportunities 

for young people, and we will have Prince’s Trust 

representation in every job centre, so that we can steer 

young people towards voluntary work and take advantages 

of the trust’s skills to help unemployed young people. 

Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con): Is my 

right hon. Friend as incredulous as I am at the Opposition’s 

faux outrage? They are members of the party that, 

during 13 years of government, imported low-wage,


992 

low-skilled people from eastern Europe—more than 1 

million of them—and pushed thousands of young people 

into welfare dependency and on to the dole. They 

should be ashamed of themselves. 

Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. 

There is collective amnesia among those on the Labour 

Benches. One of the things they have also conveniently 

forgotten, which was revealed by one of their number, 

the right hon. Member for Birkenhead, is that over the 

course of those years nearly 4 million new jobs were 

created in this country, the vast majority of which went 

to people coming to the UK from overseas. The Labour 

Government completely failed to make a serious inroad 

into the nearly 5 million people on benefits, or to get 

British people into what was once described as the goal 

of the previous Prime Minister—British jobs for British 

workers. 

Mr Lammy: Will the Minister give way? 

Chris Grayling: No, I have given way enough, and I 

am going to make progress. [Interruption.] When Labour 

Members have some useful contributions to make, I 

might give way again. 

We now need to talk about what we are going to do 

about this. The Work programme, which we will introduce 

this summer, will, I hope, go a significant way towards 

dealing some of the problems to which the hon. Member 

for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg) referred. We 

have huge challenges in the labour market, with young 

people who face huge difficulties in their backgrounds. 

For them, the Work programme will deliver specialist 

intervention after just three months in the dole queue— 

much earlier than it has ever been done before. It will be 

a revolution in back-to-work support in Britain. It will 

provide a level of personalised support that we have not 

seen before, because in order to survive in a payment-byresults 

regime, the providers will need to cater for the 

individual. It is the kind of revolution we have needed 

for years—the kind that was promised in Labour rhetoric 

but never delivered. 

Mr Byrne rose— 

Chris Grayling: I will give way once more, and then I 

am going to wrap up. 

Mr Byrne: It is curious that the Minister’s colleague 

Lord Freud noted in his report: 

“The New Deals have been enormously successful”. 

He also said: 

“The creation of Jobcentre Plus…is…seen as…a model for 

effective public service delivery.” 

He further commented: 

“The Government has made strong, and in some respects 

remarkable, progress over the last ten years.” 

I hope that those are lessons on which the Minister can 

draw. 

There has been some dispute about the numbers that 

the BBC published. Will the Minister now set out for 

the House his assumptions for this year, next year and 

the year after about how many people will flow through 

the Work programme? If he is disputing the figures, let 

us hear it from him—what are they? 

Chris Grayling: We published those figures in December. 

I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman read the invitation 

to tender for the Work programme. I will tell him, 

however, that the number of people who went through 

contracted programmes in the last year of the Labour 

Government was well under 600,000, and that next 

year’s projections for the Work programme are over 

600,000. As for my noble Friend Lord Freud, if he 

thought that the Labour Government were doing so 

well, why does the right hon. Gentleman think that he 

joined us? 

The Opposition were in government for 13 years, 

during which they systematically delivered for this country 

a higher level of youth unemployment than they inherited. 

They spent almost £4 billion on new deal programmes, 

much of it aimed at getting young people into work. 

Even while all that money was being spent, we saw 

youth unemployment grow between 2005 and early 

2007 and rise steadily in the run-up to the recession. 

Back in 2008, the OECD published a report raising 

concerns about what the British Government were doing 

and stating that only in Britain was youth unemployment 

rising, while everywhere else it was falling. 

So let us have no more accusations from Labour 

Members about the coalition’s record. We have been in 

office for nine months. We inherited from them 600,000 

young people who left school, college or university and 

have never worked. We are moving ahead with plans 

that will make a real difference to those young people— 

through the Work programme, through apprenticeships, 

and through the schemes we are introducing at Jobcentre 

Plus level to help them into employment. 

Joan Ruddock: Will the Minister give way? 

Chris Grayling: No, I am going to wind up now. 

The Opposition were in government for 13 years, and 

they failed abjectly. They spent billions; they delivered 

nothing at all. They left youth unemployment as a 

national challenge and a national disgrace—part of a 

legacy of chaos and failure from a Labour Government 

who ran out of money and ran out of ideas. It is time 

that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge 

Hill and other Labour Members recognised the damage 

that they did to this country, and time they realised that 

it will be a long, long time before the people of this 

country even start to consider the possibility that they 

might ever be fit to govern again. 

Several hon. Members rose— 

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle): Order. Before 

I bring other Members in, let me just say that the Front 

Benchers have taken up quite a lot of time because of 

interventions. We now have an eight-minute limit on 

speeches. Not all Members have to take all eight minutes, 

and fewer interventions will mean that I can get more 

people in. I call Mr Chris Ruane. 

2.24 pm 

Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab): Thank you, 

Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me so early in the 

debate. 

In 2002, the unemployment statistics for my county 

of Denbighshire showed that out of its 34 wards, 50% of 

the unemployment was in two wards alone—Rhyl West 

and Rhyl South West. Rhyl South West contained the


994 

[Chris Ruane] 

council estate where I grew up and lived for 26 years. 

Many of those unemployed people were related to me. 

Over the past nine years, it has been a personal crusade 

of mine to do something about that. In 2002, I established 

an unemployment working group, with people from the 

college, the Department for Work and Pensions, Jobcentre 

Plus, the police, economic regeneration bodies and the 

Welsh Assembly Government getting together around 

the table to create jobs for people, including young 

people, in my constituency. 

In 2007, the DWP agreed that Rhyl could be one of 

15 city strategy pilots for the whole of the UK. Although 

it is not a city but a town of only 27,000 people, Rhyl 

was included mainly as a pilot scheme for 52 seaside 

towns in the UK. Since then, we have made great strides 

in putting young people back to work in my constituency. 

The leader of the people who have administered the 

future jobs fund for the Rhyl city strategy is Ali Thomas, 

a dedicated professional in getting young people back 

to work. This is what she said about the Government’s 

decision to abolish the future jobs fund: 

“The subsidy enabled employers to consider taking on long 

term unemployed people, many with multiple problems. They 

were able to do this because of the subsidy. The employers were 

taking a risk with these young people but the subsidy made the 

risk worthwhile.” 

She went on to say: 

“It wasn’t a one way street. Employers gained well motivated 

young workers. Nearly 60% of those that completed the placement 

scheme went on to gain long term employment with the employer.” 

Apart from those 60%, a further 10% to 20% went on 

into full-time education at the fantastic Rhyl college, 

built by the Labour Government—the first college we 

have ever had, and a £10 million investment. A 70% to 

80% placement rate in full-time education or full-time 

employment is not bad by anyone’s standards. 

I ask the Minister, who is chatting away down there, 

what targets he is setting for his new Work scheme: 50%, 

60%, 70% or 80%. I hope that he will intervene and tell 

me. He did not know the figures on the number of 

apprenticeships or internships but can he tell me his 

target for full-time employment placements of young 

people on the schemes that he is going to put in place? 

Chris Grayling: The Deputy Speaker does not want 

extended interventions, so I simply refer the hon. Gentleman 

to the invitation to tender for the Work programme, 

which will give him some of the details he wants. 

Chris Ruane: The Minister does not know. 

From my perspective as a constituency MP, and from 

that of young people affected in my constituency, the 

decision to end the future jobs fund is nothing short of 

political spite. The Work and Pensions Committee report 

said that the DWP 

“should conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the effectiveness 

of the Future Jobs Fund and publish the results.” 

This obviously should have been done before the closure 

of the FJF. That is common sense, but it was not done. 

Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab): Will my 

hon. Friend give way? 

Chris Ruane: No—I am afraid that I might get my 

head bitten off. 

Why did the coalition Government not take evidence? 

They could have come to my constituency and consulted 

Ali Thomas and the young people taking part in these 

schemes, who were gaining confidence, experience, 

camaraderie and esprit de corps in their groups of 10 to 

15, and feeling pride and joy in being able to plan their 

first holiday, take their first driving lesson, or gain a 

certificate from the local college, and in having meaningful 

work with a meaningful pay packet at the end of the 

week. I will be sending the Minister, who is still not 

listening, a DVD made by those young people about 

their job placements. I hope that he will look at it and 

get back to me. 

When I stared those young people in the eye at the 

presentations, they were full of pride and joy at their 

achievements—achievements that will be dashed by the 

Conservative party. One of the main attractions to the 

young people in the scheme was that it was a proper job 

with a proper rate of pay. They could be sacked if they 

did not turn up or if they were not motivated enough, 

and they had to be punctual. Their reward was the 

potential for a job at the end of the six-month placement. 

Shorter, cheaper, unsubsidised placements will not 

have the same take-up or buy-in among young people. 

Such schemes that were introduced by the Conservatives 

in the past were pilloried and laughed at by the young 

people who attended them. YTS was called “young, 

thick and stupid” by young people. They want no part 

in such schemes. They want quality schemes like those 

introduced by the previous Government and abolished 

by this Government. 

The future jobs fund has the respect of the young 

people who have participated, the employers who have 

taken them on and the people who have administered it. 

The main reason given for its abolition was the cost. 

The Government deemed £6,500 too much to pay to 

turn around a young life. I ask Government Members 

who send their children to private schools how much 

they pay a year to turn their children’s lives around. 

There is one rule for the rich and another for the poor. 

Michael Dugher (Barnsley East) (Lab): Thirty grand 

for Eton. 

Chris Ruane: I am informed by my hon. Friend that it 

is £30,000 for Eton. Under the scheme, its cost £6,500 to 

turn around a young life. But no, that is too much. 

There are a million young people—and the number is 

rising—on the dole. What will be the cost if they fall 

into a life of crime? If that positive path is denied them, 

they might turn down a negative path. It costs £50,000 a 

year to keep a person incarcerated. That is money down 

the drain. 

Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con): Will the hon. Gentleman 

give way? 

Chris Ruane: No, I would get told off. I am sorry, 

Mr Deputy Speaker, but I feel that I would. 

My local future jobs fund is administered by Rhyl 

city strategy and is one of the most effective in the 

country. It had a monthly target to put 320 people back 

to work. It was bang on every month. It was so effective 

that it had to hunt for another 100 young people to put


996 

back to work, which it got through the WCVA. That 

effective partnership has been snuffed out by the 

Conservative party. A key part of the success of the 

FJF in my constituency was that the funding was delivered 

to a local partnership. That minimised bureaucracy and 

red tape, which the Conservative party is always banging 

on about—there was no red tape or bureaucracy in the 

FJF in Rhyl. That was welcomed by the employer. 

Shorter-term, unsubsidised schemes will not work. 

They did not work in the past, and they will not work in 

the future. 

2.33 pm 

Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con): I am sure that 

every Member of this House believes it is a tragedy that 

so many of our young people are not in work, education 

or training. Nearly two-thirds of unemployed 18 to 

24-year-olds have not done any kind of work since 

leaving school or college. That trend has accelerated 

over a number of years; not just over the eight months 

of this Government, as the motion states. 

The motion is right about the need for urgent action 

to tackle long-term joblessness among our young people. 

However, the future jobs fund is not the answer, as the 

Minister has explained. It has been expensive and ineffective. 

What we need is support that delivers real skills and 

jobs, and that adds to the employability of young 

people. With that in mind, I endorse the Government’s 

commitment to investing further in apprenticeships. I 

believe that the Work programme will provide personalised 

help based on individual needs, through working with 

private and voluntary providers. Ultimately, we need 

more engagement with employers to equip young people 

with the skills that will enable them to find work. 

So far, this debate has centred on what we do to help 

young people when they become unemployed. I would 

like to talk about initiatives in my constituency that are 

intended to prevent young people from becoming 

unemployed. That means investing in skills training for 

young people while they are of school age. In areas such 

as mine, where comparatively few young people go on 

to university, such initiatives are extremely important if 

we are to get the proportion of people not in employment, 

training or work down further. 

The first initiative is run by one of the new academies 

in my constituency, the Gateway academy in Tilbury, 

which has gone out of its way to develop a strong focus 

on employment options and to offer advice to its pupils. 

It has developed a curriculum that is tailored to the 

needs of its pupils and to the job opportunities in the 

area. In addition, it has established a project called 

Gateway Connect, which uses a redundant industrial 

workshop as a strong vocational learning facility to 

offer pupils work-based training and vocational 

qualifications. Through that project, 18 pupils have 

been able to pursue vocational training and only two 

are not in employment, education or training now that 

they have left. That shows the impact of such strong 

work-based projects. With that focus, the proportion of 

pupils who become NEETs on leaving the school has 

fallen from 18% in 2008 to a mere 4% in 2010. That 

makes the case for tackling this problem in schools, 

rather than waiting until young people are on the dole. 

There are other projects in Thurrock that are not 

based on the school curriculum. In a week in which we 

have considered the big society, I would like to share 

with the House some examples of imaginative and 

proactive partnership working that I have witnessed on 

the ground in Thurrock to give young people more 

skills. Thurrock trade school offers evening classes to 

children aged 14 to 16 who want to learn a trade. It 

offers courses in carpentry, bricklaying, plumbing and 

electrics. Young people attend two-hour classes over 

12 weeks. The courses are sponsored by Morrison, a 

local building contractor, which provides tools and 

mentoring to guide young people towards the opportunities 

that might be open to them through pursuing the training. 

Morrison has also engaged as apprentices people who 

have been through the courses. 

The background to Morrison’s involvement is that it 

was awarded the housing maintenance contract by Thurrock 

council. As part of that contract, the council asked it to 

invest in such training. That is a brilliant illustration of 

how imagination can be used to make use of commercial 

partnerships to deliver outcomes for the benefit of the 

entire society. That is the kind of thinking we want to 

encourage as we build the big society. The example of 

Thurrock trade school also illustrates the value of working 

with employers, because they will invest in the skills that 

they need. We all benefit from such involvement. 

Finally, we need to open the eyes of young people to 

the opportunities that work-based training can bring. 

With that in mind, I commend another initiative to the 

House: Thurrock’s Next Top Boss awards. Next Top 

Boss is another partnership scheme that is run by 

Thurrock council, the Thurrock development corporation 

and a large number of private employers such as Procter 

& Gamble, Carpetright and other big employers that 

operate in Thurrock. The competition is open to 17 to 

19-year-olds. The objective for the employers is to help 

equip teenagers with the skills, confidence and contacts 

they need to enter the world of work. Competitors are 

invited to take part in events in which they can show all 

their skills, such as working with a team and responding 

to projects. The employers that participate can show the 

vast assortment of careers that are available in their 

organisations. The incentive for the young people is that 

they compete for prizes, including gift vouchers, work 

placements and even jobs. It is, dare I say it, “The 

Apprentice”, Thurrock-style. Central to its success is 

the involvement of local employers that are attracted to 

the opportunity to identify future apprentices for their 

workplace and to showcase the opportunities that they offer. 

I do not mourn the passing of the future jobs fund. I 

look forward to the Government’s reforms delivering 

improvements in the opportunities available to young 

people. I hope that Thurrock’s big society examples will 

inspire other employers, councils, schools and voluntary 

organisations, as they consider how they can contribute 

to tackling joblessness among our young people. 

2.40 pm 

Michael Dugher (Barnsley East) (Lab): I am proud to 

say that the future jobs fund was inspired by the review 

by the excellent leader of Barnsley council, Steve Houghton. 

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, 

Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) for his warm and fitting tribute 

to Steve Houghton earlier in the debate. Barnsley was 

one of the first councils to implement the scheme, 

which has made an important difference to many, not 

only in my constituency but across the country. Since its


998 

[Michael Dugher] 

inception in 2009, the future jobs fund has given young 

people and the long-term unemployed valuable 

opportunities by creating real work, with real experience 

and real job prospects. In Barnsley, a third of those on 

the programme have already gone into jobs. It is hoped 

that 200 people will be in employment before the funding 

regrettably expires in March. 

The Government’s decision to scrap the fund—a 

scheme that would have created up to 200,000 jobs for 

young people up and down the country—is sadly just 

another example of how they are letting young people 

down. Ending the future jobs fund was one of the 

Government’s early decisions. Since then, the education 

maintenance allowance has gone, tuition fees have been 

trebled, we are seeing cuts to Sure Start and the school 

building programme is being cut across the country. 

Tackling youth unemployment has been a challenge for 

all Governments, but thanks to initiatives such as the 

future jobs fund, youth unemployment fell by nearly 

25,000 between February and April 2010. 

Since this Government were elected, there has been a 

massive jump in youth unemployment. Figures out 

today show that it has risen to a record high, with more 

than one in five 16 to 24-year-olds now out of work—a 

rise of 66,000 people to nearly 1 million. In my constituency, 

nearly 14% of the population are aged between 18 and 

24, yet that age group accounts for 35% of people 

claiming jobseeker’s allowance. We are facing a youth 

unemployment crisis in this country the scale of which 

we have not seen since the 1980s. If the Government do 

not act, this will not only damage our young people’s 

employment prospects, but affect them for the rest of 

their lives. It is well documented that early spells of 

unemployment for an individual, result in reduced 

employment prospects and lower earnings over their 

lifetime. Today, for every 100,000 people that this 

Government put out of work, £500 million is added to 

the cost of paying jobseeker’s allowance, so theirs is not 

even a strategy for reducing the deficit. 

The fundamental flaw in the Government’s Work 

programme is that there is simply not enough work. 

They fail to understand that in parts of the country 

there are still unemployment blackspots. Focusing on 

job output may be fine in some parts of the country, 

where the economy may be expanding, but it will not 

work in more deprived areas such as Barnsley, where 

there are still serious structural problems in the local 

economy and where simply not enough jobs are available. 

In my constituency, there are currently just over 

190 Jobcentre Plus vacancies for more than 2,500 people 

claiming jobseeker’s allowance. That amounts to 

14 claimants for every job vacancy. However, this 

Government’s approach is solely about getting people 

into existing jobs. There is no policy for either job 

creation or the growth that would create those jobs, 

particularly in the weaker economies. 

The Government have to think again, as our motion 

says. There is an overwhelming need for a job creation 

programme targeted particularly on those areas with 

the highest unemployment. The main criticism of the 

future jobs fund is that not enough jobs were created in 

the private sector. We all want to see more jobs in the 

private sector, and in my constituency we will have 

2,000 more jobs. 

Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab): Does my hon. Friend 

agree that, right in the middle of a recession, the whole 

point was for the public sector to provide some of those 

jobs—in construction, for example—to keep people’s 

skills up, ready for when the private sector picked up? 

Michael Dugher: My hon. Friend is exactly right. 

Those 2,000 private sector jobs in my constituency 

are coming from ASOS, the online fashion company—I 

do not see too many takers in the Chamber for its 

clothes, but we live in hope—but those jobs did not 

happen by accident. The reason 2,000 jobs are coming 

to my constituency is that when Labour was in government, 

we built the facilities that will house those jobs. We built 

the road that attracted the company in the first place. 

The public sector plays a big part in supporting private 

sector jobs. 

Sajid Javid: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? 

Michael Dugher: No; I want to make some progress. 

We want to see more private sector jobs, but the 

Government need to move away from the mentality that 

says that public sector jobs are not, as the hon. Member 

for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) said, “real” jobs. In 

many parts of the country, the choice is not between a 

public sector job and a private sector job; it is between a 

job and no job. The criticism that too many of the jobs 

were in the public sector—a criticism that I share—is 

not a reason to scrap the scheme, but a reason to 

strengthen it. It is an argument to expand it to include 

more private sector businesses in those unemployment 

blackspots and to invest in industry. 

The positive benefits of employment cannot be 

overstated. Most people cite a lack of confidence and 

skills as the reason for not finding work. Having a job is 

good for people’s well-being and their physical and 

mental health. It provides them with an opportunity to 

prove themselves, giving them an identity, confidence 

and self-worth—the pride that comes from having money 

in their pocket and the dignity of knowing that they 

have just earned it. Everyone knows that it is also easier 

to get a job for those who already have one. 

We saw the impact of previous Conservative 

Governments in areas such as the one that I am proud 

to represent—a whole generation of young people growing 

up with little or no hope of getting a job. It is clear that 

this Government have not learnt from those mistakes, 

and are once again letting young people down. There is 

a growing consensus that the Government need a plan 

B to get the economy right—growth has stalled—but it 

is equally obvious that they need a plan A to deal with 

unemployment and, in particular, the lack of opportunities 

for young people in my constituency and throughout 

the rest of the country. 

2.47 pm 

Jenny Willott (Cardiff Central) (LD): It is worrying 

how many young people are unemployed at the moment. 

We can bandy figures around all day, but the figure that 

sticks with me is that one in five young people between 

16 and 24 are out of work. That is a worrying—indeed, 

horrifying—statistic, and is a tragedy for every one of 

them, and for their families and the communities around 

them too. However, when we look more deeply it becomes


1000 

clear that this situation is, in part, the Labour legacy, as 

has been mentioned over and over today. The number 

of people who have been unemployed for more than 

12 months has increased. This Government have not yet 

been in power for more than 12 months, so we are 

clearly dealing with a legacy left by the last Labour 

Government. As a result of Labour messing up the 

economy, the Government are having to deal with a 

serious financial mess and the unemployment that goes 

alongside that. 

People have talked about complacency about the 

youth unemployment figures. I have not seen complacency 

on either side of the House today—clearly people are 

seriously concerned—but if Labour Members were that 

concerned they could have done significantly more when 

they were in office, rather than leaving a lot of young 

people on the shelf. Labour could have done more in 

power to ensure that people had the opportunities that 

they needed. 

Mr Lammy: Will the hon. Lady give way? 

Jenny Willott: I will not give way. Everyone will have 

the chance to speak later if they wish. 

As has been mentioned, unemployment among young 

people has gradually increased since 2002, and that was 

during the good times, so clearly in the bad times it will 

not be easy to get people back into work. It is now even 

harder for the new Government to get them into work, 

as they have already been out of work for longer, and 

we know that the longer people have been out of work 

and the further they are from the jobs market, the more 

effort, money and time it takes to get them back into 

work. However, the problem is that the future jobs fund 

was not working. It was created to ease youth 

unemployment and make the figures look better; it was 

not established to create long-term sustainable jobs. 

Opposition Members have mentioned that many times, 

but it is not that public sector jobs are not real jobs—of 

course they are—but rather, that the jobs created for the 

future jobs fund were not real jobs. They were short-term, 

six-month placements created for the purpose of the 

fund; they were not jobs that were sustainable in the 

long run. That has been borne out by the initial information 

on what people have done after being placed by the 

future jobs fund. About 50% of people were back on 

working-age benefits after seven months—one month 

after finishing their placement. Of those in a comparable 

group who found work through other programmes or 

found work for themselves, only 35% were back on 

jobseeker’s allowance after seven months. Clearly, the 

future jobs fund has not been working. It is performing 

less well than the other programmes that the previous 

Government put in place. 

Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op): Will 

the hon. Lady give way? 

Jenny Willott: No; I want to ensure that there is time 

for as many people as possible to speak. 

The future jobs fund is not cost-effective. It costs a 

lot, and that money could be better spent. In theory, it 

was aimed at those who were furthest from the jobs 

market, but it seems that a large number of those 

people in placements were graduates. For example, about 

20% of the people taken on by Birmingham city council 

had at least one degree. 

Mr Byrne: Will the hon. Lady give way? 

Jenny Willott: I will not. 

The future jobs fund was clearly not working in the 

way that it was supposed to. As with many of Labour’s 

programmes, the words and the theory were positive 

but the practice was poor. It was not properly designed 

or monitored. It simply was not thought through. It did 

not deliver sustainable employment for young people. 

Instead, we need to create a skilled work force and 

generate jobs for those skilled young people. Apprenticeships 

make people more employable, potentially by the people 

by whom they have been trained, but also by similar 

businesses. CBI evidence shows that 90% of apprentices 

find employment or become self-employed immediately 

after their training ends, which means that apprenticeships 

are clearly far more successful than the future jobs 

fund. 

The group that concern me the most are those who 

are furthest from the jobs market. For many of them, 

apprenticeships are inappropriate. They are a particularly 

vulnerable group, and in the past they have been particularly 

ill-served. We need to ensure that the Work programme 

will work, and that the Government learn the lessons 

from previous programmes to ensure that those vulnerable 

young people are helped back into work. 

I am glad to see that, under the Work programme, 

young people will get help at a much earlier stage than 

they do under the future jobs fund. They will be referred 

to the Work programme when they have been on jobseeker’s 

allowance for nine months, rather than 12 months as 

happens under the FJF. More tailored support will be 

available for those with the most severe disadvantages, 

and they will be referred after three months if they are 

not in employment, education or training. All the evidence 

shows that we need to get in there as early as possible if 

we are to have an impact. Even with all that evidence, 

however, the previous Government did not quite achieve 

their aims, so we really need to ensure that we learn 

those lessons now. 

In addition, under the Work programme, the fees will 

be structured so that providers will get more if they help 

those who are furthest from the jobs market and keep 

them in work for longer. We hope that that will make a 

real difference to that group of people. Again, that is 

something that the previous Government tried to do, 

but they did not go quite far enough. I hope that the 

coalition Government will learn the lessons from that 

and ensure that these measures are implemented. 

Following the demise of the future jobs fund, we all 

want to see much better, tailored support aimed at the 

needs of young people. We cannot afford to damage the 

career prospects of another generation of young people, 

as happened in the 1980s and early ’90s. We have to 

learn the lessons, particularly the ones that the previous 

Government did not learn from the work that they were 

doing. 

The numbers are bad, and the individual stories are 

heart-wrenching. I am sure that we have all had people 

coming to see us in our surgeries who are at their wits’ 

end and absolutely desperate to find work. We need to 

ensure that another generation is not left behind, but 

the Opposition’s proposals in the motion today are 

simply not the way to do it. The future jobs fund has 

not worked so far, and given that the number of young


1002 

[Jenny Willott] 

people unemployed for more than 12 months has been 

increasing, why on earth do they think it will start 

working now? It is time to adopt a new approach, to 

ensure that we do not leave hundreds of thousands of 

young people behind. Instead, we must give them the 

skills and the confidence that they need to build a future 

for themselves and our economy. 

2.54 pm 

Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab): I would like to focus 

on the young people who have lost their jobs. They are 

real people, and I welcome this opportunity to discuss 

on the Floor of the House of Commons the betrayal of 

those young people. They represent the nation’s future, 

but they have been bruised, battered and neglected. 

They are not needed and not worthy—that is the message 

the Government are pushing to those people. 

We have a serious problem, in that those young 

people are in danger of becoming the lost generation. 

Employment is a major social ingredient in anyone’s 

life, and in modern, civilised society. It gives self-esteem 

and confidence. It breeds purpose in individuals. It is a 

rung on life’s ladder, which can often be quite cruel. As 

we debate this issue today, we see an increase of 66,000 

young people who are unemployed. 

The constituency statistics in the information from 

the House of Commons Library show that, in the 

100 worst-affected constituencies, there are 10 applicants 

for every job vacancy. On average, across all constituencies, 

there are five applicants for every job. In my constituency, 

however, 14.3 people apply for every vacancy. Is it any 

wonder that our young people, our future generations, 

feel so let down and demoralised? They feel utterly 

betrayed by the actions of this Government. Is it any 

wonder that they are taking to the streets and demonstrating 

in their tens of thousands in every city against the 

Government’s attack on young people? They are organising 

and giving voice to their views. As politicians, we should 

listen to their call for opportunities, for a chance in life, 

for dignity, for decency and for equality. That should be 

readily recognised by the Government. 

Sajid Javid: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? 

Ian Lavery: No! [Laughter.] Go on, then. I apologise 

for that. 

Sajid Javid: I thank the hon. Gentleman for so graciously 

giving way. There is a lot that hon. Members on different 

sides of the House can disagree on, but will he acknowledge, 

perhaps in a bipartisan spirit, that some of the Government’s 

welfare reforms—for example, the introduction of the 

universal credit, the increase in apprenticeships, and the 

move to ensure that people are better off in work than 

out of work—are a step in the right direction? 

Ian Lavery: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his 

intervention. I believe that we should wait to see the 

details of the universal credit. The devil is often in the 

detail. 

The future jobs fund was abolished within days of the 

election by the Tories. At this stage, I must offer my 

personal view that I do not accept that this is a coalition 

Government. It is a full-blooded, blue-blooded Tory 

Government, propped up by a few desperate Liberal 

Democrats who are prostituting every principle that 

they have ever stood for, and abandoning every young 

person in this country. 

The future jobs fund offered a golden opportunity to 

200,000 people, but those full-time jobs will be wasted. 

They were much needed in communities such as mine. 

The future jobs fund was sowing the seeds of success, 

and it was proving successful to those young people. It 

was giving young people who had never had a job 

before a much-needed break in life. They need and 

deserve an explanation from the Government. They 

need to know why, immediately after taking office, the 

Government abolished a great opportunity, perhaps 

one of the last opportunities that they will be given for a 

long time. 

I am aware of the eight-minute limit on speeches, 

Mr Deputy Speaker, but at this point a triple whammy 

comes to mind: the attack on education maintenance 

allowance, the increase in tuition fees, and the cancellation 

of the future jobs fund. People will not forget, and they 

are asking now why the attack on young people continues 

and where it will end. The number of unemployed 

young people has risen by 66,000, and the Office for 

Budget Responsibility predicts huge further increases in 

the not-too-distant future. Everything in the garden is 

not rosy for our young people or for our future. Every 

100,000 people who are out of work cost the Treasury 

£500 million. We cannot, in any circumstances, return 

to the days of the 1980s, when 26% of people were 

unemployed. 

In my constituency, there are 14.3 applicants for 

every job vacancy. Unemployment in the region stands 

at 9.6%, and 46% of working women in the northern 

region are employed in the public sector. In my constituency, 

the public sector employs 11,000 women—68% of working 

women—and more than 50% of men. How dare any 

Member say in the House that public sector workers 

deserve redundancy before anyone else? We are talking 

about teachers, firemen, policemen, council workers 

and cleaners. How dare anyone suggest that their jobs 

are meaningless because the private sector should rule? 

The attack on public services in my constituency will 

be unbelievably harsh. The creation of 200,000 jobs 

through the future jobs fund would have been immensely 

valuable. Moreover, 10,000 jobs would have been created 

in the north-east in the renewable energy, environmental 

and emerging low-carbon technology sectors, and 15,000 

would have been created in social enterprises. That is 

much-needed employment. The Government’s action in 

abolishing the future jobs fund is an absolute disgrace: 

it was politically motivated and ideologically driven. 

I will not forget 20 October 2010, when the Chancellor 

of the Exchequer announced the loss of 490,000 jobs. I 

shall not forget the triumphant, jubilant cheers from the 

Government Benches. That made me sick to the pit of 

my stomach. The people will not forget, and I will not 

forget. I am pleased to have been able to take part in the 

debate, and I support the motion wholeheartedly. 

3.3 pm 

Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con): It is a pleasure to 

follow the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery). I 

hope that he will understand if I return to some of his 

more outrageous comments a little later. First, let me 

say how pleased I am that we are debating youth


1004 

unemployment: it is a major issue, and it is clear that 

Members on both sides of the House understand the 

need to discuss it. 

Before I came to the House, I derived real pleasure 

from being able to offer someone a job in our company. 

I also understood the absolute nightmare of having to 

make someone unemployed in difficult times. I hope 

that Members on both sides of the House have approached 

the debate with the shared goal of alleviating what are 

very difficult circumstances. I also feel, however, that 

the debate should be put into context. It takes place 

against a background of economic failure, a legacy of 

banks that were not supporting business, a massive 

decline in manufacturing, and an essentially unbalanced 

economy. 

Governments can take a wide range of measures to 

ease the problem of youth unemployment, but in my 

view nothing is more important than enabling the economy 

to grow at a sustainable level so that business can 

expand, create those much-needed jobs and, indeed, 

flourish. That is why difficult measures are being taken: 

vital measures to deal with deficit control, and positive 

fiscal measures to support investment. We are seeing 

changes in employment law, export support for small 

and medium-sized enterprises, and a review of many of 

the welfare schemes and benefits out there to encourage 

people to move from a life of dependence to one of 

independence. 

I am therefore somewhat disappointed by the fact 

that the debate is focusing almost entirely on the future 

jobs fund. It was, I am sure, a project born of good 

intentions, and I admit that there are good stories about 

it from various parts of the country. The fact is, however— 

this brings me back to the hon. Gentleman’s speech—that 

we were creating a large number of temporary jobs, 

predominantly in the public sector, which did not offer 

a sustainable solution to the problem of youth 

unemployment. I hope, indeed I know, that I speak for 

Government Members when I say that any suggestion 

that we were disparaging public sector workers is utterly 

unacceptable. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but 

he has had his say, his say was wrong, and the House 

should not accept it. 

What is wrong, and what we do challenge, is the 

temporary nature of many of those jobs. We intend to 

deliver permanent, sustainable jobs, and I believe that 

most of them will have to be in the private sector. If 

Members are not willing to take my word for it, as I am 

sure some are not, let me tell them what the Confederation 

of British Industry said to the Work and Pensions 

Committee. 

“We are concerned the programme for the most part failed to 

deliver a long-term strategy to tackle youth unemployment. While 

there are undoubtedly some successes within the programme, the 

CBI argued there needs to be better business involvement and a 

greater focus on long-term job sustainability with future programmes. 

The Work Programme is the way to deliver this.” 

I am surprised that the Opposition have not raised 

some of the other measures that we have had to consider 

to help employers take people on. It is beyond question 

that employers who feel restricted by the heavy hand of 

all the employment legislation that has grown up over 

the last decade will think twice not just about employing 

people, but about retaining them. They may feel that 

someone who has worked for the company for nearly a 

year—just before the employment legislation protection 

kicks in—needs more training or help because he is not 

quite up to the job. At that point they will seriously 

consider whether it would be better to lose that employee 

immediately, before the rules kick in and cause difficulties 

in future, than to invest more time in him. That is a 

trade-off governed by excessively burdensome regulation. 

Such a restriction is not acceptable, and I am pleased 

that the Government are loosening it to provide flexibility 

for both employers and employees. [Interruption.] If 

the hon. Member for Preston (Mark Hendrick) wishes 

to intervene, all that he need do is ask, rather than 

chuntering from a sedentary position. I should be more 

than happy to take his intervention; otherwise I shall 

press on. 

There is, I believe, evidence that we will produce more 

long-term sustainable jobs through apprenticeships. What 

evidence is there for this? I witnessed the hunger of 

those who wish to work and the appetite for recruitment 

in the private sector when I held a jobs fair in my 

constituency. It was put together without any cost to the 

state, and we managed to engage with local businesses 

and those who were looking for work, either immediately 

or in the near future. We brought in the voluntary sector 

too, so that those who wished to keep their CVs active 

and engaged could do so. We brought more than 

40 companies together after a two-month period. Hundreds 

of visitors turned up and companies such as Johnson 

Matthey offered apprenticeships. That company is running 

a programme of apprenticeships which is not supported 

by the state but which will offer sustainable, long-term 

jobs to some of those who successfully get through. We 

had people willing to go to work in the voluntary sector, 

such is their appetite to keep their CVs active. I admire 

them and their hunger. Above all, we should note that 

at this jobs fair the jobs fundamentally came from the 

private sector in the local economy, thus keeping local 

jobs for local people. That is the future, which is why I 

believe that the combination of our enterprise economies, 

our welfare reforms and our support for apprenticeships 

will lift us out of this situation and help tackle youth 

unemployment. 

3.11 pm 

Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab): I am 

grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this important 

debate and to speak in favour of the motion, which is 

far from narrow. It goes much further than simply 

criticising the cancellation of the future jobs fund, 

which would have created 200,000 jobs. The motion 

states clearly our belief 

“that the Government’s economic policies have slowed economic 

growth, raised youth unemployment and created the highest 

graduate unemployment for over a decade”. 

It is in that context that we need to have this debate. As 

Members from all parts of the House have said, youth 

unemployment is a significant problem in this country 

at this time. Given the economic figures that we are 

seeing, particularly the most recent growth figures indicating 

that the economy is shrinking and the revised figures 

from the Office for Budget Responsibility showing that 

levels of growth are projected to reduce, it is incredibly 

important to have this debate. 

It is unfortunate that the future jobs fund and 

apprenticeships are being counterposed. The number of 

apprenticeships created by the previous Labour Government 

has been mentioned, and I would have liked Labour to


1006 

[Katy Clark] 

have done even more on that. I hope that this Government 

will set about an ambitious apprenticeships scheme, but 

we have not seen it yet. I assure the Government that if 

they do so, they will get the full support of Labour 

Members, because we fully recognise the value of 

apprenticeships in both the public sector and the private 

sector. 

My constituency has a strong tradition of public 

sector apprenticeships in engineering and in organisations 

such as the Ministry of Defence. Individuals have been 

trained in the public sector and have worked in it for a 

number of years, and have then gone on to work in 

other parts of industry and in the private sector. We 

want to encourage these apprenticeships and we want 

the Government to take this on board. Labour Members 

wish to see policies that will develop our industrial and 

manufacturing sector, that will support apprenticeships 

and that will do everything possible to create employment 

in the private sector. That is particularly important 

in constituencies such as mine, which faces a significant 

problem of unemployment, particularly youth 

unemployment. 

My part of the world traditionally had a strong 

industrial and manufacturing sector, but those 

manufacturing jobs have gone over the course of many 

decades. In the 1970s, 17,000 people were employed by 

ICI at Ardeer in my constituency; 7,000 or 8,000 jobs 

went in the 1980s at the Glengarnock steel mill; and 

even when I was at school in the 1980s some 10,000 

miners worked at the Killoch pit in south Ayrshire. So I 

come from a part of the world that has a strong and 

proud industrial past, but which has been devastated. 

The manufacturing base is now comparatively weak 

and we are dependent on the public sector to replace the 

jobs we had, so the 500,000 public sector jobs cut that 

the Government are proposing will have a disproportionate 

impact on areas such as mine. 

My constituency has probably the worst youth 

unemployment problem in Scotland. The statistics show 

that 20% of our young people between the ages of 

16 and 24 are receiving benefits, which is the highest 

level in Scotland, and that 14.7% of our 18 to 24-year-olds 

are claiming jobseeker’s allowance. 

So it is very fair to say that the part of the world that 

I represent faces significant challenges, and it is the duty 

of any Government to create policies that address those 

challenges and create the economic environment that 

will ensure that young people are able to get employment. 

There has been a significant increase in the number of 

young people in my constituency going into further and 

higher education over the past 20 years, which is to be 

welcomed. However, further and higher education is 

not necessarily the best choice for every young person. 

It may be something to consider at a later stage, but 

well-paid employment that gives hope for the future is 

the best option for some young people. 

We have heard tragic stories today of young people 

who are unable to get jobs, and we know from experience 

that it takes many decades to recover from a period of 

high unemployment. All sorts of social problems are 

associated with high levels of unemployment and youth 

unemployment, and we spend many hours debating 

how to grapple with those. Such problems include crime, 

and drug and alcohol misuse, and they arise when we 

have the kinds of poverty that are associated with 

unemployment. Many of the benefit changes being 

proposed by this Government will disproportionately 

affect the unemployed, particularly the long-term 

unemployed. I am thinking of policies such as reducing 

housing benefit for those who are unemployed for 

12 months or more— there are more and more of those 

people. The number of 18 to 24-year-olds in Scotland 

claiming jobseeker’s allowance for six months or more 

has risen by 119% in the past two years, and the number 

of these people out of work for 12 months or more has 

risen by 349%. So we face significant challenges. 

We have heard criticism of the future jobs fund today, 

but all the feedback I have received in my constituency, 

both from people using the fund and from those placing 

people on to it, has been very positive. The motion calls 

for an independent evaluation of the fund. We need that 

to be done, because the future jobs fund is one of the 

few schemes that is delivering for young people. We 

need to do everything we can to give young people 

political priority, so I think it is a tragedy that the 

scheme is being cancelled. I call on this Government to 

do more. They should not only support the future jobs 

fund, but take other steps to give young people the 

future they deserve. I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, 

for letting me contribute to this debate. 

3.19 pm 

Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con): It is good to 

strike a bipartisan note in our debates, even on an 

Opposition day motion, and I am happy to concur with 

what a number of Opposition Members, including the 

right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill 

(Mr Byrne), have said about the scourge of youth 

unemployment and that these are things we cannot wait 

to tackle. I am pleased and proud to speak in favour of 

one of the key clauses in the motion—the bit that says, 

“urgent action is now required to stop…young people being lost 

to worklessness”. 

I think we can all agree on that but I suspect we might 

differ on something that I firmly believe—that the change 

of management in this country in May 2010 was an 

important first step towards doing that. 

The right hon. Gentleman’s Government left one in 

five young people out of work. The sharp rise in 

unemployment started in March 2008, but the sad truth 

is that there was double digit unemployment among 

young people according to the standard International 

Labour Organisation measure even in the good years—the 

years when the Government were borrowing to the hilt 

and spending money like it was going out of fashion. In 

an earlier intervention, I presented the right hon. Gentleman 

with the international comparisons that he declined to 

comment on in detail, but perhaps he will do so later. 

Of course, Government programmes play a part in 

all this. I do not think that anyone in the House is 

suggesting there should be no Government intervention 

on youth unemployment—of course not. However, I 

say to the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris 

Ruane), who I am delighted has just returned to the 

Chamber, that the piece of analysis that he presented 

concerned entirely the wrong question. We should not 

ask whether turning around a young person’s life is 

worth £6,500—of course it is. It is worth that and a 

whole lot more.


1008 

Chris Ruane: Well do it then! 

Damian Hinds: The hon. Gentleman displays—I shall 

not go on. 

The important thing to ask is whether that £6,500 is 

better spent on the fund or on something else that will 

achieve the same result. It is vital to ask that question at 

any time, but particularly at a time when the Government 

and the country not only have no money, but have 

minus money. 

There are examples of the future jobs fund working 

well. We have heard about what has been happening in 

Birmingham and Merseyside and I am sure there are 

many other examples, but we have to examine whether 

it was doing its job properly across the piece. I think 

there were three main problems with the future jobs 

fund—the future problem, the jobs problem and the 

fund problem. For the future, it was not sufficiently 

focused on people’s personal development; the jobs 

involved were not the private sector jobs needed to drive 

the recovery; and its funding was simply not the most 

cost-effective way of spending money. Those problems 

are quite apart from the onerous application procedures, 

which were partly why so many of the jobs were in the 

public sector. 

I welcome the new Government’s Work programme, 

which will be more flexible, centred on the individual 

and, because of the payment by results element, will 

result in better value for money. As the Prime Minister 

said a few hours ago in Prime Minister’s questions, it 

has often been asked why we cannot use the money that 

will be saved in future and spend it on those interventions 

now. That is exactly what the Work programme does. 

The expansion of apprenticeships is very welcome. 

Many hon. Members have mentioned that so I shall not 

say any more on it, but I do want to talk about the new 

enterprise allowance, which seems to be based on the 

best features of the Prince’s Trust work mentoring 

scheme, which I know a little about having formerly 

been a Prince’s Trust business mentor. That fantastic 

programme gives young people who are starting businesses 

access not only to finance but to support, mentoring 

and coaching to help see things through. I am delighted 

that the Government are taking such a programme 

forward. I hope that we will also see more development 

of microfinance through community development financial 

institutions and credit unions once the relevant legislative 

reform order is brought through. 

Welfare reform is also vital to the whole picture—not 

just the ambition but the intention and the plan to make 

sure that work will always pay in future. Programmes 

are only ever a part of all this, and I am glad that my 

hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de 

Bois) mentioned that we need to broaden the debate. The 

most important thing of all for youth unemployment— 

indeed, any unemployment—is the state of the economy 

and our ability as a nation to take advantage of 

opportunities. We need a healthy physical and, just as 

importantly, human infrastructure. 

There are three key elements to any overarching 

programme, which are interrelated. The first is having a 

buoyant private sector, the second is ensuring that the 

incentives are there to hire and invest in home-grown 

workers and the third is ensuring that we have the right 

skills and capabilities across the economy to take advantage 

of key growth markets. 

Chris Leslie: In the city of Nottingham at this time 

last year, youth unemployment fell for five months 

continuously, but this year it has been rising. The hon. 

Gentleman talks about growth and how central it is, but 

does not he have some doubts that his Government are 

not doing quite enough on the growth strategy? Could 

he elaborate on that? 

Damian Hinds: I do not have such doubts. I cannot 

comment in detail on Nottingham’s figures over the 

past few years, but as we have been examining in this 

debate, the problem of youth unemployment has not 

started in the past few months: it has been with us for a 

long time and we have a structural issue. 

I was talking about the buoyancy that is needed in the 

private sector. That starts with investment because when 

there is investment, businesses grow and take on workers, 

including young workers. To encourage investment, we 

need to keep interest rates low. To keep interest rates 

low, we need a Government who take the nation’s 

finances seriously. We also need to ensure that lending is 

happening, and I am pleased that the Government are 

taking a very robust approach with the banks on that. 

Something that we need to work on more, but which 

will take some time, is ensuring that British firms are 

not bogged down in regulation, dead-weight administration 

and an enormously complicated tax system. 

As well as a buoyant private sector, we need to make 

sure that we have the right skills to take advantage of 

the opportunities in the market, both generally and 

targeted at specific sectors. When we talk about productivity, 

we tend to focus on manufacturing, but the service 

sector now accounts for two thirds of the private sector 

and for much of the productivity gap that we have in 

relation to other leading nations. Services will continue 

to be important in future and we need to build up the 

skills base of our young people—not just their craft 

skills but their interpersonal and communication skills. 

It is also right to have a targeted approach—a strategy 

for Great Britain plc. Our record on picking winners is 

not unblemished, but we do need a strategy. We will 

never again make T-shirts cheaper than China, but 

there are sectors in which we can excel. The trick is to 

find sectors in which there is the coincidence of a 

high-value, attractive growth market and something 

that Britain is uniquely well-placed to take advantage 

of, such as advanced manufacturing, pharmaceuticals, 

the creative industries, financial services, higher education 

and tourism. 

Let me say a word on tourism, because my background 

is in the hospitality, leisure and tourism sector. [HON. 

MEMBERS: “Ah!”] I do not know why people are saying 

“Ah.” That market is in long-term growth and remains 

a great export opportunity for this country. We are 

well-placed to take advantage of that market because of 

our great heritage, our vibrant cities and our beautiful 

countryside. In that regard, I must say, on a local level, 

that I am delighted that the South Downs national park 

will be opening its doors in a few weeks’ time. 

When it comes to tourism at Great Britain plc, the 

marketing department is very good but I am afraid that 

the human resources department still needs some work. 

Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab): This 

is about the future jobs fund.


1010 

Damian Hinds: Actually, this is about unemployment 

and creating a vibrant economy in which people can be 

employed. If the hon. Gentleman reads every clause of 

the motion, he will discover that I am correct. 

In the hospitality sector we find that at entry level, 

kids who have grown up in this country do not have the 

same skill sets as some of their rivals from other countries. 

It is not just about being able to make the best eggs 

benedict: it is about having the interpersonal skills I was 

talking about—greeting the customer, making eye contact, 

smiling, offering to help and owning the problem of the 

customer. Those are the sorts of skills that we need to 

build up. It is because of some of those gaps that some 

employers, sadly, actively prefer to take on young people 

who have not been educated in this country. That is a 

huge shame. 

I am running out of time. I hugely welcome the Work 

programme, the enterprise allowance and the expansion 

in apprenticeships. I equally welcome the review of 

vocational education and training and the fresh look we 

are taking at the national curriculum and our commitment 

to improving education and benchmarking it against 

the very best in the world. I also welcome the fact that 

the Government are getting a grip on immigration, 

which is related to this, and the radical welfare reform. 

Most of all, I welcome the fact that the Government are 

living up to their responsibilities to eliminate the structural 

deficit, to keep interest rates low, to get businesses 

investing and to grow the economy and create jobs. 

3.28 pm 

Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab): This 

is a very important debate, and it is a shame to see the 

Government Benches so empty, not least because the 

number of unemployment claimants in Stoke-on-Trent 

Central was more than 250 higher in January 2011 than 

in December 2010. The good work done by the Labour 

Government in stopping unemployment, preventing youth 

unemployment and preventing the worst of the recession 

is being steadily undone. That was the Labour vision— 

helping the least well-off through the toughest times. 

Now we face the morass of a noblesse oblige, laissez-faire 

big society model that will do little for my constituents. 

Part of the Labour approach was the future jobs 

fund, which secured training and work for young people 

and slashed long-term ingrained unemployment. Many 

of my colleagues have spoken very effectively of how 

well the scheme has worked in their constituencies, and 

I can say the same of my constituency and the broader 

north Staffordshire area. The north Staffordshire future 

jobs fund put hundreds of people into work across 

Stoke-on-Trent, Newcastle-under-Lyme and Staffordshire 

Moorlands. 

A good example was to be found at Epic Housing, a 

housing association in Bentilee in my constituency, a 

tough part of Stoke-on-Trent with ingrained problems 

of worklessness. Epic looks after 900 homes in the 

Bentilee area and put 26 people through the scheme, 10 

of whom now have permanent jobs—six with Bentilee 

Environmental Services and Training and four with the 

parent firm, Epic. Malcolm Burdon, the social enterprise 

team leader—something that I believe the Government 

are in favour of—said: 

“In six months, the lads go from sitting at home watching 

Jeremy Kyle to getting up in the morning and coming into work. 

It makes them disciplined.” 

I have nothing against Jeremy Kyle personally, but I am 

in favour of work and the discipline and pride that 

come with it, which I used to think the Conservative 

party believed in. 

The future jobs fund has worked not just in Bentilee 

but in Abbey Green, and it has attacked a culture of 

worklessness in some tough communities in the city. It 

is important for my city because Stoke-on-Trent is now 

on an economic journey, which the Labour Government 

were helping. It lost its traditional industries, the pits 

and the pots. Mrs Thatcher did for the mining industry, 

globalisation did for the steel industry and mechanisation 

put tens of thousands out of work in the ceramics trade. 

We are now on a journey of retraining, reskilling, 

education and attacking worklessness. The collapse of 

those industries ingrained a culture of worklessness in 

many communities. People still had the idea that they 

could go to work in those traditional sectors without 

needing education and training, and when those jobs 

went, so too did a culture of workfulness. That filtered 

down the generations and there was a problem with 

getting people to work. 

The current generation cannot go into the jobs of 

their fathers and forefathers. As the hon. Member for 

East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) said, we cannot make 

T-shirts cheaper than China, nor can we make ceramics 

cheaper than China in many instances, or steel. We 

therefore need to train people and give them skills, but 

we also need to get them back into a culture of work, 

and that was partly what the future jobs fund was 

about. My hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire 

and Arran (Katy Clark) explained very well how the 

fund got into communities and got people back into the 

culture that they needed. 

The real problem with the attack on the future jobs 

fund is that it forms part of a triple whammy attack by 

the Government on young people. We had the withdrawal 

of the education maintenance allowance, which had 

allowed many people to make the transition to education 

and learning, which is very important in a city such as 

mine. We then had the rank stupidity of the teaching 

budget for universities being slashed by 80%, thereby 

imposing a £9,000 charge on tuition fees. We should not 

think for a minute that not all the good universities in 

the UK will seek to charge £9,000. That leaves many of 

us wondering what on earth the Government have 

against young people. 

When those moves are combined with an economic 

policy of cutting too far and too fast, we see that the 

Government do not have a policy for growth. They have 

a policy that looks after the banks and supermarkets 

but slashes business investment. 

Mr Edward Timpson (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con): 

Will the hon. Gentleman give way? 

Tristram Hunt: I would be delighted to give way to a 

fellow north Staffordshire Member. 

Mr Timpson: Cheshire, actually, but I know we are 

fairly close to each other. You’ll get to know the geography 

fairly soon. 

Will the hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to 

enlighten us on his party’s policy for growth?


1012 

Tristram Hunt: My party’s policy for growth is to 

rebalance the British economy, and to invest in industry, 

manufacturing and engineering, which are vital to the 

north Staffordshire economy. This Government give 

corporation tax cuts to the banks and the supermarkets, 

and end initiatives that help investment in science, 

manufacturing and engineering. 

Welfare bills and jobseeker’s allowance accounts are 

being added to by the undermining of the economic 

recovery and the scrapping of the future jobs fund, 

which itself imperils the Government’s hopes of paying 

down the deficit. The argument about the extraneous 

cost of the future jobs fund is economic nonsense. My 

right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), 

who is no longer in the Chamber, mentioned the great 

success of the scheme. Government Members like to 

pray my right hon. Friend in aid at every single opportunity, 

but on that point they would do well to listen to him. 

Many of my colleagues wish to explain the success of 

the future jobs fund in their constituencies, but it would 

be unfair to leave my speech without a good old-fashioned 

example of Liberal Democrat hypocrisy. In a letter 

dated 21 April 2010, the Minister of State, Department 

for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Thornbury 

and Yate (Steve Webb), wrote: 

“We have no plans to change or reduce existing commitments 

to the Future Jobs Fund. We believe that more help is needed for 

young people, not less.” 

We now know how far those commitments go. 

Liberal Democrats say that they did not know what 

the books looked like or what the conditions were, but 

the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and 

Skills spent his life writing about the storm and the 

catastrophe and the crash and all the rest of it, so the 

situation was not exactly unacknowledged. That talk 

was either over-egging or dissimulation. 

The youth unemployment crisis and the future jobs 

fund policy points to three things: first, a series of 

broken promises, denials and U-turns by this shoddy 

Tory-led Government; secondly, the fact that they have 

no policy for growth or job creation, eggs Benedict and 

all; and thirdly, the perils of the Government’s vision of 

the big society. Labour believes in civil society working 

with the state, but the Government believe in the withdrawal 

of the state, which will have terrible results in the 

communities that we represent. 

3.37 pm 

Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con): I welcome the 

opportunity to contribute to this debate on youth 

unemployment. As I am sure all hon. Members know, 

youth unemployment is a huge problem that needs to be 

tackled. We should try to avoid playing politics on such 

an issue, but, sadly, the motion serves to make a party 

political point. 

The future jobs fund is currently part of the policy, 

but the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram 

Hunt) seems to think that it is the be-all and end-all, 

and a utopian solution to the problem of youth 

unemployment. He does not take into account the fact 

that it is part of an overall policy to tackle the huge 

problem of getting our young people into the labour 

market on a sustainable footing—I emphasise the word 

“sustainable”. 

In proposing the motion, the Labour party is creating 

a smokescreen—it is a red herring—to disguise the 

many years of failure to tackle youth unemployment. 

One in five young people are out of work, nearly 1 

million are unemployed, and 600,000 who left education 

under the previous Government are yet to find work. 

That record of abject failure and that legacy leave little 

room for the Labour party to lecture the Government 

who are trying to sort those problems out, having taken 

on the worst public finances in living memory. 

The future jobs fund was, I am sure, beneficial to 

some young people, but was it cost-effective and sustainable? 

Did it lead to permanent and sustainable employment 

for our young people? The evidence tells us that it did not. 

Dame Anne Begg: As an employer, would the hon. 

Gentleman employ the person with two weeks’ work 

experience on their CV or the person with six months’ 

of work? 

Mr Jones: It is incumbent on the Government to 

offer not short-term help but long-term sustainable 

help for young people. It is important for this Government 

to make sure that we create a culture in which our 

young people are ready for work, not force them into 

short-term work to try to prove themselves to employers. 

Our youngsters must be ready for work. 

The evidence tells us that the future jobs fund was 

twice as expensive as an apprenticeship. In some places, 

particularly Birmingham, only 3% of jobs were in the 

private sector and in most instances very few permanent 

jobs were created. Most young people, however, are 

looking for permanent jobs. A grandmother who came 

to my surgery a few weeks ago wanted her grandson to 

have a sustainable, long-term future. 

I would also like to explore the job market and the 

culture behind it, which is very important. Throughout 

Government policy, we must promote the idea of getting 

our young people into employment and it must be a 

priority across Departments to reduce the barriers that 

prevent young people from getting work and take down 

the barriers that prevent employers from taking young 

people on, because such barriers do exist. 

We also need to look at aspiration, which is 

acknowledged, particularly by head teachers, as a problem 

in my constituency. On a number of recent visits to 

schools, I was told that many of their young people 

have two aspirations: one is to become a footballer and 

the other is to become a pop star. My lifelong knowledge 

of my constituency tells me that during my lifetime we 

have probably bred three or four people who have 

become professional footballers and made a living from 

the sport. 

Chris Ruane: Name them! 

Mr Jones: John Curtis, Peter Whittingham, Darren 

Gradsby, Julian Alsop—there’s four. They have all done 

well at varying levels at the professional game. I can tell 

the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) that 

I cannot name anyone who has made it as a pop star. 

That is why I said that we need young people to have 

reasonable and achievable aspiration at all levels, which 

does not seem to be the case at the moment. We have to 

be honest and recognise that people have different abilities 

and different levels. That is the case in this House and in 

the country as a whole.


1014 

[Mr Marcus Jones] 

We must ensure that those who can become doctors 

and those who go into the trades are valued. We must 

ensure that the work of young people on the checkout 

or stacking shelves at Tesco is also valued. We must 

show those young people that they can make it by 

working from right at the bottom up towards the top. 

One good example of that is Terry Leahy who went 

from stacking shelves at Tesco to become its chief 

executive; he has been very successful in the business 

world. We need to show young people that it is worth 

starting at the bottom of the ladder and working their 

way up, which can often be a fulfilling experience. 

We need to ensure that employers have the right 

culture, particularly for apprentices. As part of national 

apprenticeship week, I last week visited a fine small 

business called MES Systems in my constituency. It 

employs two young apprentices who are doing fantastic 

work; they are both excellent and well rounded young 

men. They were hindered, however, because the culture 

makes it difficult for employers to give our young 

people the necessary leg-up to get out and do things on 

their own. This company employed two youngsters, as I 

say, one of whom was perfectly able to fit and maintain 

alarm systems under his own steam. Unfortunately, 

however, he still had to go around with an engineer and 

could not go out on his own in his van, as the company 

could not get access to insurance for him because he 

was too young. That is the sort of barrier that holds 

companies back. From what the company told me, I 

have no doubt that it could take on more young people 

if it had access to that type of facility. 

On the Work programme, I welcome the policies put 

forward by the Minister of State, Department for Work 

and Pensions, my right hon. Friend the Member for 

Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling). The integrated package 

of support will replace an unclear, confused system that 

lacks accountability. We will reduce the bureaucratic 

burden of the current system, and make it simpler for 

young people and employers to understand, increasing 

the number of young people who get into work. It is 

important that we do not have a one-size-fits-all policy 

for such young people. As the hon. Member for Stokeon-Trent 

Central and others have mentioned, things are 

not as they used to be: sons do not follow their fathers 

down the pit, or into the car factories as used to be the 

case in Coventry—[Interruption.] The hon. Member 

for Bassetlaw (John Mann) comments from a sedentary 

position, but in my area, which was heavily dependent 

on manufacturing, thousands of jobs at some of the 

biggest manufacturing names in this country were lost 

on his Government’s watch, so they do not have such a 

proud record on that. 

I reject the assertion in the motion about the future 

jobs fund, given the gravity of the problems faced by 

the Government in tackling youth unemployment. Members 

must work hard and take responsibility, across the 

House, to sort out the problem. I hope the Minister will 

elaborate on how that work will be taken forward. 

3.46 pm 

Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab): I want to speak 

about the support needs of unemployed young people. 

In the 1980s and ‘90s, I spent 10 years as a youth 

worker in a youth co-operative project for unemployed 

young people. At that time, more than a quarter of 

young people were unemployed. There was a generation 

of young people with no jobs, no hope and no future. 

Some of those young people never recovered: some 

committed suicide; some turned to drugs and alcohol; 

others ended up with long-term mental health problems. 

Even when the economy started to recover, those young 

people who had spent many years unemployed found it 

incredibly difficult to get a job. Let us be honest: would 

an employer prefer to take a 16-year-old fresh out of 

school, or a 26-year-old who had spent most of the 

previous 10 years out of work with nothing to get up for 

and nothing to do? The youth co-operative tried to stop 

the cycle of despair for unemployed young people, 

helped them to gain skills and set up their own businesses, 

gave them driving lessons and taught them how to use 

computers, built their confidence and gave them a reason 

to get out of bed. Then we were closed by Tory cuts to 

the youth service. 

The Labour Government came along and introduced 

the Connexions service—careers advice plus. It provided 

straightforward careers advice for young people and a 

dedicated service of support for young people not in 

employment, education or training or those at risk of 

becoming NEET. The Government funded other 

programmes that provided support, training and education 

to young people, including a summer programme for 

16-year-olds from the New Opportunities Fund. There 

was an activity agreement, a learning agreement, and 

from the working neighbourhoods fund a range of 

projects, including bespoke projects aimed at the most 

vulnerable young people, such as teenage parents and 

young offenders. 

What happened as a result of that support and such 

programmes? From 1997 to the start of the global 

financial crisis, youth unemployment fell by 40%, and 

more than half of young people were off jobseeker’s 

allowance within three months. Now we have a Tory-led 

Government, and it is back to the future. All the support 

programmes are being slashed, the Connexions service, 

future jobs fund and EMA are going, youth services are 

on the brink of destruction, and youth unemployment 

is at its highest since 1992. What are young people, 

especially those who need additional support because 

of poverty, disability or low educational attainment, to 

do? How will such young people compete with those 

who have more advantage? 

The Government have also cut completely the funding 

to v, the national young volunteers service, and vinvolved 

provided fun, exciting, eye-opening volunteer experiences 

for young people, and one-to-one, tailored, maintained 

support. Most of the young people engaged in the 

project were experiencing difficult social and economic 

circumstances. Volunteering enhances young people’s 

employability, gives them the opportunity to gain experience 

to put on their CVs, and allows them to get references 

and develop contacts to help them to get into full-time 

work. It also enables them to give back to their communities 

and, perhaps most importantly of all, gives them confidence 

and self-respect. The Government’s replacement for it is 

merely an eight-week summer programme for 16-year-olds. 

On Sunday I had the honour of presenting the volunteer 

of the year award for Greater Manchester to Matthew, 

a 21-year-old from Bolton. Matthew has multiple disabilities, 

had no confidence and was doing nothing. His Connexions 

adviser referred him to get involved in vinvolved. He 

was offered a number of volunteering opportunities,


1016 

which he took up. When his support worker visited him 

a few weeks later, she did not recognise him. He has 

continued to volunteer and is now training as a coach 

for disabled football. Matthew is on the road to getting a 

full-time job. He would not be if it were not for vinvolved. 

Most young people from advantaged backgrounds 

will achieve the transition to work easily, but those from 

difficult backgrounds often find it less simple. Youth 

unemployment cannot be solved overnight. Therefore 

we must provide support, not only in jobs but in positive 

activity and action so that our current generation of 

young people will survive, have hope and have a future. 

3.50 pm 

Gregg McClymont (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and 

Kirkintilloch East) (Lab): Scrapping the future jobs 

fund is a false economy for this country, because in 

saving a relatively modest sum in the short term the 

Government are recklessly running up much greater 

costs for society in the long term. Those greater costs 

will come from poor mental and physical health, to 

which persistent worklessness is linked, and which will 

have a long-term impact on the NHS and other social 

services. There will also be greater costs for the economy. 

A whole generation of people will be unskilled and 

unequipped for work. That will be a much greater cost 

for the economy because if we do not provide these 

young people with the right skills and experience during 

the downturn, we will lack the human capital to take 

advantage of the recovery down the line. 

The future jobs fund was a serious response to the 

crisis of joblessness. At its heart was the guarantee of 

paid work for those who have been unemployed for 

more than six months. Underpinning it was the economic 

rationale that investment in jobs now would prevent a 

repeat of the lost generation of the 1980s. I was amused 

earlier today to hear the Prime Minister describe the 

Work programme as the biggest back-to-work programme 

since the 1930s. That is not much of an achievement, 

because there were no back-to-work programmes worth 

the name in the 1930s. 

The analogy with the 1930s does hold in the following 

respect however. In the 1930s we had a Tory-led coalition 

presiding over mass unemployment. The unemployed 

were concentrated in the same areas that face the biggest 

challenges in creating jobs now. When the unemployed 

marched to London from Jarrow and elsewhere, the 

Government told them, “Sorry, but we can’t help you as 

the financial markets won’t wear it.” Does that sound 

familiar? 

The FJF was a creative response to a crisis of youth 

joblessness. Its abolition is to be regretted for a number 

of reasons. It is a tragedy for young people in my 

constituency, which has 13 people chasing every vacancy 

according to the most recent figures, and it is a tragedy 

for the country. Unless we invest now in these young 

people, we will not be able to reap the benefits of the 

recovery which will flow at some stage down the line. 

Investment is necessary now. Not investing in these 

young people is a false economy. 

3.54 pm 

Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab): I will be very 

brief, because many Members on both sides of the 

House have contributed to the debate and have made 

excellent points. 

Young people are always the victim of recessions; 

they are always the least able to cope. That is true 

around the world now: in both wealthy nations and 

developing countries, young people are the victims of 

the recent global economic crash. It was true in 1992 as 

well, which was a recession I remember only too well. 

We live in a changing world. It is no longer possible 

to be like my dad and fail at education but succeed in 

the world of work. We have a different economy, where 

skills are necessary not just for well-paid jobs but for all 

jobs. That will continue in the future; our place in the 

global market has changed and we must recognise what 

that means for young people. 

The existing culture of worklessness that other Members 

have mentioned and which my neighbour, my right hon. 

Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), has 

done so much to research and question, arose from the 

failure in the 1980s to plan for change. Because we 

failed to plan then for better employment, we have an 

entrenched culture of worklessness. I hope that Ministers 

in this Government will not make the same mistake. I 

have certainly seen their commitment and I hope they 

will build on it by changing course. 

To make sure that young people, especially those on 

Merseyside and those I represent in Wirral, do not pay 

the price of the crash, the Government should slow 

down the cuts, and invest to save. We shall not fix the 

deficit by forcing young people to remain on the dole. 

The Government must rethink their plans for work 

experience schemes that bear too many of the hallmarks 

of the short-termism of YTS in favour of real jobs in 

the voluntary and social sector. We can support that 

sector, which means so much to us, by investing in such 

jobs, as the future jobs fund was doing. That is the 

lesson the Government need to learn. It is not by 

pandering to hard-line calls for cuts that we shall fix the 

deficit, but by investing in young people for the future. 

3.56 pm 

Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab): We have had a 

good debate. From both sides of the House we have 

heard mounting alarm about the youth unemployment 

crisis that is battering every community in the land, not 

least, as we heard, those in Thurrock, Cardiff Central, 

Enfield North, East Hampshire and Nuneaton. We 

learned today that the number of unemployed young 

people has risen again and is perilously close to 1 million. 

The rate of unemployment among 16 to 24-year-olds, 

which came down in response to Government initiatives 

from the summer of 2009, rose sharply at the end of last 

year to the highest rate ever recorded. My hon. Friend 

the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) 

is right to underline the fact that the rate of unemployed 

new graduates is 20%. Not only is employment falling; 

young people are being deterred from education. My 

hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) 

was right; for young people, this is a perfect storm. 

The Government should heed the warning, for example 

from Brendan Barber, that there 

“is a real danger of losing another generation of young people”. 

That warning is coming not just from Labour and the 

trade unions. David Blanchflower, professor of economics 

at Dartford college, New Hampshire, formerly of the 

Monetary Policy Committee puts it thus: 

“Our labour market problem is primarily a youth problem…The 

data shows that the coalition has sent the youth labour market 

back into crisis.”


1018 

[Stephen Timms] 

Ministers should certainly listen to the Recruitment and 

Employment Confederation. In the foreword to its report, 

“Avoiding a lost generation”, the chief executive wrote: 

“These young people risk becoming a ‘lost generation’ unless 

action is taken by all those with a role to play.” 

The REC calls for a series of specific measures from 

Government and others. The message is consistent. The 

Government need to act, but action from this Government 

is what we are missing. 

What about the prospects for the coming months? We 

are at the start of a massive cull of public sector jobs. 

The Office for Budget Responsibility says that more 

than 400,000 of them will be lost over five years. Others 

say it will be worse. The OBR told us that in the current 

financial year 5,000 jobs would be lost, but the Chartered 

Institute of Personnel and Development said the figure 

would be nearer 50,000—10 times as many. We see from 

figures published this morning that the CIPD was right: 

60,000 public sector jobs lost in six months. 

What about the coming year? The OBR says that 

40,000 jobs will go, but the Conservative-led Local 

Government Association says that local authorities alone 

will shed more than 100,000 jobs next year. The OBR 

seems to have failed to grasp the magnitude of what is 

going to happen. 

There is no sign at all of the boom in private sector 

jobs that the Government promised to take up the 

slack. The Office for National Statistics spelled it out 

this morning. Growth in private sector jobs in the past 

quarter was nil. Nothing. Zero. With the Government, 

as Richard Lambert pointed out, having no growth 

strategy, we will not see a private sector job resurgence 

any time soon. 

We wish the Work programme well, but if there is no 

work, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck 

said, it is not going to work. Now, in an extraordinary 

about-turn on the promises that Ministers have made 

about the Work programme, it turns out that it will help 

far fewer people than the programme that it is replacing. 

The scorecard published today by the think tank Reform 

sums up the position. For the Department, the DWP, it 

is a case of 

“promising too much and delivering too little”. 

The Government have scrapped the future jobs fund, 

which has been the focus of the debate. People in 

Jobcentre Plus echo what we have heard in the debate. 

Those in my area say that FJF was clearly a success, 

with up to half of those who were placed in jobs being 

kept on by their employers after their six-month placement 

ended, with still others going on to other jobs with the 

benefit of great experience on their CV. We heard from 

several Members in the debate about the achievements 

of the fund. My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral 

South (Alison McGovern) mentioned people placed 

with Age Concern Wirral supporting voluntary sector 

capacity building. 

My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie 

Hilling) was right to underline the importance of 

volunteering as a route back into work. My hon. Friend 

the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) paid 

tribute to Ali Thomas and her work at Rhyl city strategy. 

My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (Michael 

Dugher) spoke about 200 young people whom, it was 

hoped, would be in work by the end of March. We 

heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent 

Central (Tristram Hunt) about 26 people being placed 

in work through Epic housing association. There is a 

raft of achievements around the country, brightening 

the prospects of young people for the future. 

The problem of youth unemployment is particularly 

serious at present because there is such a large cohort of 

young people. The size of that cohort will decrease over 

the next few years, so there is a strong case for the future 

jobs fund or something very like it, at least in the next 

few years. The Minister may not need to announce a 

long-term initiative, but she needs to grasp the scale of 

the problem in the short term and come up with proposals 

to tackle it. 

It was the Churches report, “Unemployment and the 

Future of Work”, that made the case 14 years ago that 

it was wrong in as prosperous a society as ours for large 

numbers of people to be deprived for long periods of 

the chance to earn a living. More than 250,000 of the 

young people currently out of work have been unemployed 

for more than a year. As we saw in the 1980s and in the 

early 1990s, long-term youth unemployment does untold 

long-term damage. We cannot afford the Government 

doing what those previous Governments did—abandoning 

yet another generation of young people. Young people 

do not need warm words or sympathy. They need 

action, and the time for action is now. 

4.3 pm 

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work 

and Pensions (Maria Miller): I thank Opposition Members 

for giving us the chance today to debate the record of 

the previous Labour Government. It has been a lively 

debate, which is perhaps unsurprising, given that the 

record of Labour is so fresh and bears the fingerprints 

of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill 

(Mr Byrne), who opened the debate for the Opposition. 

I shall deal first with his contribution, which was a 

master-class in the selective use of statistics. 

Let me clear up one or two of the right hon. Gentleman’s 

statements. He asserted that redundancies are going up. 

In fact, redundancies are unchanged in the past quarter, 

at 145,000—less than half the level during the recession— 

and the number of people on JSA is 20,000 lower than 

at the election. The number of unfilled vacancies has 

risen by 40,000 this quarter to 500,000—the sorts of new 

jobs that can make a real difference in people’s lives. 

The right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) 

called for action, and that is what we as a coalition 

Government are delivering. The Government are 

determined to make a difference to the lives of young 

people, which means tackling the root causes of 

unemployment, not just dealing with the symptoms. 

That is why we are supporting a host of new measures, 

including work clubs, Work Together, enterprise clubs 

and the new enterprise allowance, to help unemployed 

people move off benefits and into self-employment. 

We are getting the Prince’s Trust into jobcentres so 

that we can help build volunteering partnerships. That 

is why, for young people in particular, we are developing 

a far more flexible back-to-work model that gives Jobcentre 

Plus managers the freedom to work with them and help 

them get the support that in the past has been lacking. 

We are also launching a new work experience programme 

to get young people into the habits of work, with two to


1020 

eight-week placements targeting hard-to-help groups. 

We are putting 18 to 24-year-olds who have not succeeded 

in finding a job after nine months into the Work programme, 

with early entry for the most disadvantaged. 

We have heard a host of contributions today and I 

would like to pick up on one or two of the themes that 

have been mentioned. The hon. Member for Barnsley 

East (Michael Dugher) made an important contribution 

when he said that jobs play a pivotal role in our lives, 

and I wholeheartedly agree. He will therefore be as 

angry as we on this side of the House are that youth 

unemployment grew by 270,000 under Labour’s 

stewardship. I hope he can support the programmes that 

the Government have put forward to address the issues. 

Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab): Will the Minister 

give way? 

Maria Miller: I will not, if the hon. Lady will forgive 

me, because we are very short of time. 

My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie 

Doyle-Price) talked about the importance of employability, 

which did not always come through in Opposition 

Members’ contributions. She outlined the importance 

of recognising the need to localise support for young 

people and, in particular, to involve local employers in 

imaginative thinking to try to unlock the potential of 

our youth. That theme was echoed by my hon. Friends 

the Members for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) and for 

East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), both of whom bring 

important experience to the debate as employers. My 

hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North talked about 

the importance of permanent and sustainable jobs and 

about Labour’s failure to deliver a long-term, sustainable 

strategy for youth unemployment. By focusing on that 

broader element of the debate, he brought in the perspective 

of the employer. 

My hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire 

talked about the productivity gap that we see all too 

often in the market, a skills gap that the previous 

Government simply did not address, and the importance 

of education in ensuring that young people are skilled 

up for the future job market. My hon. Friend the 

Member for Cardiff Central (Jenny Willott) made an 

important point in the debate, as did Opposition Members 

later, about the importance of ensuring that the most 

vulnerable get the support they need to get into employment. 

I can assure her that, through my work as the Minister 

with responsibility for disabled people, and by pressing 

forward with Work Choice, we will ensure that the 

Work programme is supplemented by particularly specialist 

support in that area. 

The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran 

(Katy Clark), who is no longer in her place, made some 

important points on apprenticeships. Indeed, I think 

she said that she would have liked her party to have 

gone further on apprenticeships. I can assure her that 

where Labour did not go, we will go. I hope that she will 

support us in that. 

Albert Owen: Will the Minister give way? 

Maria Miller: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, 

I will not give way, because we have a lot to get through. 

It is important to use apprenticeships in the public 

sector to transfer skills into the private sector. At the 

heart of the debate—this is the point that Labour 

Members were trying to bring out—is the role of the 

future jobs fund. We heard an impassioned speech from 

the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), who 

made sure that the House listened to his contribution, 

but I must set one or two of his facts straight. He 

asserted many points in his contribution, some of which 

have already been refuted by colleagues. Just to make 

sure that he is clear, the coalition Government did not 

abolish the future jobs fund; 75,000 people have started 

on a future jobs fund job, and that figure will rise to 

more than 100,000 in the coming weeks. We have honoured 

all future jobs fund commitments. I hope that reassures 

the hon. Gentleman: we will make sure that young 

people in his constituency continue to receive the support 

to which he referred. 

The hon. Members for Stoke-on-Trent Central 

(Tristram Hunt) and for Wirral South (Alison 

McGovern) raised a number of issues, particularly on 

the importance of inter-generational worklessness— 

something that Government Members feel was not tackled 

properly under 13 years of Labour. On the importance 

of re-establishing the culture of work, I am sure that 

their constituents would not support a scheme—the 

future jobs fund—that leaves half the young people 

whom it was designed to support on benefits seven months 

after they started on it. That is not the sort of success 

that anybody would like to see for young people today. 

My hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) 

could not have put it better: it feels today as if Labour 

has been trying to create a smokescreen to hide its true 

record of failure. Today, we have heard again about 

Labour’s legacy of failure: a failure to tackle the root 

causes of youth unemployment, with the number of 

people in youth unemployment when they left office 

270,000 higher than when they entered, and a legacy 

that they tried to fix with a catalogue of short-termist 

schemes that seemed to owe more to managing 

unemployment figures and creating headlines than to 

trying to provide for the long-term futures of the young 

people whom we represent. 

Let us be clear: the future jobs fund has not delivered, 

and it does not deliver the long-term opportunities that 

we, as constituency Members, want. The undeniable 

fact is that about half of those who went into the future 

jobs fund were back in the unemployment queues seven 

months later. The right hon. Member for East Ham 

called for action, and that is exactly what the coalition 

Government are delivering. In contrast to Labour, we 

are focusing on long-term skills. 

Sheila Gilmore: Is it not the case that youth 

unemployment fell below 700,000 only at the very end 

of the period 1992 to 1997? It did not rise above 700,000 

again until 2007, when the recession came. So, if we are 

comparing records, will the hon. Lady please get the 

record straight? 

Maria Miller: I will absolutely get the record straight 

for the hon. Lady. It is very simple. She may give the 

House a lot of stats, but I will give one stat back to her: 

270,000 more young people on unemployment benefits 

at the end of Labour’s 13 years in government than at 

the start. That is the fact that matters. 

In contrast— 

Chris Ruane: Will the Minister give way?


1022 

Maria Miller: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, 

I will not, because I have two minutes in which to finish. 

In contrast, we are focusing on long-term skills and 

sustainable jobs for young people—a real future for the 

people whom we represent. There will be 50,000 extra 

apprenticeships this year, at about half the cost of 

future jobs fund placements, and we will deliver skills 

that will last a lifetime. The Work programme will 

provide personalised support that has never been seen 

before in this country—caring for the individual and 

caring for individual needs. 

There will be work experience opportunities for young 

people and voluntary opportunities that make the difference, 

with people getting that first step on the employment 

ladder and that first job. There will also be a new 

universal credit that supports young people into work 

and does not trap them in a lifetime of welfare dependency 

and underachievement. 

Labour spent £4 billion on its new deal projects, 

much of which was aimed at young people, but we saw 

unemployment among young people going up. That is a 

national disgrace. The real change is happening right 

now. We are not wasting any time. We are giving the 

young people of Britain the support that they need to 

reach their potential and to get the experience and 

training that they need for long-term job opportunities. 

We are going to set people up for life with the skills that 

they need. 

This is not the time to turn back to Labour’s failed 

policies of the past 13 years. I urge hon. Members 

across the House to reject the Opposition motion and 

to support a more positive future for Britain. 

Question put. 

The House divided: Ayes 237, Noes 317. 

Division No. 209] 

[4.14 pm 

Abbott, Ms Diane 

Abrahams, Debbie 

Alexander, rh Mr Douglas 

Alexander, Heidi 

Ali, Rushanara 

Austin, Ian 

Bailey, Mr Adrian 

Bain, Mr William 

Balls, rh Ed 

Banks, Gordon 

Barron, rh Mr Kevin 

Bayley, Hugh 

Beckett, rh Margaret 

Begg, Dame Anne 

Benn, rh Hilary 

Benton, Mr Joe 

Berger, Luciana 

Betts, Mr Clive 

Blackman-Woods, Roberta 

Blears, rh Hazel 

Blenkinsop, Tom 

Blomfield, Paul 

Blunkett, rh Mr David 

Bradshaw, rh Mr Ben 

Brennan, Kevin 

Brown, rh Mr Nicholas 

Brown, Mr Russell 

Bryant, Chris 

Buck, Ms Karen 

Burden, Richard 

AYES 

Byrne, rh Mr Liam 

Cairns, David 

Campbell, Mr Alan 

Campbell, Mr Ronnie 

Caton, Martin 

Chapman, Mrs Jenny 

Clark, Katy 

Clarke, rh Mr Tom 

Coaker, Vernon 

Coffey, Ann 

Connarty, Michael 

Cooper, Rosie 

Cooper, rh Yvette 

Corbyn, Jeremy 

Crausby, Mr David 

Creagh, Mary 

Creasy, Stella 

Cruddas, Jon 

Cryer, John 

Cunningham, Alex 

Cunningham, Mr Jim 

Cunningham, Tony 

Curran, Margaret 

Danczuk, Simon 

Darling, rh Mr Alistair 

David, Mr Wayne 

Davidson, Mr Ian 

De Piero, Gloria 

Denham, rh Mr John 

Dobson, rh Frank 

Dodds, rh Mr Nigel 

Donaldson, rh Mr Jeffrey M. 

Donohoe, Mr Brian H. 

Doran, Mr Frank 

Dowd, Jim 

Doyle, Gemma 

Dromey, Jack 

Dugher, Michael 

Eagle, Ms Angela 

Eagle, Maria 

Efford, Clive 

Elliott, Julie 

Ellman, Mrs Louise 

Engel, Natascha 

Evans, Chris 

Farrelly, Paul 

Field, rh Mr Frank 

Fitzpatrick, Jim 

Flello, Robert 

Flynn, Paul 

Fovargue, Yvonne 

Francis, Dr Hywel 

Gardiner, Barry 

Gilmore, Sheila 

Glindon, Mrs Mary 

Goggins, rh Paul 

Goodman, Helen 

Greatrex, Tom 

Green, Kate 

Greenwood, Lilian 

Griffith, Nia 

Gwynne, Andrew 

Hain, rh Mr Peter 

Hamilton, Mr David 

Hamilton, Fabian 

Hanson, rh Mr David 

Harris, Mr Tom 

Havard, Mr Dai 

Healey, rh John 

Hepburn, Mr Stephen 

Hermon, Lady 

Heyes, David 

Hillier, Meg 

Hilling, Julie 

Hodge, rh Margaret 

Hodgson, Mrs Sharon 

Hoey, Kate 

Hood, Mr Jim 

Hopkins, Kelvin 

Hosie, Stewart 

Howarth, rh Mr George 

Hunt, Tristram 

Irranca-Davies, Huw 

Jackson, Glenda 

James, Mrs Siân C. 

Jamieson, Cathy 

Johnson, rh Alan 

Johnson, Diana 

Jones, Graham 

Jones, Helen 

Jones, Mr Kevan 

Jones, Susan Elan 

Jowell, rh Tessa 

Kaufman, rh Sir Gerald 

Keeley, Barbara 

Kendall, Liz 

Khan, rh Sadiq 

Lammy, rh Mr David 

Lavery, Ian 

Lazarowicz, Mark 

Leslie, Chris 

Lloyd, Tony 

Llwyd, rh Mr Elfyn 

Long, Naomi 

Lucas, Caroline 

Lucas, Ian 

MacNeil, Mr Angus Brendan 

MacShane, rh Mr Denis 

Mactaggart, Fiona 

Mahmood, Mr Khalid 

Mahmood, Shabana 

Mann, John 

Marsden, Mr Gordon 

McCabe, Steve 

McCann, Mr Michael 

McCarthy, Kerry 

McClymont, Gregg 

McCrea, Dr William 

McDonagh, Siobhain 

McDonnell, Dr Alasdair 

McDonnell, John 

McFadden, rh Mr Pat 

McGovern, Alison 

McGuire, rh Mrs Anne 

McKechin, Ann 

McKinnell, Catherine 

Michael, rh Alun 

Miliband, rh David 

Miliband, rh Edward 

Miller, Andrew 

Moon, Mrs Madeleine 

Morden, Jessica 

Morrice, Graeme (Livingston) 

Morris, Grahame M. 

(Easington) 

Munn, Meg 

Murphy, rh Mr Jim 

Murphy, rh Paul 

Murray, Ian 

Nash, Pamela 

O’Donnell, Fiona 

Onwurah, Chi 

Osborne, Sandra 

Owen, Albert 

Pearce, Teresa 

Perkins, Toby 

Phillipson, Bridget 

Pound, Stephen 

Qureshi, Yasmin 

Raynsford, rh Mr Nick 

Reed, Mr Jamie 

Reeves, Rachel 

Reynolds, Emma 

Reynolds, Jonathan 

Riordan, Mrs Linda 

Robertson, Angus 

Robinson, Mr Geoffrey 

Rotheram, Steve 

Roy, Lindsay 

Ruane, Chris 

Ruddock, rh Joan 

Sarwar, Anas 

Seabeck, Alison 

Shannon, Jim 

Sharma, Mr Virendra 

Sheerman, Mr Barry 

Sheridan, Jim 

Shuker, Gavin 

Simpson, David 

Singh, Mr Marsha 

Skinner, Mr Dennis 

Slaughter, Mr Andy 

Smith, rh Mr Andrew 

Smith, Angela


1024 

Smith, Nick 

Smith, Owen 

Soulsby, Sir Peter 

Spellar, rh Mr John 

Straw, rh Mr Jack 

Stringer, Graham 

Stuart, Ms Gisela 

Sutcliffe, Mr Gerry 

Tami, Mark 

Thomas, Mr Gareth 

Thornberry, Emily 

Timms, rh Stephen 

Trickett, Jon 

Turner, Karl 

Twigg, Derek 

Twigg, Stephen 

Vaz, rh Keith 

Vaz, Valerie 

Walley, Joan 

Adams, Nigel 

Afriyie, Adam 

Aldous, Peter 

Amess, Mr David 

Andrew, Stuart 

Arbuthnot, rh Mr James 

Bacon, Mr Richard 

Baker, Norman 

Baker, Steve 

Baldry, Tony 

Baldwin, Harriett 

Barclay, Stephen 

Barker, Gregory 

Barwell, Gavin 

Beith, rh Sir Alan 

Benyon, Richard 

Beresford, Sir Paul 

Berry, Jake 

Bingham, Andrew 

Binley, Mr Brian 

Birtwistle, Gordon 

Blackman, Bob 

Blackwood, Nicola 

Blunt, Mr Crispin 

Boles, Nick 

Bone, Mr Peter 

Bradley, Karen 

Brady, Mr Graham 

Brake, Tom 

Bray, Angie 

Brazier, Mr Julian 

Bridgen, Andrew 

Brine, Mr Steve 

Brokenshire, James 

Brooke, Annette 

Browne, Mr Jeremy 

Bruce, Fiona 

Bruce, rh Malcolm 

Buckland, Mr Robert 

Burley, Mr Aidan 

Burns, Conor 

Burns, rh Mr Simon 

Burstow, Paul 

Burt, Alistair 

Burt, Lorely 

Byles, Dan 

Cable, rh Vince 

Cairns, Alun 

Campbell, rh Sir Menzies 

Carswell, Mr Douglas 

NOES 

Watson, Mr Tom 

Weir, Mr Mike 

Whiteford, Dr Eilidh 

Whitehead, Dr Alan 

Wicks, rh Malcolm 

Williams, Hywel 

Williamson, Chris 

Wilson, Phil 

Winnick, Mr David 

Winterton, rh Ms Rosie 

Wishart, Pete 

Wood, Mike 

Woodcock, John 

Woodward, rh Mr Shaun 

Wright, Mr Iain 

Tellers for the Ayes: 

Mr David Anderson and 

Mark Hendrick 

Cash, Mr William 

Chishti, Rehman 

Chope, Mr Christopher 

Clappison, Mr James 

Clark, rh Greg 

Clarke, rh Mr Kenneth 

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey 

Coffey, Dr Thérèse 

Collins, Damian 

Colvile, Oliver 

Cox, Mr Geoffrey 

Crabb, Stephen 

Crockart, Mike 

Crouch, Tracey 

Davey, Mr Edward 

Davies, Glyn 

Davies, Philip 

Davis, rh Mr David 

de Bois, Nick 

Dinenage, Caroline 

Djanogly, Mr Jonathan 

Dorrell, rh Mr Stephen 

Dorries, Nadine 

Doyle-Price, Jackie 

Drax, Richard 

Duddridge, James 

Duncan, rh Mr Alan 

Duncan Smith, rh Mr Iain 

Dunne, Mr Philip 

Ellis, Michael 

Ellison, Jane 

Ellwood, Mr Tobias 

Elphicke, Charlie 

Eustice, George 

Evans, Graham 

Evans, Jonathan 

Evennett, Mr David 

Fabricant, Michael 

Farron, Tim 

Featherstone, Lynne 

Field, Mr Mark 

Foster, rh Mr Don 

Fox,rhDrLiam 

Francois, rh Mr Mark 

Freeman, George 

Freer, Mike 

Fullbrook, Lorraine 

Fuller, Richard 

Gale, Mr Roger 

Garnier, Mr Edward 

Gauke, Mr David 

George, Andrew 

Gibb, Mr Nick 

Gilbert, Stephen 

Glen, John 

Goldsmith, Zac 

Goodwill, Mr Robert 

Gove, rh Michael 

Graham, Richard 

Grant, Mrs Helen 

Gray, Mr James 

Grayling, rh Chris 

Green, Damian 

Greening, Justine 

Grieve, rh Mr Dominic 

Griffiths, Andrew 

Gummer, Ben 

Gyimah, Mr Sam 

Hague, rh Mr William 

Halfon, Robert 

Hames, Duncan 

Hammond, rh Mr Philip 

Hammond, Stephen 

Hancock, Matthew 

Hancock, Mr Mike 

Hands, Greg 

Harper, Mr Mark 

Harrington, Richard 

Harris, Rebecca 

Hart, Simon 

Harvey, Nick 

Haselhurst, rh Sir Alan 

Hayes, Mr John 

Heald, Mr Oliver 

Heath, Mr David 

Heaton-Harris, Chris 

Hemming, John 

Henderson, Gordon 

Hendry, Charles 

Herbert, rh Nick 

Hinds, Damian 

Hoban, Mr Mark 

Hollingbery, George 

Hollobone, Mr Philip 

Holloway, Mr Adam 

Hopkins, Kris 

Horwood, Martin 

Howarth, Mr Gerald 

Howell, John 

Hughes, rh Simon 

Huhne, rh Chris 

Hunt, rh Mr Jeremy 

Huppert, Dr Julian 

Hurd, Mr Nick 

Jackson, Mr Stewart 

James, Margot 

Javid, Sajid 

Jenkin, Mr Bernard 

Johnson, Gareth 

Johnson, Joseph 

Jones, Andrew 

Jones, Mr David 

Jones, Mr Marcus 

Kawczynski, Daniel 

Kelly, Chris 

Kirby, Simon 

Knight, rh Mr Greg 

Kwarteng, Kwasi 

Laing, Mrs Eleanor 

Lamb, Norman 

Lancaster, Mark 

Lansley, rh Mr Andrew 

Latham, Pauline 

Laws, rh Mr David 

Lee, Jessica 

Lee, Dr Phillip 

Leech, Mr John 

Lefroy, Jeremy 

Leslie, Charlotte 

Letwin, rh Mr Oliver 

Lewis, Brandon 

Lewis, Dr Julian 

Liddell-Grainger, Mr Ian 

Lilley, rh Mr Peter 

Lloyd, Stephen 

Lopresti, Jack 

Lord, Jonathan 

Loughton, Tim 

Luff, Peter 

Lumley, Karen 

Main, Mrs Anne 

Maude, rh Mr Francis 

Maynard, Paul 

McCartney, Jason 

McCartney, Karl 

McIntosh, Miss Anne 

McVey, Esther 

Menzies, Mark 

Mercer, Patrick 

Metcalfe, Stephen 

Miller, Maria 

Mills, Nigel 

Mitchell, rh Mr Andrew 

Moore, rh Michael 

Mordaunt, Penny 

Morgan, Nicky 

Morris, Anne Marie 

Morris, David 

Morris, James 

Mosley, Stephen 

Mowat, David 

Mulholland, Greg 

Mundell, rh David 

Munt, Tessa 

Murray, Sheryll 

Murrison, Dr Andrew 

Neill, Robert 

Newmark, Mr Brooks 

Newton, Sarah 

Nokes, Caroline 

Nuttall, Mr David 

O’Brien, Mr Stephen 

Offord, Mr Matthew 

Ollerenshaw, Eric 

Opperman, Guy 

Paice, rh Mr James 

Parish, Neil 

Patel, Priti 

Paterson, rh Mr Owen 

Pawsey, Mark 

Penning, Mike 

Penrose, John 

Percy, Andrew 

Phillips, Stephen 

Pickles, rh Mr Eric 

Pincher, Christopher 

Poulter, Dr Daniel 

Prisk, Mr Mark 

Pritchard, Mark 

Pugh, John 

Reckless, Mark 

Rees-Mogg, Jacob 

Reevell, Simon 

Reid, Mr Alan

1025 Youth Unemployment 16 FEBRUARY 2011 

1026 

Rifkind, rh Sir Malcolm 

Robathan, rh Mr Andrew 

Robertson, Hugh 

Robertson, Mr Laurence 

Rogerson, Dan 

Rudd, Amber 

Russell, Bob 

Rutley, David 

Sanders, Mr Adrian 

Sandys, Laura 

Scott, Mr Lee 

Selous, Andrew 

Sharma, Alok 

Shelbrooke, Alec 

Shepherd, Mr Richard 

Simmonds, Mark 

Simpson, Mr Keith 

Skidmore, Chris 

Smith, Miss Chloe 

Smith, Henry 

Smith, Julian 

Soames, Nicholas 

Soubry, Anna 

Spelman, rh Mrs Caroline 

Spencer, Mr Mark 

Stephenson, Andrew 

Stevenson, John 

Stewart, Bob 

Stewart, Iain 

Streeter, Mr Gary 

Stride, Mel 

Stunell, Andrew 

Sturdy, Julian 

Swales, Ian 

Swayne, Mr Desmond 

Swinson, Jo 

Swire, rh Mr Hugo 

Syms, Mr Robert 

Teather, Sarah 

Question accordingly negatived. 

Thurso, John 

Timpson, Mr Edward 

Tomlinson, Justin 

Tredinnick, David 

Truss, Elizabeth 

Turner, Mr Andrew 

Uppal, Paul 

Vaizey, Mr Edward 

Vara, Mr Shailesh 

Vickers, Martin 

Villiers, rh Mrs Theresa 

Walker, Mr Charles 

Walker, Mr Robin 

Wallace, Mr Ben 

Walter, Mr Robert 

Ward, Mr David 

Watkinson, Angela 

Weatherley, Mike 

Webb, Steve 

Wharton, James 

Wheeler, Heather 

White, Chris 

Wiggin, Bill 

Willetts, rh Mr David 

Williams, Roger 

Williams, Stephen 

Williamson, Gavin 

Willott, Jenny 

Wilson, Mr Rob 

Wollaston, Dr Sarah 

Wright, Simon 

Yeo, Mr Tim 

Young, rh Sir George 

Zahawi, Nadhim 

Tellers for the Noes: 

Mark Hunter and 

Jeremy Wright 

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans): I now have to 

announce the results of Divisions deferred from a previous 

day. On the Question relating to immigration, the Ayes 

were 474 and the Noes were 23, so the Ayes have it. 

On the Question relating to the terrorist finance 

tracking programme, the Ayes were 484 and the Noes 

were 5, so the Ayes have it. 

[The Division lists are published at the end of today’s 

debates.] 

Military Covenant 

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans): Before I call 

the right hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy) 

to move the motion, I should emphasise that a large 

number of Members wish to speak in this debate, which 

is why a six-minute limit has been put on Back-Bench 

speeches. May I also ask for restraint from Front Benchers, 

so as to enable as many Back Benchers to speak as 

possible? 

4.29 pm 

Mr Jim Murphy (East Renfrewshire) (Lab): I beg to 

move, 

That this House supports establishing in law the definition of 

the Military Covenant, in so doing fulfilling the Prime Minister’s 

pledge of 25 June 2010 to have ‘a new Military Covenant that’s 

written into the law of the land’; believes that this commitment 

should not be diluted or sidestepped; and further supports service 

charities’ and families’ calls for a legally-binding Military Covenant 

which defines the principles that should guide Government action 

on all aspects of defence policy. 

I start by adding my condolences to those properly 

offered by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the 

Opposition earlier today to the families of Private Lewis 

Hendry from 3rd Battalion the Parachute Regiment, 

Private Conrad Lewis from 4th Battalion the Parachute 

Regiment and Lance Corporal Kyle Marshall from 

2nd Battalion the Parachute Regiment. They will be 

loved for ever by their families, and I hope that they will 

be permanently honoured by our nation. 

The motion before us has a straightforward purpose. 

It aims to fulfil the Conservative party’s pledge to 

introduce a new military covenant that is written into 

the law of the land. It will properly fulfil the Conservatives’ 

manifesto pledge to establish a tri-service military covenant. 

It aims to address the concerns articulated by the Royal 

British Legion and other service charities, and to set out 

in law the definition of the covenant so that there can be 

a legal basis for the principles that the Government 

must uphold in order to provide the forces community 

with the highest level of care and support. Inexplicably, 

the Government have already voted against an amendment 

in the Armed Forces Bill Committee that would have 

fulfilled the aims of today’s motion. 

Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD): Does the right hon. 

Gentleman agree that the points that he is about to raise 

were debated in detail in that Committee, and that 

clause 2 of the Bill bears the words “armed forces 

covenant”? 

Mr Murphy: The clause contains the words “armed 

forces covenant report”. The hon. Gentleman discussed 

these points in Committee, and I will expand on them a 

little later. 

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con): I am grateful 

to the right hon. Gentleman for giving give way, because 

I am keen to interrupt him at the beginning of his 

interesting speech. We are grateful for his support for 

our proposal to bring the military covenant into law. If 

he casts his mind back over the past 13 years, can he 

remember any occasion on which Labour either put a 

proposal to do that in its manifesto or committed itself 

in any way, shape or form to putting any kind of 

military covenant into law?

1027 Military Covenant 16 FEBRUARY 2011 Military Covenant 

1028 

Mr Murphy: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for 

his keen sense of anticipation for my interesting speech. 

I have already said that, on reflection, we should have 

gone further towards taking the covenant out of the cut 

and thrust of party politics—[HON. MEMBERS: “Ah!”] I 

hope that all those on the Conservative and Liberal 

Democrat Benches who are now chiding us for not 

having done that will have the courage of their convictions 

and take this opportunity to vote for their manifesto 

commitment later this evening. 

Many Members, of all parties, and most people in the 

country will be hoping that the Secretary of State will 

use today’s debate as an opportunity to reconsider the 

Government’s policy. This debate is important because 

the covenant is the unspoken contract between the 

nation and our services that guides us to serve with the 

utmost respect those who serve our country with 

incomparable courage. As our country continues to 

change, those values should remain constant. There is a 

tangible feeling up and down the country that that 

moral bond between the nation and the forces should 

be strengthened. 

I want to make it clear from the outset that any 

criticism that I offer today is not mine alone. The Army 

Families Federation received 2,000 complaints about 

the Government’s cuts from its members by e-mail in 

five days, many of which expressed real concern. The 

director general of the Royal British Legion, Chris 

Simpkins, has said of the Government’s defence of their 

Armed Forces Bill: 

“The Legion is concerned that this looks like the beginnings of 

a Government U-turn.” 

In truth, if the Government fail to back today’s motion, 

that U-turn will be complete. Vice-Admiral Sir Michael 

Moore, the chairman of the Forces Pension Society, has 

described the Government’s plan for the covenant as 

“incredibly wet and feeble”, stating: 

“It is flute music and arm waving. There is nothing of any 

substance, with just a couple of no-cost ideas”. 

Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con): 

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way? 

Mr Murphy: Bearing your stricture in mind again, 

Mr Deputy Speaker, of course I will. 

Andrew Bridgen: Does the right hon. Gentleman not 

accept that for almost three years the last Labour 

Government were in complete denial about the adequacy 

of Snatch Land Rovers to protect our troops in Helmand? 

Does that not constitute a breach of the military covenant? 

Mr Murphy: We massively increased the number of 

armoured vehicles going to Afghanistan, and that was 

the right thing to do. 

The former commander of the Parachute Regiment 

in Afghanistan, Colonel Stuart Tootal, said at the weekend: 

“There is a real fragility of morale in the Armed Forces at the 

moment.” 

It is regrettable that a Government so young should 

find themselves in a position so undesirable. That is of 

concern to Members in all parts of the House. These 

are real issues, which demand a more serious response 

than Ministers have given in the past few days and 

weeks. 

Dan Byles (North Warwickshire) (Con): Would that 

be the same Colonel Stuart Tootal who resigned his 

position as commanding officer of the Paras in disgust 

at the way in which his soldiers had been treated under 

the Labour Government? 

Mr Murphy: The hon. Gentleman knows that not to 

be the case. Stuart Tootal made his position very clear 

at the weekend. 

I do not doubt the sincerity of Ministers’ words. I 

have made that plain at each and every turn when I have 

spoken from the Dispatch Box. However, there is real 

confusion and concern about their actions. The reason 

for the growing anger is that they know that the 

Government’s actions are sometimes enormously unfair, 

and, in the case of defining the covenant in law, utterly 

confused. 

Let me explain why I think that the Government’s 

position is flawed. In the Armed Forces Bill, the 

Government have provided for an annual report on the 

covenant, explicitly using the term “covenant”. However, 

Ministers are choosing to overlook the fact that there is 

no legally binding definition of the term to accompany 

its use, which means that Ministers can themselves 

determine how it is interpreted. 

Stephen Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con): 

In his evidence to the Public Accounts Committee last 

month, the most senior official in the Treasury, Sir Nick 

Macpherson, said that 

“there was a point in the middle of the last decade where the 

MOD lost control of public spending.” 

Can the Minister explain what impact that has had on 

the military covenant? 

Mr Murphy: At the same time the hon. Gentleman’s 

party was demanding more spending on the Army, 

more spending on the Navy, more spending on the 

Royal Air Force, more aeroplanes and more ships. 

When there was real concern about funding, his party 

was demanding ever more spending. He cannot be in 

denial about that. 

I would rather rely on the evidence of one of the hon. 

Gentleman’s own Ministers in the debate on the Armed 

Forces Bill. He was very clear, and the Secretary of 

State must be clear as well in terms of meaningful 

commitment. The Under-Secretary of State for Defence, 

the right hon. Member for South Leicestershire 

(Mr Robathan), the veterans Minister, said that the 

Government had no intention of placing in law a legal 

definition of a covenant. 

Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP): Does the right hon. 

Gentleman agree that the sense of responsibility enshrined 

in a military covenant must also reflect care for service 

communities that are threatened with base closures? 

Does he agree that lessons could be learned from the 

United States, where there is a “transparent” commission 

which considers base realignment and closure, and an 

Office of Economic Adjustment, which gives substantial 

funds and support to closure-hit communities? 

Mr Murphy: The hon. Gentleman knows, as I think 

everyone in Scotland knows, that we do not agree on 

everything when it comes to the armed forces, but he 

makes an important point about the impact on wider


1030 

[Mr Jim Murphy] 

societies and communities of any base closures. During 

the last two years or so of the Labour Government, we 

considered the future of the firing range in the Western 

Isles, and it was not until we had received a full impact 

assessment of the impact on the community and the 

fragile economy of the islands that it was decided to 

halt the closure. 

In Committee, the veterans Minister said: 

“The covenant is a conceptual thing that will not be laid down 

in law.”––[Official Report, Armed Forces Public Bill Committee, 

10 February 2011; c. 21.] 

The whole country will be simultaneously grateful to 

the Minister and disappointed that he has made the 

Government’s position clear. It seems that the Government’s 

main line of defence is to attack a non-existent threat. 

No one is arguing for a set of justiciable rights. No one 

really wants to campaign for such a thing. 

The forces charities themselves said that they wanted 

the principles defined in law—they did not want new 

statutory rights—and that is what our motion sets out 

to achieve. In answer to the hon. Member for Colchester 

(Bob Russell) in the Select Committee that considered 

the Bill, the Royal British Legion’s director general said: 

“I understand the point about rigidity, specific definition and a 

detailed Covenant being included in law. I am not making that 

point at all. What I am saying is that the principles of which a 

Covenant should take account should be clearly stated and 

understood.” 

Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab): 

The Prime Minister’s pledge was not made before the 

election in the heat of a campaign, but after it. In June 

last year, he said that the Government would have 

“a new Military Covenant that’s written into the law of the land”. 

Given the clarity of that pledge, will my right hon. 

Friend care to speculate as to why the Government 

would not fulfil that commitment? 

Mr Murphy: That is probably going to be the hardest 

question I am asked all day. Just why have the Government 

U-turned on this issue, given that it was not a pre-election 

promise, but a post-election commitment? It is for the 

Secretary of State and his Ministers to articulate the 

reasons for their Government’s action. 

I come back to the point about principle rather than 

statutory obligations. 

Stephen Barclay rose— 

Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con) rose— 

Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con) rose— 

Mr Murphy: I have a choice. I have already given way 

to the hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire 

(Stephen Barclay), so I shall give way to the hon. 

Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke). 

Alec Shelbrooke: The right hon. Gentleman is talking 

about what happened in the past. Will he take the 

opportunity to apologise on behalf of the previous 

Government for sending our troops to war without the 

correct equipment in 2003 because he did not want to 

alarm his own Back Benchers that his Government may 

have already decided to go to war in Iraq? 

Mr Murphy: The fact is that I am remarkably proud 

of much of what my Government did in office in 

support of the armed forces: we produced the service 

personnel Command Paper and the first ever crossgovernment 

strategy; we made improvements for 

dependants waiting on NHS waiting lists; we provided 

support for and investment in the NHS; we ensured 

better treatment in the allocation of public housing; 

and basic pay went up in line with recommendations of 

the independent Armed Forces Pay Review Body in full 

for 11 years in a row. That is a remarkable set of 

investments, of which I am rightly proud. 

Charlie Elphicke rose— 

Mr Murphy: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, 

but I do hope that he will at least seek to make the 

argument against our motion. 

Charlie Elphicke: I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s 

desire to take a Maoist year zero approach to all this. 

Leaving aside the obvious exercise in shamelessness, he 

nevertheless left a £38 billion black hole in the MOD, 

which has made it much harder to look after our troops 

in the future. 

Mr Murphy: I know that for the hon. Gentleman’s 

party it is always someone else’s fault. The sacking of 

soldiers by e-mail was the Army’s fault, then it was the 

civil servants’ fault and by the end of the day it was the 

Labour Government’s fault. 

Stephen Barclay rose— 

Mr Murphy: I give way again, but I hope that at least 

one Conservative Member will say whether they are 

going to vote to detail the principles involved in a 

definition of the military covenant. 

Stephen Barclay: The right hon. Gentleman suggested 

that Conservative Members were pointing the finger 

elsewhere. Does he not agree with his parliamentary 

colleague, the right hon. Member for Barking (Margaret 

Hodge), who, as Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, 

agreed with the following finding: 

“The Department has failed to develop a financial strategy 

identifying core spending priorities”? 

The report in question also said: 

“The Department’s poor financial management has led to 

a…shortfall of…£36 billion”. 

Does he agree with his parliamentary colleague? Why 

was the military covenant not part of his Government’s 

core spending priorities? 

Mr Murphy: The hon. Gentleman is confused. The 

fact is that his party was demanding ever more spending 

on the armed forces in the midst of the recession and 

the financial crisis. 

Alec Shelbrooke: Will the right hon. Gentleman give 

way? 

Mr Murphy: No, I have already given way to the hon. 

Gentleman so I shall make some progress.


1032 

On the military covenant, the amendment to the 

Armed Forces Bill that the Secretary of State and his 

friends were intent on rejecting said: 

“The Secretary of State must by Order through Statutory 

Instrument establish a written Military Covenant (henceforth 

referred to as “the Covenant”) which sets out the definition of the 

word “covenant”, used in Clause 2, line 6 of the Armed Forces 

Bill. The definition would set out the principles against which the 

annual armed forces covenant report would be judged.” 

That is the amendment that the Government have found 

so dangerous and refused to accept in Committee. That 

is the amendment that they claim would create a whole 

set of new justiciable rights when it would do no such 

thing. 

Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab): Does 

my right hon. Friend recall that the deficit that the 

Government now blame us for was accumulated over 

nearly 30 years, so they are as responsible for it as 

anyone? Does he agree that they should not have signed 

up to a covenant that they never intended to carry out? 

Mr Murphy: The fact is that prior to the financial 

collapse across the world and the banking crisis, we had 

pared down the debt. [HON. MEMBERS: “Oh.”] There is 

no point in that crowd on the Government Front Bench 

moaning about this: throughout that period they demanded 

ever more spending on our armed forces. They cannot 

deny that. 

Returning to the military covenant— 

Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con): Will the right 

hon. Gentleman give way? 

Mr Murphy: In a second. So far, we have not had a 

single intervention from a Conservative Member who 

has said whether they are willing to back their own 

manifesto commitment. I do not mean that as a negative 

comment on the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier) 

because I know he takes a keen interest in all these 

matters. I will happily give way to him. 

Mr Brazier: I am grateful to the shadow Secretary of 

State for giving way. He knows that I have raised with 

Governments of different complexions issues from the 

treatment of the wounded to the state of married quarters. 

In my 24 years here, representing a garrison city, I have 

never once had a serviceman or service family come to 

me and say, “This is all about producing a legal definition 

of the military covenant.” What they want is to be 

treated decently and that is what the Government are 

trying to do. 

Mr Murphy: The hon. Gentleman knows that I respect 

him and we try to find common causes, but it is the 

manifesto on which he stood and in which his Prime 

Minister made a commitment. 

Sandra Osborne (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab): 

Does my right hon. Friend agree that various issues of 

concern to military families will be included in the 

report on the military covenant and that the content of 

that report should be determined by the external reference 

group and not by the Secretary of State? 

Mr Murphy: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The 

military covenant should not be whatever the Government 

of the day determine it to be. It should not be at the 

whim of Ministers to decide in a report what is and is 

not in the covenant. My hon. Friend makes a very 

important point. 

The Government say that it is not necessary to detail 

the military covenant, in principle, in law, because they 

are already taking action. They mention the covenant in 

the report and it was mentioned in the Armed Forces 

Bill Committee. All those involved in the debate today— 

except, perhaps, for you, Mr Deputy Speaker, because 

you are free from involvement in these debates—will 

have received an e-mail from the Royal British Legion, 

which stated: 

“As the nation’s guardian of the Military Covenant, we would 

be very grateful if you could urge the Government to honour the 

Prime Minister’s welcome commitment last June to enshrine the 

Military Covenant in law. We do not understand why the Government 

is now claiming that the commitment to produce an ‘Armed 

Forces Covenant Report’ is somehow the same thing as enshrining 

the Military Covenant in law. It is not the same thing at all.” 

I urge hon. Members from both Government parties to 

listen to the legion’s voice and vote for the motion 

today. 

The military covenant cannot be whatever Government 

Ministers of the day deign it to be. It should be defined 

in law so that it is removed from the cut and thrust of 

party politics. If the Secretary of State is true to his 

word, which I believe him to be, he should meaningfully 

define the covenant in law. What is needed is specific 

legislation to put the definition of the covenant on a 

legal footing. In the words of Chris Simpkins, the 

director general of the Royal British Legion: 

“To suggest an annual covenant report would be as effective as 

a piece of legislation is nonsense and would be evidence of the 

Government doing a U-turn on their explicit promises.” 

Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con): 

The right hon. Gentleman has been talking for 20 minutes 

about putting his definition of the military covenant 

into law. Is he going to give us any form of definition 

before he winds up his remarks? 

Mr Murphy: I know the hon. Gentleman understands 

that it is not for me to give a legal definition of the 

military covenant at the Dispatch Box. It is for the 

Government to define the principles of it in a legal 

sense, along with the armed forces and their families in 

public consultation. [Interruption.] The Secretary of 

State’s Parliamentary Private Secretary is screaming 

at the top of his voice that there is no definition. If the 

Conservatives were in any way interested in the matter, 

we could arrive at a definition of the armed forces 

covenant on a cross-party basis, involving armed 

forces families across the entire nation. In truth, they 

have turned their back on their own manifesto, will not 

listen to the British Legion and refuse to act on the issue 

at all. 

Bob Russell: The shadow Secretary of State opened 

his comments with a tribute to three soldiers from the 

Colchester garrison. Some 3,000 of my constituents are 

in Helmand province, and if any of them get to watch 

or read about this debate, I do not think they will be 

impressed with the contributions that are being made. I 

urge Members on both sides of the House to show 

respect. Playing party politics with our armed forces is 

not what they want.


1034 

Mr Murphy: The hon. Gentleman makes a very 

important point. I have responded to each point raised 

in turn, and I will continue to do so. 

We are asking the Conservative party to maintain its 

manifesto commitment, and to vote for it. We will vote 

for its manifesto commitment today, and the country 

will expect Conservative Members to do the same. 

Today’s debate also provides an opportunity for the 

Government to reflect again on their decision on the 

chief coroner’s office. It would give families who have 

lost those closest to them, often in tragic, painful and 

extremely difficult circumstances—the type of people 

whom the hon. Member for Colchester was talking 

about—the right to the best possible investigations and 

military inquests into those deaths. On this day of all 

days, when the constitutional relationship between the 

House of Commons and the House of Lords is being 

considered, it is important that we listen to the House 

of Lords on that important issue. 

I turn to the wider of issue of Afghanistan and its 

impact on the covenant. We have made it clear that we 

will support the Government on Afghanistan whenever 

possible, as we did on Monday. I welcome their continued 

commitment to update the House on progress there, 

particularly in the diplomatic effort, which seems far 

less advanced than the military campaign. 

Those injured in Afghanistan face enormous burdens 

and a life of dramatic change. That places a huge 

responsibility on the Government and politicians of all 

parties to support them, so that the country fulfils its 

responsibility to them. Public services, public servants, 

charities, the private sector and Government must 

continually consider how best to support all our forces, 

particularly those who are injured. We should try to 

generate consensus on that at every possible opportunity. 

Mr Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South) (LD): Why 

does the shadow Secretary of State think that the 

wording in the Armed Forces Bill, which reflects the 

will of the country to honour the covenant, is not what 

the people want? How does he think it fails to cover all 

the issues that he is talking about? A lot of armed forces 

personnel and their supporters undoubtedly believe 

that it does cover them. 

Mr Murphy: As I said earlier, the British Legion has 

been pretty critical and straightforward about that. The 

problem is the word “covenant” being used but not 

given a legal definition, which allows Ministers and 

Governments of all parties to interpret and reinterpret 

it in an annual report. That is why the principle of legal 

definition is important. 

Mr Hancock: We had the same problem when the last 

Government refused to accept their duty of care 

responsibilities. They did that because nobody could 

clearly define, in rigid legal terms, what a duty of care 

was. 

Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab): We did. 

Mr Hancock: No, you didn’t. The hon. Gentleman, 

who was a Minister and before that was on the Defence 

Committee, will remember from his experiences on the 

Committee that the Labour Government’s big failure 

on the duty of care was that they were unable to define 

clearly what it meant. 

Mr Murphy: The hon. Gentleman raises an important 

point, but I listened very carefully to the British Legion’s 

campaign for the legal principle, and to its observations 

of the clear, glaring weaknesses in the current arrangements. 


Mr Murphy: I shall make some progress before giving 

way. 

As I said, it is important that where we can, we 

should build consensus, such as on support for the 

operation in Afghanistan and on the treatment of those 

who return, but there is one matter on which it is 

difficult to support the Government: the switch from 

retail prices index to consumer prices index for forces 

pensions and benefits. That is a highly charged and 

emotional issue—rightly—but I shall make my case 

carefully, and I look forward to the Secretary of State 

being equally careful and detailed in his reply. 

The impact of that switch will be felt by generations 

of our bravest, from those who jumped from landing 

craft on to the beaches of Normandy in 1944 to those 

facing the Taliban today in the Afghan desert sand. A 

corporal who has lost both legs in a bomb blast in 

Afghanistan will miss out on £500,000 in pension and 

benefit-related payments, and the 34-year-old wife of a 

staff sergeant killed in Afghanistan will be almost £750,000 

worse off over her life. 

There are only two possible justifications for that 

policy. The first is that Ministers think that the support 

that forces personnel and their dependants currently 

receive is overly generous, but I have not heard any of 

them say that. The second possible justification is, of 

course, deficit reduction, which Ministers do pray in 

aid. However, that argument does not add up. The 

impact of those measures will be felt long after the 

deficit has been paid down and the economy has returned 

to growth. The deficit is temporary, but those cuts will 

be felt for the rest of our forces’ lives. 

Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North) (Con) 

rose— 

Mr Murphy: I will happily give way to the hon. 

Gentleman, who has great experience on these matters. 

Does he support the Government’s policy on the RPI-CPI 

switch? 

Mr Wallace: The right hon. Gentleman said that we 

should reflect on the British Legion election manifesto 

and its 15 or 16 demands. The manifesto never mentions 

the covenant, but it does mention lots of solutions to 

help the welfare of our veterans and current serving 

personnel. What part of the Government’s progress is 

he unhappy with in relation to the British Legion’s 

manifesto, and what parts of the manifesto would he 

adopt sooner rather than later? 

Mr Murphy: The hon. Gentleman has vast experience 

in such matters and I do not doubt his commitment, but 

there is limited validity in him brandishing last year’s 

British Legion document when he does not accept what


1036 

it says in its e-mail today—it makes it very clear that it is 

unhappy with the Government’s position and that it 

would like a legal definition of the military covenant. 

Of course we should work on a cross-party basis on 

this, and I would be happy to do so— 

Dr Murrison rose— 

Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab) 

rose— 

Mr Murphy: I shall briefly give way to my hon. 

Friend. 

Jim Sheridan: I concur with the hon. Member for 

Colchester (Bob Russell) that this should be a non-partisan 

debate, but my right hon. Friend is right to remind the 

House that during the Labour years, the then Opposition 

constantly criticised the Government on the lack of 

spending on protective equipment, as did the generals. 

We understand why the politicians criticised the 

Government, but why did the generals criticise them, 

and why have they suddenly gone quiet in the short 

period since the election? 

Mr Murphy: I do not wish to reopen that debate, but 

my hon. Friend is free to make that point whenever he 

wishes to do so. 

It is clear that to date, the Government’s policy on the 

covenant and their policy on the RPI-CPI switch are 

policies without a patron. No Government Minister has 

defended them, yet Ministers expect Back-Benchers to 

suspend their consciences and their sense of right and 

wrong to vote through a policy that they have not 

backed. 

The Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Liam Fox): If 

the change from RPI to CPI in relation to the armed 

forces is so iniquitous, will the right hon. Gentleman 

give an unequivocal guarantee that Labour will reverse it? 

Mr Murphy: I remember being in the Government 

and playing that game of saying to the Opposition, 

“Name your next manifesto,” but it is a desperate tactic. 

It took me 10 years to use that tactic, but it has taken 

the Defence Secretary only a few months. Today, he is at 

the Dispatch Box but will not even stand up for his own 

policy. Let me give him another opportunity to do so. 

Does he think it fair that when the deficit is temporary, 

this cut should be permanent? I am giving him a chance 

to articulate his own policy. 

Dr Fox: This merely proves the economic illiteracy of 

the Labour party. Even when the deficit is going down, 

the total debt is going up and the debt repayment is 

going up. It will take a very long time, even when we are 

into positive growth, to see the debt coming down. The 

Labour party knows no more about economics in 

opposition than it knew in government. 

Mr Murphy: This comes from the right hon. Gentleman 

who, when in opposition, demanded more spending on 

absolutely everything; even in the midst of financial 

crisis, he was demanding more and more spending. If 

this move is driven by deficit reduction, the Government 

should come forward with a temporary measure rather 

than a permanent change. 

Finally, the military covenant goes to the heart of the 

relationship between the military, society and the 

Government. It should never be the exclusive property 

of one political party, but these permanent cuts undermine 

the Government’s claim to be honouring the military 

covenant. Sir Michael Moore, chairman of the Forces 

Pension Society has said: 

“I have never seen a government erode the morale of the 

Armed Forces so quickly.” 

That is a worrying position—one that we all hope to see 

reversed. 

The truth is that this Government have lost the 

courage of the conviction and conscience they had in 

their manifesto. One day in June last year summarises 

this Government’s approach to the covenant. On 25 June 

2010, the Prime Minister stood on the decks of the Ark 

Royal, surrounded by members of the Royal Navy, with 

Harrier jets as a backdrop, and promised a new military 

covenant that was written into the law of the land. 

Parliament did not get a vote on the decision to scrap 

the Ark Royal and Parliament did not get the chance to 

express its view on the grounding of the Harrier fleet. 

Today, however, Parliament has the chance to make its 

voice heard. We should say it loud and clear, fulfil the 

Conservative party manifesto pledge and define the 

military covenant in law. 

5.2 pm 

The Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Liam Fox): 

Let me too begin by expressing our condolences to the 

family and friends of Private Lewis Hendry, 3rd Battalion 

the Parachute Regiment; Private Conrad Lewis, 

4th Battalion the Parachute Regiment; Lance Corporal 

Kyle Marshall, 2nd Battalion the Parachute Regiment; 

Private Dean Hutchinson, 9th Regiment the Royal Logistic 

Corps; and Private Robert Wood, 17th Port and Maritime 

Regiment the Royal Logistic Corps, all of whom have 

died in action in Afghanistan. Every death is a personal 

tragedy; they are not simply numbers, and their loss is 

felt by families and friends. We in this House remember 

them all in our thoughts and prayers. 

There is no doubt about the general desire in this 

country to improve and develop the armed forces covenant. 

It encompasses those of all ages and social groups, 

those with different politics and those with none. It does 

not and cannot exist in the abstract, however. It cannot 

be a wish list separated from the economic reality in 

which we find ourselves. A covenant between the armed 

forces and the British people cannot ignore the financial 

predicament in which the British people and their 

Government find themselves. 

The starting point of this debate has to take account 

of the economic situation inherited by the coalition 

Government and the state in which the armed forces 

and the Ministry of Defence find themselves at the end 

of 13 years of Labour Government. In short, the issue 

for the Opposition, as set out in their motion, is one of 

credibility, so we should examine the credibility of 

Labour Members on the issues that the shadow Defence 

Secretary described as important. 

Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab): Will the 

right hon. Gentleman give way? 

Dr Fox: In a moment. 

There are three charges that still hang around the 

necks of Labour when it comes to defence, the armed 

forces and the military covenant. In 13 years of power,


1038 

[Dr Fox] 

their response to equipping our forces was often too 

little, too late; their spending priorities were wrong; and 

there was too much waste and inadequate budgetary 

control. 

We have learned from the Chilcot inquiry—an 

independent inquiry—that it was purely for political 

reasons that the Labour Government failed to order 

enough equipment, including body armour, for troops 

in the lead-up to the Iraq war. They did not want to 

send the message that they were preparing for war, and 

the result was under-prepared, under-equipped forces 

sent into conflict. 

In 2006, they failed to send enough troops and equipment 

into Helmand province and were painfully slow at providing 

more capable armoured vehicles to counter improved 

explosive devices. That led to a number of high-profile 

subsequent resignations from the Army, as has been 

pointed out. They went 12 years without a defence 

review, even though, according to numerous former 

Defence Ministers and service chiefs speaking at the 

Chilcot inquiry, the 1998 SDR was never properly funded. 

They overstretched our armed forces by fighting two 

wars on a peacetime budget. 

Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab) rose— 

Dr Fox: I will give way in a moment. 

The Labour Government overspent and overheated 

an equipment programme that contributed to a £38 billion 

black hole in the defence budget. In Labour’s final year 

in power, the MOD saw a record overspend of £3.3 billion 

in the equipment programme. In fact, we inherited an 

equipment programme that has its top 15 projects 

£8.8 billion over budget and a cumulative delay of 32 

years. When we were fighting two wars, their idea of 

commitment to defence and our armed forces was to 

appoint four different Defence Secretaries in four years, 

including one who served simultaneously as Defence 

Secretary and Secretary of State for Scotland. 

Labour left a situation in which 42% of service single 

living accommodation in the UK, and 52% of overseas 

single living accommodation, was in the worst grade on 

a four-point scale—although in a speech that lasted half 

an hour, the shadow Defence Secretary did not once 

mention the quality of accommodation for our armed 

forces. 

With all that going on, Labour Defence Secretaries 

spent almost £250,000 on modern art for the Ministry 

of Defence. As former Chief of the General Staff 

General Sir Mike Jackson said in his autobiography, 

they 

“preferred to spend on abstract art money which might otherwise 

have directly benefited soldiers and their families. It may seem a 

small point, but to me it was so indicative of the cultural divide in 

the MoD”. 

The list goes on. In this country, we judge politicians 

not by their words but by their actions. The Labour 

Government had 13 years to put matters right; we have 

had nine months so far, and I will set out what we have 

done already. 

Mr MacShane: I am glad to give the Secretary of 

State a moment to calm down from his election speech. 

On 11 January last year, he wrote to Mr Yeomans in 

Clevedon that the Conservative Government would review 

the rules on awarding medals, particularly the proposed 

national defence medal, which has been supported by 

nearly 200 right hon. and hon. Members in an early-day 

motion. Earlier this week, however, the Under-Secretary 

of State for Defence, Lord Astor of Hever, stated in the 

other place that the Ministry of Defence would not 

review the role or membership of the committee that 

would award the national defence medal if it is granted. 

That is a remarkable U-turn in one year. Will the 

Secretary of State address that point and discuss it with 

his ministerial colleague? 

Dr Fox: I can give the right hon. Gentleman the news 

that we have completed the review on military medals, 

and today I signed off the report, which will be published, 

and no doubt discussed in the House, before Easter. He 

will get a clear answer to his questions. 

Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab): I 

would like to judge the Secretary of State by his actions 

rather than his words. What progress is he making 

towards the establishment of a Government-funded 

post-traumatic stress treatment programme as promised 

in the armed forces manifesto? 

Dr Fox: In a moment I shall set out how we have 

made progress on all the manifesto commitments. The 

hon. Gentleman will be pleasantly surprised. 

Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con): Did the 

Secretary of State know about the evidence given by 

officials who served the Labour Government that it was 

the ministerial decision to delay the SDR that made the 

black hole that was left so big and the difficulty of 

getting matters in order so much greater? 

Dr Fox: We could spend a great deal of time detailing 

the failures of the previous Government. Labour Members 

constantly talk about making changes as though we 

were in a vacuum or, as my hon. Friend the Member for 

Dover (Charlie Elphicke) said, at year zero. We are in a 

very difficult economic predicament largely of their 

making, yet they talk about not only the military covenant 

but almost everything else as if there were no financial 

cost and as if we should not take what is happening in 

the economy into account when it comes to pensions 

and programmes in the Ministry of Defence. 

Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con): Does my 

right hon. Friend agree that in the short term, while the 

economic situation is so bad, top priority should be 

given to the education of the children of those who have 

fallen in action or who have been so grievously wounded 

that their future earning power will never be restored? 

Dr Fox: As I might have expected, my hon. Friend 

makes a very good point. In the programme for government, 

we listed a number of measures that will start the 

process of rebuilding the covenant, and I am pleased to 

be able to set out to him those that we have already 

accomplished. 

As I have said on a number of occasions in the 

House, no decisions taken in the strategic defence and 

security review will have a negative impact on our 

mission in Afghanistan. In fact, we have already made 

great strides in improving the conditions for those serving


1040 

on the front line. In our nine months in office, we have 

doubled the operational allowance that was paid under 

the previous Government to over £5,000. Labour could 

have done so, but did not. We have changed the rules on 

rest and recuperation, so any lost days of leave—due to 

delays in the air bridge or any other operational 

requirements—will be added to post-tour leave. The 

previous Government could have done that, but they 

chose not to. We have also pledged to provide university 

and further education scholarships to the children of 

members of the armed forces who have been killed since 

1990. The previous Government could have chosen to 

do so, but in 13 years they did not. The current Government 

have now included 36,000 service children as part of the 

pupil premium, recognising the uniqueness of service 

life and its effect on service children and service communities. 

Labour could have done so, but did not in 13 years. 

John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab) rose— 

Dr Fox: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell us why 

not. 

John McDonnell: I want to concentrate on a more 

serious issue, which I would like the Secretary of State 

to—[Interruption.] May I complete what I am saying? 

The Secretary of State has focused on the past Government’s 

record, of which I have also been critical, but last week 

the current Government introduced an immigration 

fees order which I objected to, and which I see has been 

carried on a deferred Division today. The explanatory 

notes explain that it introduces for the first time the 

power for the Government to charge fees for the registration 

as British citizens of the children born to British armed 

forces personnel serving abroad. It cannot be right that 

we are penalising the children and families of service 

personnel serving abroad on our orders. I ask the Secretary 

of State to liaise with the Home Secretary to ensure that 

she exercises her discretion to waive these fees. 

Dr Fox: I am also aware of some of the implications 

of that, and my officials have already had discussions 

about the issue with my Cabinet colleagues. I will write 

to the hon. Gentleman when I have some progress to 

report. 

Chris Bryant: Will the Secretary of State give way? 

Dr Fox: Not at the moment. 

I have set out a number of areas where the Government 

have already acted in just nine months. Some £61.6 million 

has been allocated in the current financial year for the 

upgrade of, and improvement programmes for, service 

accommodation. That will include upgrading some 800 

service family homes to the top standard, with a further 

4,000 properties benefiting from other improvements 

such as new kitchens and bathrooms. 

Of course, in the current tight financial situation 

priorities must be established. My welfare priority will 

be mental health. We have accepted in full the mental 

health plan for service personnel and veterans set out in 

the report by my hon. Friend the Member for South 

West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison). That will provide a 

range of improvements in mental health care, including 

increasing the number of mental health professionals 

from mental health trusts looking out for veterans and 

introducing structured mental health surveillance inquiries 

into routine service medical examinations and all discharge 

medicals. 

The Government are committed to improving health 

care for our service personnel and have committed an 

additional £20 million in the SDSR for this purpose, 

part of which will be used to deliver further enhanced 

military mental health care services. I believe this must 

be our priority because it is all too easy to see the 

physical wounds of war, but the unseen mental wounds 

of war have too often gone undiagnosed and untreated, 

and all our society demands that we do not allow a 

mental health time bomb to be created. 

Chris Bryant rose— 

Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab) 

rose— 

Dr Fox: I give way to the hon. Member for Paisley 

and Renfrewshire North (Jim Sheridan). 

Jim Sheridan: The right hon. Gentleman is explaining 

the promises or pledges in his party manifesto. Do they 

include his pledge to compensate Christmas Island veterans, 

many of whom will be watching this debate and wanting 

an answer? 

Dr Fox: That was not a commitment in the Conservative 

manifesto, but Ministers will constantly review the issue, 

as happened under previous Governments. 

Chris Bryant: Will the Secretary of State give way? 

Dr Fox: We have waited a long time, so I hope it’s a 

cracker. 

Chris Bryant: I want to ask the Secretary of State 

about 160 Brigade. As he knows it is the Welsh brigade 

based in Brecon. Secret discussions have been going on 

over the last few weeks about collapsing the brigade and 

joining it with the West Midlands, which would mean 

there was no longer a Welsh brigade. Can he give an 

absolute assurance that that will not happen? 

Dr Fox: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are 

ongoing discussions in the armed forces, but as he has 

heard me say on a number of occasions, I am very keen 

that we have United Kingdom armed forces and that we 

maintain the footprint as widely as possible across the 

UK. If he wants to talk to me directly about that, I shall 

be happy to meet him. 

Labour’s legacy means that there is not enough to do 

all that we would like to do, but we can make a start. 

None of it alone will instantly rebuild the covenant, but 

it is a step in the right direction. In the difficult economic 

circumstances the coalition Government have inherited, 

where all parts of society are making sacrifices, repairing 

the covenant will not be straightforward. The armed 

forces are subject to the difficult decisions we have had 

to make on pay, pensions and allowances across 

Government. 

Neither the Prime Minister nor I came into politics to 

see cuts in the armed forces, but we have to deal with the 

reality of the legacy. Every Department has to make a 

contribution to deficit reduction and the Ministry of 

Defence can be no exception. We have to put the 

economy on the right track for the sake of our national 

security.


1042 

[Dr Fox] 

The coalition agreement recognises that we have to 

do more to ensure that our armed forces and their 

families have the support they need, and are treated 

with the dignity they deserve. Some of what we need to 

do will cost money, and with budgets squeezed, we may 

not be able to go as quickly as we want, but we will 

make progress where we can. The recent report on the 

covenant commissioned by the Prime Minister from the 

military historian Professor Hew Strachan suggests a 

number of ways to move forward. We are implementing 

some of them now and will announce in the near future 

the other recommendations we support. 

As Members know, the military covenant was conceived 

as an expression of the mutual obligations that exist 

between the nation, the Army and each individual 

soldier. In consultation with service charities and others, 

the Government are rewriting the covenant as a new 

tri-service document—the armed forces covenant—which 

expresses the enduring, general principles that should 

govern the relationship between the nation, the Government 

and the armed forces community as a whole. It will 

include all three services, veterans, family members and 

local communities, thereby broadening the scope of the 

covenant. We shall publish it in the spring. 

The reserve forces form an intrinsic part of the UK’s 

defence capability and thus the armed forces community. 

The Ministry of Defence is responsible for ensuring 

that reservists are treated fairly and with respect, and 

that they are valued. In the drafting of the armed forces 

covenant, reserves have been considered equally alongside 

regulars. That will set the tone for Government policy 

aimed at improving the support available for serving 

and former members of the armed forces, and the 

families who carry so much of the burden, especially, as 

we remember today, in the event of injury or death. 

Charlie Elphicke: Does my right hon. Friend agree 

that it is an extraordinary situation for the Opposition 

to call a debate on the military covenant, which by their 

own admission they cannot define, yet we have heard 

from my right hon. Friend a clear definition of the 

covenant, which is being written into the law of the 

land? 

Dr Fox: It is surprising that the Opposition should be 

so desperate for a definition of the military covenant in 

law, yet fail to produce one themselves. It is just as 

absurd as their claim that they are trying to implement 

the Conservative manifesto on the subject. I happen to 

have the Conservative manifesto of 2010 in my hand 

and I see no commitment whatever to writing the military 

covenant into law. Indeed, we have gone further than 

our manifesto commitment in the coalition agreement 

by trying to take that forward. It is one of the elements 

that shows that the coalition Government were able to 

work together to go further than either party had done 

in the manifestos that we issued at the general election. 

We need to ensure that progress is made, year on year. 

That is why we have brought forward legislation in the 

Armed Forces Bill requiring the Defence Secretary to 

present an armed forces covenant report to Parliament 

every year. I hope to deliver the first of those reports in 

the autumn. 

John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op): 

Is the Secretary of State saying that his party never 

made a commitment to enshrining the principles in law? 

If he is not saying that, will he set out why his position 

has changed on this difficult subject? 

Dr Fox: We are for the first time recognising the 

covenant in law. We are setting it out in law in the 

Armed Forces Bill that the Secretary of State for Defence 

will be required to come to the House of Commons, 

and when we have published the tri-forces covenant, the 

House of Commons will be able to decide whether the 

Government have lived up to their part of the bargain. I 

find it extraordinary that nine months into the new 

Government, when we are writing that into the law, we 

get complaints from the Opposition, who did not once 

try to do so in 13 years in power. 

The covenant will set out how we are supporting our 

armed forces, their families and veterans in key areas 

such as health care, housing and education. It will be 

the first time the existence of the armed forces covenant 

has been recognised in statute. For that, I think all 

fair-minded people would believe that the coalition 

Government deserve some credit. 

Mr Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con): 

Although I applaud what the Secretary of State is 

saying about his support for veterans and former members 

of the armed forces, may I draw to his attention the case 

of my constituent, Ann Dexter, whose son Richard 

Coombes is suffering from dire mental health problems 

as a consequence of his injury on active service? The 

Ministry of Defence was ordered by a judge to pay him 

£130,000 compensation but still, three years later, not 

all of that compensation has been paid. Will my right 

hon. Friend look into that case urgently and get back to 

the family to explain why the Ministry of Defence has 

not paid the compensation that it was ordered to pay? 

Dr Fox: I am very surprised that three years after it 

was ordered by a judge to be paid, that compensation 

has not been paid. I will certainly look into the case that 

my hon. and learned Friend mentions. 

The Government alone cannot provide all the support 

required so we are determined to strengthen the links 

with the charitable sector, which does so much good 

work, often unsung. In many ways those organisations 

are also heroes in our countries when it comes to the 

armed forces. Involving the charitable sector is the only 

way we can make a reality of the armed forces covenant, 

because the duty of care is on all of us, not simply the 

Government. 

From now on, however, the Government are obliged 

to report progress on the covenant to Parliament annually. 

That will ensure that this Government, and indeed all 

future Governments, are held to account by Parliament. 

I made it clear last month on Second Reading of the 

Armed Forces Bill that the external reference group, 

which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Ayr, 

Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne), will also continue 

to monitor Government progress. But it is about progress 

on the covenant on all sides, not just the Government’s. 

The covenant is not just between the Government and 

the armed forces. It is a covenant with the whole of 

society. That is why I find the external reference group 

to be of such value. It will bring independence and 

clear-mindedness.


1044 

Sandra Osborne: When the Secretary of State refers 

to communities, does that include local communities 

where there are currently armed forces bases? What 

about the contribution that they have made over the 

years, and what about the economic impact on those 

communities of the closure of bases? 

Dr Fox: As the hon. Lady knows, we are spending a 

great deal of time and effort getting the balance of the 

bases correct, primarily for our national security needs, 

but we will also take into account the social and other 

impacts that the changes will have. The hon. Gentleman 

from the Scottish National party who is normally in his 

seat usually intervenes at this point. We are aware of the 

changes— 

Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP) rose— 

Dr Fox: Wrong one. 

The point is well made by the hon. Member for Ayr, 

Carrick and Cumnock. We understand the problems 

that we face, but it was inevitable when we had to make 

reductions under the SDSR that there would be changes 

to the basing. We are sympathetic to the local needs that 

she mentions. 

Bob Russell: The Secretary of State will join me in 

mentioning a body that, as far as I recall, has not yet 

been referred to—the reserves and Territorials, without 

whom our actions in Afghanistan would be all the 

poorer. 

Dr Fox: I realise that I might have a soporific effect 

on Members, so perhaps the hon. Gentleman missed 

my reference to the importance of the reserves. The 

Government are acutely aware of their importance and 

the part they play in the wider security of our country. 

Jim Shannon: Will the Secretary of State give way? 

Dr Fox: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, as I 

rather ignored him a moment ago. 

Jim Shannon: I speak not as an Irish or Scottish 

nationalist, but as a Northern Ireland Unionist. I know 

that the Secretary of State has already responded on the 

need to look after those with health and mental health 

conditions, but I have recently met people who had lost 

limbs, whether legs or arms, so will he indicate what 

help will be available for those people, because they 

have had the trauma of the physical disablement and of 

the resulting mental disablement? I am keen to hear 

what he will do to help those people. 

Dr Fox: Those who suffer traumatic amputations, 

and often multiple traumatic amputations, increasingly 

get very high-quality care in this country, both from 

what the military and the NHS are doing. [Interruption.] 

Members on the Opposition Front Bench say that that 

is thanks to the previous Government, and I acknowledge 

their work on that front. With regard to the interface 

between the NHS and other services, we are again 

working increasingly to ensure that we get constructive 

action between them. Any Member who has visited the 

medical service or Headley Court will realise just what a 

high-quality service our armed forced get in this country. 

It is something of which the whole country, irrespective 

of politics, should be proud. 

Looking after people who are currently serving is 

only part of the covenant; the duty of care does not end 

when active service ends. The community of veterans in 

Britain is estimated to be around 5 million strong. The 

vast majority of men and women who serve make the 

transition to civilian life successfully. Many of the skills 

they learn in the armed forces are highly sought after, as 

are their character traits: self-discipline, self-reliance 

and leadership. However, for a small number the transition 

is not so easy. Some find it difficult to get work or 

struggle to fit in. Others may suffer more serious problems, 

both physical and mental, as a result of their service, as 

the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) has 

pointed out. Those are the people who most need our 

help. 

First, we need to give people the help they need when 

they leave. It takes time to turn a civilian into a soldier, 

so we should take time to turn a soldier into a civilian. 

Our resettlement programme helps service leavers to 

navigate civilian life; everything from finding a job, to 

benefits, education and retraining. We are making sure 

that it is focused on those who need it most. 

For example, ex-service personnel now get more support 

to study at university. The Department for Education is 

drawing up plans to create a new programme called 

“Troops to Teachers” to get experienced, high-quality 

ex-service personnel into the teaching profession. In a 

country where it is often claimed that there are not 

enough role models, believe me there are plenty in the 

armed forces. 

Secondly, when a veteran falls on hard times, there 

should be somewhere to turn. The problems can result 

from debt, homelessness, addiction or mental illness 

resulting from their service. Such difficulties can occur 

years after leaving the services, so we need a proper 

partnership between all arms of government, national 

and local, and with the NHS. That means ensuring that 

veterans get fair access to local housing schemes, providing 

more money and more nurses for mental health and 

working with the charitable sector to get the right 

support to the right people at the right time. 

Having worked as a doctor for some years with 

service personnel and their families, I have seen at first 

hand some of the difficulties and stress surrounding 

service life. Many of the pressures are the same faced by 

ordinary families up and down the country, but others 

are unique. Those have to be dealt with sensitively and 

appropriately. 

Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab): The 

Secretary of State is being very gracious, and I do 

appreciate him letting me in. 

Will the right hon. Gentleman be a little clearer with 

me about the definition of “military covenant”? In the 

Bill Committee last week, the Under-Secretary of State 

for Defence, the right hon. Member for South Leicestershire 

(Mr Robathan) said that he thought the military covenant 

was a “conceptual” thing, a “philosophical statement”, 

and that it would have 

“the same legal position as the service Command Paper”.––[Official 

Report, Armed Forces Public Bill Committee, 10 February 2011; 

c. 22.] 

Is that the case? Can the Secretary of State give me his 

definition of the military covenant, so that he might 

explain to his Minister what it is?


1046 

Dr Fox: I have already set out that what my right hon. 

Friend says is true. There is a concept of what the 

covenant means in terms of the relationship between 

the armed forces and the people of this country, and the 

responsibility that the people of this country have not 

only to those serving in the armed forces, but to their 

families and to veterans. As I said very clearly, however, 

we are setting out and will publish in the spring a 

tri-service covenant for the first time. It has to go 

beyond the traditional covenant, which related to the 

Army; we are discussing the issue with the charitable 

sector and the armed forces; and we will publish that 

new tri-service covenant in the spring. 

I am aware of the time constraints, Mr Speaker, so let 

me just remind the House of the point with which I 

began. This year, the £43 billion that the UK will spend 

on debt interest payments—the debt that the previous 

Government left behind—amounts to more than the 

Ministry of Defence, Foreign and Commonwealth Office 

and international aid budgets combined. If we did not 

have it hanging around our necks, how much more 

could we do on service housing, health care or allowances? 

Instead, we will get absolutely nothing back for that 

money. We cannot sustain that level of deficit and debt 

without losing our influence in the world or being 

forced to limit our foreign policy and defence options. If 

we learned anything as a country from the cold war, it 

was that the stronger our economy, the better our national 

security and the more we can do for our service personnel. 

Labour’s economic policies created a national security 

liability that goes behind the hard end of national 

security and impacts on how we treat our armed forces, 

their families and the veterans through the covenant. 

Labour wants to, but cannot, wash away its legacy by 

ignoring its actions while in government—a Government 

of whom Opposition Members were a part. 

There is no point in the people who left us broke 

complaining that we are not doing enough. There is no 

point in the people who had 13 years to deliver, but 

failed to, telling us that we have not done enough in 

nine months. The shadow Defence Secretary is a very 

decent man, but he represents a party that failed in its 

duty to the armed forces. It has no creditability on the 

issues that should have been dealt with when the money 

was available in earlier years. 

Because of the nation’s dreadful finances, we as a 

Government are being forced to take some tough 

decisions—including on allowances and on pensions. 

We do not do so because we want to; we do so because 

we have to. We do so because, as the outgoing Labour 

Chief Secretary to the Treasury actually said in his note, 

“Sorry, there is no money left”. Perhaps it was a joking 

matter for Labour, but it is deadly serious for the armed 

forces. 

The coalition Government are taking the difficult 

decisions required to deal with Labour’s legacy, and we 

will continue to rebuild the armed forces covenant. I 

wish we could go faster, but we will go as fast as we can. 

Opposition Members got us into this mess; this Government 

will get us out of it. 

5.33 pm 

Mr David Crausby (Bolton North East) (Lab): My 

dad landed in France and ran up the beach on D-day. If 

he was alive today, he would tell us that it was the fastest 

that he ran in his entire life. He would freely admit that, 

as he crouched in the landing craft heading for shore, 

with bullets pinging off the infrastructure, he was petrified 

of the doors opening. When they finally opened, his 

stomach turned over, and he went up that beach in full 

kit faster than Linford Christie. He made it unscathed 

to the top, but the next day he had most of his stomach 

blown out by a German shell in a field just beyond the 

beach. He suffered for it every day of his life for the next 

48 years. In return, he received a small pension from the 

Government and spent the rest of his life worrying 

about losing it. He was grateful for the money. He spent 

most of it on beer, if the truth were known, but he 

enjoyed every pint. Was he worth it? Damn right he was, 

every penny, because without him and his mates, there 

would be a foreign flag flying over this Parliament— 

assuming, that is, that this building existed at all. We 

owe him, along with thousands of his comrades, a debt 

of honour. We must never forget that. 

The very same applies to our present-day forces. They 

may be small in number, but when they put their lives 

on the line we have a duty to look after them, and their 

families. 

Andrew Bridgen: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that 

the military power of our great country has been, is and 

always will be a projection of our economic power, 

which has been devastated by the mismanagement of 

the last Government? 

Mr Crausby: I will get to that point. 

We do not expect our forces to join a trade union or 

allow them to go on strike, so they are entitled to be 

treated differently. My dad lay in that French field for 

two days before he was found, but he was eventually 

flown back to the UK and put back together. When he 

recovered, he voted Labour, and he never missed the 

opportunity to vote Labour in every election until the 

day he died. I make that point simply because this is not 

a party political issue. Many of his comrades returned 

to vote Conservative, and Liberal, and other weird 

things, as was their entitlement, and some did not 

bother to vote at all. So it is shameful to turn the matter 

of the covenant into a point-scoring party political 

issue, as the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire 

(Andrew Bridgen) did. 

We all know that we are in difficult circumstances, 

but I do not know what my dad would say about cutting 

soldiers’ allowances at the same time as Barclays pay 

their investment bankers 20% more—not to mention 

making Afghan veterans redundant by e-mail, which is 

even worse than when John Major made Bosnian front-line 

veterans redundant by post. I suppose that the MOD 

has at least come up to date. 

Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con): Will the hon. 

Gentleman give way? 

Mr Crausby: For the last time. 

Bob Stewart: John Major did not do that. I told 

Bosnian soldiers that they were made redundant personally 

by waking them up in the morning and telling them as 

they woke up, and then I gave them the paper. That was 

rotten.


1048 

Mr Crausby: In any event, it was shameful. Whatever 

my dad would have said about it, I assure people that it 

would not have been pretty. 

The truth is that our defence expenditure is already 

too low, and has been for years when measured against 

our foreign policy aspirations. The most important 

pound that we earn is the one that we defend our 

families and our country with whenever we are in 

danger. When we are at war, it should be the last pound 

that we cut, and we must certainly never cut it from the 

people who are prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice 

for us. 

Over the next few years, we will be spending countless 

billions on aircraft carriers, on fighter planes, on unmanned 

aerial vehicles, on nuclear submarines and on nuclear 

missiles; it will no doubt end up being very much more 

than the MOD’s current estimates. So what are we 

playing at in cutting a relatively small sum from our 

armed forces’ children’s education? Last year in June, 

our Prime Minister stood on Ark Royal and talked 

about making formal commitments on matters such as 

education for military children and care for those injured 

on the battlefield. He said: 

“I want all these things refreshed and renewed and written 

down in a new military covenant that’s written into the law of the 

land.” 

He did not say, “I want an annual report.” 

Let me give the Prime Minister a tip, and perhaps the 

Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Defence will 

take note: if he expects to retain any political or personal 

integrity in life, he must not make promises that he 

cannot keep. We can understand Liberals making promises 

that they do not expect to keep, but the Tories should 

know better. 

5.40 pm 

Mark Lancaster (Milton Keynes North) (Con): It is 

an absolute pleasure to follow the hon. Member for 

Bolton North East (Mr Crausby), who has been an 

excellent member of the Defence Committee for several 

years. The moving story of his father reminded me of a 

T-shirt that we had printed when I commanded a bomb 

disposal squadron. On the front it said, “I’m a bomb 

disposal officer,” and on the back it said, “If you see me 

running, try to keep up.” 

I start, of course, by declaring my interest as a 

serving member of the armed forces. It was an honour 

to serve in Bosnia and Kosovo, and I am grateful to the 

previous Government for allowing me to serve in 

Afghanistan in 2006. I wish to make it clear that any 

limited experience that I have pales into insignificance 

compared with that of those who are serving in Afghanistan 

today. 

Much of the debate has been about whether the 

Government should enshrine the military covenant in 

law, or whether there should be a report on the military 

covenant by law. I am not a lawyer and, to be honest, I 

do not know about that. As a member of the armed 

forces and like fellow members of the armed forces, I do 

not really care. What is important to me is not whether 

we enshrine it in law. That is a process point which 

demonstrates how out of touch the House of Commons 

is with our armed forces. What is important to me is 

that this and future Governments are judged by what is 

achieved—by the output of the military covenant. I 

reserve the right in future years to come back and give 

my assessment on this Government and future 

Governments when we have reports on the military 

covenant in this place. 

We have talked a lot about morale in the armed 

forces, and I will pinpoint one moment. I was excited in 

2006 when the previous Government introduced the 

operational allowance, and I pay tribute to them for 

that. I received it, and for the record, I donated it to the 

Royal British Legion because I thought that was the 

right thing to do as a Member of Parliament. However, 

I also remember the horror when we discovered that, at 

the same time, the longer service separation allowance 

had been cut by almost exactly the same amount. There 

was a great fanfare by Tony Blair about the introduction 

of the operational allowance, and yet the cut to the 

longer service separation allowance was made quietly. 

Although I fully support this Government’s doubling of 

the operational allowance, I give the caveat that members 

of our armed forces will be looking carefully at their 

payslips in future, such is the cynicism of many of them. 

We must be very careful on that point. 

Another example is the introduction of the new 

payment system, the computerised joint personnel 

administration system. It had many gremlins, but such 

is the way with computer systems. One of the biggest 

problems with that system, which really upset members 

of the armed forces, related to the allowances. If somebody 

went from A to B, rather than being told what their 

allowances were, they had to go and find out. It was a 

pool system and people were not notified of what their 

allowances were. Like many of the benefits that were 

introduced, people were not automatically entitled to 

them. That needs to change. 

The air bridge was mentioned in the opening remarks 

of the debate. I experienced the problems of the air 

bridge in 2006: being woken up five hours before the 

flight; getting stuck in Cyprus; not being able to ring 

home to tell the family that one would be late; finally 

getting back two days later; missing some leave; and 

having one’s rifle sent to Aldershot, one’s bag sent home 

and one’s other kit sent elsewhere. I raised those concerns 

in the Chamber and there has been some improvement, 

but there are still major problems. I welcome the 

Government’s move to ensure that any leave that one 

misses as a result of those problems is added to the end 

of one’s post-tour leave. Some say that should happen 

in that two-week period, but that is impractical. It 

would be simply impossible for a commanding officer 

in Afghanistan to man his various companies without 

knowing when soldiers may return. 

Finally, I want to say a few words about the reserves. 

As a reservist, I was delighted that the Secretary of 

State mentioned the reserves in his opening remarks. 

There was deep concern back in 2009 when, as reservists, 

we were told out of the blue that there would be no 

more training for six months because of mid-year savings. 

That decision was wrong, so I was delighted that the 

then Government saw the error of their ways and 

corrected it. However, that decision should never have 

been taken. If we are to promote a one-Army concept, 

we cannot treat the reserves as second-class citizens. I 

would like a reassurance that such silly measures, which 

target the Territorial Army and undermine the one-Army 

concept, will not be introduced again.


1050 

[Mark Lancaster] 

The Government’s move to recognise the military 

covenant in a Bill for the first time is to be welcomed. 

We can argue about the semantics, but as I said at the 

start of my speech, I and many other members of the 

armed forces will judge this and successive Governments 

not on the detail, but on what is achieved. 

5.46 pm 

Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab): I am incredibly 

pleased to follow the first two Back-Bench contributions 

to this debate. I hope that my contribution will be of the 

same incredibly high order, because it is that high level 

of debate that our armed forces want to hear from this 

Chamber, not the yah-boo politics that we heard from 

the Front Benches. 

The military covenant is about the duty of care and 

the principles of that duty. It must set out the responsibilities 

of the Government and the country to those who serve 

and have risked their lives, just as the father of my hon. 

Friend the Member for Bolton North East (Mr Crausby) 

did and as the hon. Member for Milton Keynes North 

(Mark Lancaster) has done. The military covenant is 

about people who do not have a choice over where they 

go or what they are called on to do—people who have 

no right to strike or raise objections; people who have 

no voice. The military covenant should give a voice to 

those voiceless, and it must be enshrined in law. 

Why must the military covenant be enshrined in law? 

At the moment, our military is suffering from insecurity 

and instability. Morale is at an all-time low. Everyone in 

the Chamber has talked to military families. They will 

have had military families come to their surgeries who 

are concerned about how they will weather the strategic 

defence and security review, the cuts in allowances that 

have suddenly come upon them and the job losses, 

whether they are civil servants, many of whom are 

ex-military, or serving military personnel. There are 

pressures and tensions everywhere across our armed 

forces. 

The sacking of personnel by e-mail has sent shock 

waves through the armed forces. The failure to follow 

through on the training commitment to those young 

people—many were hours away from completing four 

years of training to achieve a qualification that would 

have carried them through the rest of their lives—has 

devastated families and young people. 

Why has the British Legion taken the unusual step of 

writing to Members of Parliament to ask that the 

military covenant be endorsed in law? This is a matter 

of trust, but I do not think that we demonstrate a 

tremendous amount of trust when we descend into 

making party political points about the military covenant. 

I am sorry to say that the Conservatives and Liberal 

Democrats have already become the parties of broken 

promises and broken commitments—[Interruption.] I 

have to say that promises have also been broken by my 

party. 

All of us have a duty to make the highest level of 

commitment to our armed forces, and we should be 

judged by our actions. We can all make a list of the 

things we have done and the things we have failed to do, 

but what we really need to do is think of the consequences 

in our communities, because families can be devastated 

by the decisions that come out of this Chamber. Young 

people’s futures can be destroyed when their dreams of 

serving their country are thrown away, after they have 

read about the decision in a national newspaper. 

The military covenant must not be simply a concept 

or a philosophy; it must be something that people can 

hold in their hands and feel secure about. It must be 

something that we, as a country, stand up to and stand 

by. Our armed forces and their families need to know 

that, whatever Government are in power, we will stand 

strongly by our commitments to them and that we will 

honour those commitments. As I have handed over 

veterans badges across my constituency over the past 

few years, I have seen the pride that people still felt 

about their years of service. They felt that those were 

the best years of their lives, and the times when they 

were most alive. We must honour those people, and 

make a commitment to them in law. If we are to have 

only a report, there must at the very least be a commitment 

to a free vote on the covenant for every Member of the 

House. 

5.52 pm 

Patrick Mercer (Newark) (Con): It is a privilege to 

follow the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon), 

who more than lived up to her own billing. She spoke 

with great passion and great insight. I was also amused 

to hear the account from the hon. Member for Bolton 

North East (Mr Crausby) of what his father had done 

on D-day. If anyone had asked my father what he had 

done in the war, he would have said, “Actually, I was a 

D-day dodger.” My father was wounded three times in 

Italy, but the events there never got the coverage that 

the troops in France did. The hon. Gentleman’s contribution 

was a fascinating one. My hon. and gallant Friend the 

Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster) 

gave us his insight into his own service, albeit as a 

reservist, and being called up to the front line. That was 

extremely interesting. 

My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South 

West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) is preparing a document 

on the military covenant, and I have recently been asked 

what the covenant means to me. I was brought up to 

believe that the military covenant was the link between 

soldiers and officers, and between the nation and those 

soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines and their officers. 

Even more importantly, it is the link between the nation 

and the families, to whom the nation owes so much. I 

would like to pick up on a point that the hon. Member 

for Bridgend made, which is that the military covenant 

stands way above party politics. Yesterday’s urgent question 

showed the House of Commons at its absolute best. It 

was about looking after the little people who do so 

much to defend this nation. I will expand on that in a 

moment. 

In 1996, I led Nottinghamshire’s own regiment, the 

Sherwood Foresters, through what was to be my 

constituency of Newark. We were essentially a peacetime 

army: we had come back from Northern Ireland and 

from Bosnia, but we were essentially a peacetime army. 

The burghers of Newark were polite, courteous and 

enthusiastic. The town was glad to see us. 

Two years ago, the successor to that battalion, now 

sadly called 2 Mercian, paraded after its last tour in 

Afghanistan, where it had picked up a record number of 

conspicuous gallantry crosses—more than any other


1052 

battalion in the British Army. The town was mobbed. 

There was standing room only. Women and children 

were out on the streets. Union flags were being waved; 

regimental flags were being waved. The boys were 

overwhelmed by what they saw, and I was overwhelmed 

as well. I could not believe it. This was the military 

covenant put into practice. 

What we must understand is that we are mere 

representatives of those people who were either marching 

or waving their flags. We must not make the mistake of 

believing that those kids off the streets of Newark, be 

they serving in Afghanistan or clapping from the pavements, 

understand or care about the semantics, the language 

and the legalities which we use so much and find so 

precious. What this is about is making sure that we 

honour our men, our women, our fighters and their 

families. Whether it be in law or whether it be simply 

talked about, as we are talking about it today, that is the 

important thing. 

Pamela Nash (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab): I do not 

think that anyone in the House disagrees with what the 

hon. Gentleman says, but does he agree that legislating 

for a military covenant would allow military families to 

trust the Government to provide everything that he 

mentions? 

Patrick Mercer: I do not know and I do not care. 

What I do know is that when it works, it works superbly. 

I hope to say more about that shortly, but first let me 

explain how we have let our troops down and how the 

military covenant has been compromised. 

Let me point out to all Members who were serving 

here at the time that this week in 2006, on 14 February, 

we had a debate which my friends and colleagues on the 

Opposition Benches will particularly remember. Troops 

were being committed to the Helmand valley in 

Afghanistan, an area where, in 1880, a British brigade 

lost 1,000 men in four hours, and where a Russian 

regimental unit lost 700 men over three days. We committed 

troops to that area without enough guns, without enough 

helicopters, without enough ammunition, and without 

enough bayonet power to do the job. That was the worst 

sort of compromise of the military covenant, and it was 

not done by Ministers wittingly. Most of it was done by 

career officers who did not understand that the military 

covenant involves the people who will do the fighting, 

not the talking and the theorising. That is what we must 

get right. 

My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham 

(Bob Stewart) mentioned the notice given to troops 

who were made redundant after Bosnia. I do not remember 

that, but I do know that in battalions such as the 

Cheshire Regiment, whose reputation stands high, the 

news of that measure was given by the commanding 

officer personally, because leadership was exercised. 

That is the point. The military covenant is about the 

exercise of leadership by officers and Ministers, and by 

the families whom both represent. 

Yesterday, we heard about the most awful nonsense 

that had occurred some time earlier. A major had given 

news by e-mail of the sacking of a number of warrant 

officers who were serving all over the world. I appreciate 

that that was difficult to administer, but is notable that 

an urgent question was asked, that the Speaker allowed 

it to be dealt with in the Chamber, and that Members 

on both sides of the House stood up for those warrant 

officers against the leviathan that the Army can be. 

That was the Chamber at its best, and the military 

covenant at its best, because we were looking after the 

people whom we have a sacred duty to look after. I do 

not care whether that is written into law; the point is 

that we must get it right. We must honour these men, we 

must honour these women, and we must honour their 

families. That is a military covenant. 

5.59 pm 

Sandra Osborne (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab): 

It is an incredible pleasure to follow all the Back Benchers 

who have spoken this evening, as their speeches have 

shown the House of Commons at its best in terms of 

expertise and the passion with which Members have 

been speaking. 

I start by paying tribute to our forces and the sacrifices 

they make for our country, and by referring to the grief 

of the families of those who have been lost. When I 

recently went to Afghanistan with the Select Committee 

on Defence, we visited a forward operating base—I 

believe this was the first time the Committee had done 

so—and the dangers faced by our soldiers on a daily 

basis were obvious and very humbling. Through the 

work taking place there and at Camp Bastion, together 

with the training of the Afghan army and police, we are 

seeing real progress, but for me it was the professionalism 

of our forces that shone through. The best part of the 

visit came when we spoke face to face with members of 

the forces. I was left in no doubt that they are extremely 

worried about their terms and conditions, and their 

future pension arrangements, and that many did not 

feel that they were being treated fairly. I had similar 

conversations when the previous Government were in 

office and I acknowledge that members of the armed 

forces were not happy then either. We have to acknowledge 

that much more can be done. The shadow Secretary of 

State outlined what had been done, but we need to 

make more progress. 

In the House, we are rightly always hearing warm 

words of appreciation for our forces, but they can ring 

hollow if they are not put into practice in the military 

covenant and if promises are made and then not kept. 

In the Armed Forces Bill Committee, the Minister 

responsible for veterans said that the covenant is a 

“moral obligation” and a “philosophical statement” 

and therefore does not need to be spelled out in detail or 

enshrined in law. That is, of course, the exact opposite 

of the promise that the Prime Minister made on the Ark 

Royal—the “Ark of the covenant” perhaps. 

My constituency in the south-west of Scotland covers 

large parts of Ayrshire that are closely associated with 

the Covenanters, who stood for the preservation of 

Presbyterianism against all attempts to re-establish Catholic 

or Episcopalian Church government—that is perhaps 

not the happiest of illustrations for our Front-Bench 

team of Murphy and Doyle to take on board. My point 

is merely that covenants are scattered throughout history, 

nowhere more so than in biblical times. They often 

represented the most deeply held beliefs and were of life 

and death proportions. The adjectives most commonly 

associated with them were words such as “solemn” and 

“binding”. It was seldom enough for them to be written 

in the hearts and minds; it was far better for them to be 

written on tablets of stone or in blood.


1054 

[Sandra Osborne] 

The military covenant is no less a thing; it is not a 

mere service level agreement and it is more than a 

bundle of moral obligations or philosophical statements. 

Moral obligations and philosophical statements do not 

pay the bills for our service personnel or veterans, nor 

do they give guarantees in legislation, which is the 

promise that was made and the promise that should be 

kept. 

Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab): 

My hon. Friend is making a tremendously impressive 

speech on this issue. The people of Barnsley, in my 

constituency, have great regard for the armed forces and 

they expect the Members they elect to this House to 

reflect that fact in not only everything they say, but 

everything they do. Does she agree with that? 

Sandra Osborne: Yes, very much so. 

We are fortunate that both the Armed Forces Bill 

Committee and the Defence Committee contain Members 

who have served with distinction in the armed forces, 

for example, the hon. Member for Milton Keynes North 

(Mark Lancaster), who spoke with such authority. I 

have not served in the forces, so I am grateful that I have 

had the chance to take part in the armed forces 

parliamentary scheme. As hon. Members will know, the 

scheme allows MPs to spend some 22 days a year with a 

particular service. Surprisingly enough, in my case it 

was with the Royal Marines and although it was in no 

way equivalent to the experience of actual service, it 

certainly opened my eyes to the reality of the job being 

done, as well as providing opportunities to speak frankly 

and off the record to the rank and file. I commend the 

scheme to hon. Members who might not be aware of 

it—it is very useful, especially given that relatively few 

Members of the House have served with the armed 

forces. 

One issue that worries me about the Armed Forces 

Bill is the narrow way it is framed in terms of specifying 

the issues that should be included in the covenant. 

Education, health and housing are very important, but 

none of them comes under the remit of the MOD. That 

is not an adequate list of the many issues that exist and, 

as hon. Members have said, are by no means the only 

matters of concern. Pensions are of major concern and 

not just in relation to the retail prices index/consumer 

prices index debate: widows’ allowances are also of 

concern. The agreement on pensions is being changed 

retrospectively and members of the armed forces feel 

aggrieved about that because they joined the forces in 

the belief that they would be guaranteed a decent 

pension. Now they feel let down. I mentioned the 

external reference group earlier because I think it is 

important that we have a level of independence. I do 

not make a party political point: I believe that Governments 

of any persuasion have a vested interest in highlighting 

the areas that suit them and ignoring those that do not. 

For example, why have pensions not been included even 

though they are obviously a hot issue? 

Health care is extremely important and I was delighted 

to hear that the Secretary of State is prioritising mental 

health services. Combat Stress in my constituency does 

a tremendous job for people who suffer from post-traumatic 

stress disorder, including through cognitive behavioural 

therapy. I strongly welcome the prioritisation of mental 

health services and I look forward to the development 

of further services, but I repeat that a promise made 

should be a promise kept. 

6.7 pm 

Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD): I thank Back Benchers 

on both sides of the Chamber for having retrieved the 

debate, as Hansard will record. The debate will be read 

by many service personnel and former military personnel 

and, as I said in an earlier intervention, it does not go 

down well to play party politics with our armed forces. 

Having served on the previous Armed Forces Bill—now 

the Armed Forces Act 2006—and on the Committee 

debating the current Armed Forces Bill, I pay tribute to 

the previous Government for the many advances that 

were made regarding the welfare and interests of our 

serving personnel and their families. 

I have no recollection of the military covenant—now 

known as the armed forces covenant—being mentioned 

in our deliberations on the previous Bill. That concept 

has been brought about by the efforts of the Royal 

British Legion, to which I pay tribute. I also thank the 

Secretary of State for praising reservists and for reiterating 

that praise when I intervened on him, because that is 

part of the one-Army concept. Serving reservists and 

their families are sometimes left out of the debate. 

The armed forces covenant will be enshrined in law 

when the Bill is enacted because those words will appear 

in legislation for the first time and because the Secretary 

of State will be required to come to the House each year 

and make a report. I am pretty confident that any 

Secretary of State who for whatever reason tried to 

airbrush out matters of concern would be quickly picked 

up, and quite rightly so, by any Member who thought 

such issues were being ignored. 

Mr Kevan Jones: The hon. Gentleman says that the 

covenant will be enshrined in law, but he attended the 

Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill the other 

day when the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the 

right hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr Robathan), 

said of the covenant: 

“As I have explained already, it will be a conceptual, philosophical 

statement, and it will have about the same legal position as the 

service Command Paper”. 

To say that it will be enshrined in law is complete 

nonsense. 

Bob Russell: I am not a lawyer; all I know is that the 

Bill, which I hope will become an Act, refers to the 

armed forces covenant. Should there be more than that, 

or should there be less? I do not know, but I do know 

that as the years unfold, that concept will be developed 

and built upon. Not only the Royal British Legion but 

other charities are involved. We have heard about the 

external reference group, but in fact a breakdown of 

that group has shown that the majority of its membership 

is within Government. It is more of an internal 

reference group, with a few very important external 

people added on. 

Sandra Osborne: The hon. Gentleman will recall 

from the activities of the Bill Committee that the devolved 

Administrations are involved in the external reference 

group. So far, that is the only way in which they have 

been consulted on the Bill. Does he agree that such 

consultation is important?


1056 

Bob Russell: I have every confidence that the devolved 

Assemblies and elected representatives from the areas 

that they cover will not be silent on the Bill. 

On Monday, members of the Committee visited the 

Colchester garrison, Merville barracks. They witnessed 

a virtually deserted barracks, because virtually ever 

soldier of 16 Air Assault Brigade is currently serving in 

Helmand province. I should like to place on record my 

admiration of, and thanks to, all soldiers in that brigade, 

including those from other nations who are attached to 

it. I understand that three people from the Danish army 

attached to it have lost their lives. 

Members of the Select Committee also saw the modern 

housing there, which is single person’s accommodation, 

for which the last Government can take credit. I do not 

agree with its being funded by a private finance initiative, 

because it will cost the public purse more in the long 

run, but it is the yardstick by which the provision of all 

accommodation for single military personnel will be 

judged in future. However, the Committee also saw the 

outside of some of the family accommodation. Although 

we did not go inside, it is accepted that some of it is not 

as good as it should be. 

Across the road, former Army housing, now acquired 

by a housing association, is having millions of pounds 

spent on it from the public purse to provide additional 

rented accommodation for civilians. That accommodation 

is welcome, but when an Army family living in their 

substandard house see public money being spent across 

the road on modernising the most up-to-date housing 

available, they have to ask what the military covenant is 

doing. How can the Government find money to do up 

houses for civilians, which of course I welcome, yet tell 

us that there is no money to modernise the housing of 

people whose soldier husbands are serving in Afghanistan 

and putting their lives on the line? That has to be 

addressed. I am not making any party political point, 

because the families we met were not bothered about 

party politics as far as I could tell. They just wanted 

their Government to do something about the problem. 

I shall end by talking about education, which is one 

of the three subjects covered by the covenant under the 

Bill, although others will flow from them. The pupil 

premium has been mentioned, and I welcome the concept, 

but it has not yet been spelled out to me what the 

criteria will be for that money stream to come forward 

for the children of military personnel. It will be one 

thing to identify military children on Army, Navy and 

Air Force bases, where the majority of the children at 

the local school will be from a military background. 

However, we know that increasing numbers of armed 

forces personnel do not live on military bases. How will 

the pupil premium find its way to young people from 

such families? 

I welcome the Armed Forces Bill, and I believe that 

the armed forces covenant will be enshrined in the law 

of the land. I do not want to argue about the legal 

semantics, but the Bill is a huge step forward and we 

should thank the Royal British Legion for all its work. 

6.15 pm 

Teresa Pearce (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab): I am 

proud to represent my constituency, which has a long 

military history—the arsenal at Woolwich is on our 

doorstep, and the new town of Thamesmead was built 

on arsenal land—but I am also proud to be a member 

of the Thamesmead Town and Abbey Wood Royal 

British Legion, and it is on behalf of my fellow members 

that I want to make just one point. 

The Conservatives said in their armed forces manifesto 

that they would look into Lord Boyce’s armed forces 

compensation scheme review to see whether the reforms 

were improving things for veterans. I suggest that they 

also look at how the policies of other Whitehall 

Departments, such as the Department for Work and 

Pensions, will affect the conditions for current and 

future veterans. The scale of the reduction in benefits 

following the switch from RPI to CPI will wipe out the 

increases in lump-sum payments that the previous 

Government introduced following the Boyce review. 

Far from improving conditions for veterans, that change 

will be a backward step and a huge blow to members of 

the armed forces, war widows and their families, because 

they rely on pensions earlier than other public sector 

workers. In their lives, members of the armed forces 

face the risk of injury—both physical and mental—and 

so rely on getting their pensions earlier, as do the 

widows and widowers of servicemen and servicewomen 

who are killed early in their careers. 

Those groups, and those on the war pension scheme 

and the armed forces compensation scheme, will experience 

a greater diminution of the relative value of their pension 

over a greater period. Because of the switch to CPI, a 

40-year-old squadron leader will lose £300,000 by the 

age of 85, which is not right. We should not be telling 

those who have risked their lives for this country that 

they must suffer a financial loss on such a scale for the 

sake of reducing the deficit as quickly as possible. As we 

heard earlier, the deficit is temporary, but the changes 

to the pensions of members of our armed forces and of 

other public sector workers will be permanent—the 

year-on-year reduction in their pensions will continue 

long after the structural deficit has been reduced. 

I oppose in principle the switch to CPI from RPI, and 

I am unconvinced by the Government’s argument that 

the former is a better measure. The Government need to 

postpone that change and to rethink their policy for all 

public sector workers, but members of our armed forces 

are a special case. They have served their country, often 

making huge sacrifices. That also applies to the wider 

families of personnel. The military service of personnel 

means that it is likely that they have been away from 

their families for long periods. We talk about the right 

to family life in the House when we talk about ourselves, 

but serving personnel should also have that right. The 

families of personnel worry every day about the injury 

or death in service of their loved one, waiting for that 

phone call or that message, which must be the most 

awful way to live. 

Cutting the pensions of members of the armed services 

is not the way to reduce the structural deficit. I believe 

that the deficit can be reduced by greater investment, 

and a solid strategy for growth over time in a society in 

which everyone who is able to work does so, and in 

which we support those who cannot. I urge the Government 

to review that aspect of their pension policy and to 

abandon their short-term thinking on the economy, so 

that members of the armed forces and their families do 

not pay the price for the banking crisis, in which they 

had no part.


1058 

[Teresa Pearce] 

As the general secretary of the Forces Pension Society, 

Major-General John Moore-Bick, says, the armed forces 

pension is “the bedrock of trust” on which members of 

our forces rely. They know that they or their families 

will be taken care of in the event of death or wounding, 

and they can trust that they will have a decent life after 

active service. We alter that bedrock of trust at our 

peril, and to our shame. 


Mr Speaker: Order. There are now only 20 minutes 

left for remaining Back-Bench contributions, and several 

Members still seek to catch my eye. Members are perfectly 

capable of doing the arithmetic for themselves, but I 

appeal to them to help each other. 

6.19 pm 

Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con): I will be as quick as 

I can. I love the idea of a military covenant. Of course 

our armed forces are a special case. They are a martial 

profession: people who join them do not do so to join a 

nursery school; they know they are going to take risks 

and they know they may lose their lives. As we know, 

they are in a unique profession, so we have to deal with 

them uniquely. That is why we must look after them. I 

repeat: we must look after them. 

The military covenant is a work in progress. I agree 

with my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick 

Mercer), who is no longer in his place, and others who 

say that it is the idea of the covenant that counts rather 

than law. We feel strongly that the tri-service military 

covenant being looked at now, as work in progress, 

could get better. I feel that the military covenant comprises 

three crucial aspects, which I will quickly run through. 

Mr Kevan Jones: What the Defence Secretary said 

this afternoon, which was also said in recent proceedings 

on the Armed Forces Bill, is that a document called 

“the armed forces covenant” is being worked on now 

and will be produced later this spring. If that is the case, 

and the Prime Minister is clear that the covenant should 

be written into law, why is it not part of the Armed 

Forces Bill? When an amendment was proposed last 

week to enshrine the covenant in law, why did the hon. 

Gentleman’s party vote against it? 

Bob Stewart: The answer is I do not know, but I will 

continue and I will be quick. 

What is crucial to whatever we call the military 

covenant is how we respect our soldiers when they are 

killed. As a boy, I remember watching my father’s 

battalion come back. He was the only officer who had 

not been killed and I remember watching the bodies 

come off the back of an aircraft at RAF Khormaksar 

in Aden. We have come a long way since then, and we 

must respect people properly. Secondly, the families 

must be looked after properly. When someone dies in 

the service of our country, we have a duty as a Government 

to look after those families for the rest of their lives. 

And my third point is that we have a duty to look after 

those who are hurt badly for the rest of their lives, too. 

I am happy that the military covenant is going to be 

part of the Armed Forces Bill. I like the idea of having a 

report every year. I commend the idea of the Queen’s 

regulations. When I was serving, they were my bible 

when it came to dealing with my soldiers and how I 

should behave. Perhaps the tri-service military covenant 

will in due course become part of the Queen’s regulations. 

Members on both sides of the House must try to do 

whatever we can in these parlous economic times to 

look after our soldiers so that we will remember them. 

6.23 pm 

Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab): There have been 

some excellent and thoughtful contributions to the debate. 

I am pleased that the Royal Welsh Regiment has been 

given the freedom of the borough in Blaenau Gwent 

this weekend. 

Last week, I asked the Leader of the House for a 

debate on the Government’s proposed changes to armed 

forces pensions. I have also tabled early-day motion 

1367, which is now supported by 118 MPs from all 

parties. I welcome today’s opportunity to raise the issue 

of the military covenant. 

For service personnel and veterans in my constituency, 

pensions are a key component of the military covenant. 

Unfortunately, they do not believe that a permanent 

move from the retail prices index to the consumer prices 

index in calculating pension increases is fair, and neither 

do I. This change will slash the lifetime income of 

disabled servicemen wounded on active service. They 

have been targets of the Taliban and others; they should 

not be targets in their retirement. 

I am proud of Wales’s contribution to Britain’s defence; 

it has been long and distinguished. The Welsh Assembly 

has an admirable record in providing for our armed 

forces. That is why armed forces personnel now get 

special help through the Assembly’s homebuy scheme. 

It is good that the Welsh Assembly goes that bit 

further for our armed forces. That, I believe, is in 

contrast to the Government’s policy on pensions for the 

armed services. 

As my right hon. Friend the shadow Defence Secretary 

pointed out, the Opposition accept the need for pay 

restraint in public sector pay and pensions in the current 

economic circumstances. However, a permanent move 

to uprating pensions every year in line with CPI rather 

than RPI does not recognise the unique condition of 

military service and retirement. It will, for example, 

mean that those invalided out, and widows who lose 

their partner at a relatively young age, will lose out—and 

big time. 

The impact of the Government proposals on pensions 

uprating are stark and startling. For example, a disabled, 

double amputee, 28-year-old corporal would lose £587,000 

by the age of 70. I do not believe that is fair, given the 

sacrifices made by our armed services and servicemen 

and servicewomen. Lyndon Moore, the secretary of the 

Nantyglo British Legion in Blaenau Gwent, supports 

me in standing up for servicemen, who, he feels, have 

been let down by the Government in their hour of need. 

I applaud the coverage of this matter in The Times and 

in the Pensions Fit for Heroes campaign of the Daily 

Mirror in recent weeks. 

The Government have acknowledged that the e-mail 

sackings were a dreadful mistake, and the Defence 

Secretary’s apology yesterday was a full one. However, 

let us reflect on how it must feel to have one’s long-term 

national service terminated by e-mail, especially when


1060 

one has served the country with distinction. The 

Government must sharpen up their act so that that 

dreadful mistake does not happen again. 

I hope that in the short time left before the Budget, 

the Defence Secretary will make the case to the Chancellor 

for a rethink on armed services pensions uprating. We 

need an informed discussion on how we devise CPI and 

RPI. The International Association for Official Statistics 

has said that there is a risk of loss of public faith in 

official data. The public are sceptical about a measure 

such as CPI, which excludes housing costs. Service 

pensioners know that housing costs are a long-term element 

in their monthly outgoings, particularly for invalids and 

war widows. That is why CPI increases are so problematic 

for them, and that should be emphasised today. 

Service personnel should be assured that the change 

in pensions uprating from RPI to CPI will be as brief as 

possible. Surely the Minister does not want to penalise 

service families for ever and a day. If the Government 

change their mind, it will be an important boost to 

service morale and will ensure that the military covenant 

is credible. Importantly, it is the right thing to do. 

6.27 pm 

Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con): I pay tribute to 

the fantastic contributions that we have heard in the 

House today. In comparison, my speech will probably 

sound quite parochial, as I speak as a member of a 

forces family: my husband is a Royal Navy officer, so 

perhaps I should declare an interest as I am one of the 

people under discussion. 

We have heard comments about political point scoring 

and making promises that we cannot keep, and those 

are the two issues on which I want to focus. The armed 

forces is not a homogenous mass or fighting machine, 

but soldiers, sailors, airmen, wives, husbands, kids, mothers 

and fathers. We are asking people not just to lay down 

their own lives but to lay down the lives of those whom 

they love most in the world, to protect our country and 

its interests. We must remember, every day in this Chamber, 

that those are the decisions that we are making. 

I fully endorse the renaming of the military covenant 

as an armed forces covenant. The many Navy members 

of my constituency—it is a military constituency—have 

often felt that “the military covenant” is an Army-centric 

term, and they like the fact that the Navy and RAF are 

included in the rebranding of the name. 

I want to reinforce the point made by some of my 

hon. Friends this afternoon that it is missing the point 

and the sentiment behind the covenant to talk about 

enshrining it in law. Forces families have heard it all 

before—[Interruption.] Hon. Members can chunter all 

they like, but I can talk only from personal experience. 

Successive Governments have promised to take care of 

the armed forces and failed to deliver. 

Forces families do not want special treatment. They 

just want a level playing field; they want the same 

treatment as everybody else and the same opportunities 

as non-service families. Sadly, forces families are no 

strangers to having their hopes raised and then dashed. 

For example, MODern Housing Solutions offered itself 

as a revolution in delivering maintenance and repairs 

for forces accommodation. Everybody in married forces 

was very excited about that, but it failed to deliver its 

promises. 

When I was newly wed to a naval officer, I was told by 

the wife of a more senior officer that the only thing I 

could guarantee in my life as a Navy wife was that the 

day my husband told me he would be home from sea is 

the only day he would not be home. That sums up the 

situation. Such changes of plan are unavoidable of 

course, but the MOD must work on its communication 

skills. Families can often be seen as a bit of a nuisance, 

and they are often the last to find out when their loved 

ones will be home. 

David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP): Will the hon. 

Lady give way? 

Caroline Dinenage: I would love to give way, but I will 

not do so as I am also thinking about other Members 

who wish to contribute. 

An unhappy family makes an unhappy service person. 

We need to rebuild the trust of our armed forces, and if 

we make a promise we must stick to it. Making promises 

that are achievable and then exceeding expectations is 

far better than seeking to enshrine things in law. 

The UK’s armed forces have been working at a sustained 

rate for decades. Whitehall is lined with statues 

commemorating the valour of servicemen and women, 

but what would be a far more fitting commemoration in 

their honour is a tangible covenant that can respond to 

the changing needs of our armed forces and that keeps 

its promises to them and makes them feel safer abroad 

and more valued at home. 

6.31 pm 

Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab): I will try to be 

brief by asking the Minister to answer the questions of 

others, not points raised by me. 

The director general of the Royal British Legion, 

Chris Simpkins, said: 

“We’re seeing various allowances paid to the armed forces 

being reduced…If we then see that the Government isn’t prepared 

to give a legal commitment to an armed forces covenant I feel that 

may well be the straw that breaks the camel’s back and will have a 

very harmful impact on morale.” 

In case there is any doubt, he talked previously about 

“the need to define and enshrine in law a set of principles in a 

military covenant.” 

Let me put some points made by serving armed 

forces families. J. Winfield of Nottingham says: 

“Once again a new Government have got into power on the 

back of broken promises. For those of us in the military, we have 

seen a cut in take-home pay (not a pay freeze), an attack on our 

pension scheme (against the charter) and basically a complete 

betrayal by this Government. When the economic climate improves 

they need not worry about compulsory redundancies as experienced 

personnel will be leaving in droves. But let us remember ‘we are all 

in this together’.” 

Hilary Adams of London says: 

“I’m constantly amazed that anyone in the Army is surprised 

when they get dumped on by Government. Haven’t you people 

realised you’re nothing more than cannon fodder? They made a 

big PR issue of upping other perks to soldiers when they came 

into power. It should surely have been obvious that they would 

pay for that by taking it away from you elsewhere!” 

Let me conclude by quoting some comments I have 

taken off one of the armed forces sites. As the Government 

Front-Bench team will know, these sites can use fruity 

language, so I have edited the comments.


1062 

[Huw Irranca-Davies] 

“How many of you are actually aware that as we speak, the 

Government are to steal from each and every one of you who 

have served your country and earned your pension tens of thousands 

of pounds because they are to change the way the annual increase 

is worked out?...I just like thousands of other soldiers, sailors and 

airmen have done my time plus some more and now they have 

decided to change the goal posts. I stayed in and I am still in 

because of the pension, not because I like being institutionalised…For 

me integrity is important; if you promise something to a person, 

you keep that promise and give it to them. The next person to 

come along does not necessarily have to get the same deal, this is 

the way life is. I was promised something, and I want it in the 

same form I had become used to expecting I would receive it. I 

honoured my side of the agreement, will they”— 

he is referring to the Government Front-Bench team— 

“honour theirs? I doubt it.” 

He said: 

“I shall be next year, aged 43, forced into possible unemployment 

because the option to remain serving isn’t there for me like many 

others. Perhaps if enough of us actually give a hoot, and took 

action he”— 

the Prime Minister— 

“may have second thoughts. Wake up, people, if you are entitled 

to an Armed Forces pension you are going to lose tens of 

thousands of pounds over your lifetime. What really annoys me is 

that it seems many of you either don’t know this is going to 

happen”— 

speaking to his other colleagues— 

“or don’t give a damn. Please start to take action now before it’s 

too late. We are getting royally bent over and”— 

I leave the rest to the imagination of the House. 

If the Government do not honour that covenant 

given on the Ark Royal, what will they do? Servicemen 

and their families are asking the House to honour the 

covenant. That is what the debate is about. 

6.35 pm 

Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con): I declare 

an interest as I am attached to Royal Navy Reserve, 

King Alfred, Portsmouth. 

I want to make three points. First, many Members 

have pointed out that the covenant and defence are not 

the turf of one political party or another; they are far 

too important, and must be beyond political gain. Those 

of us in the Chamber today, and those of us who speak 

regularly on these issues, must work with our parliamentary 

colleagues to build understanding and interest in the 

contribution our armed forces make not just to security 

but to our entire way of life. 

We need deeper understanding of the challenges that 

our armed forces and their families face in doing their 

duty, and I am pleased to announce that this year, for 

the first time, we will be holding a Trafalgar night in the 

House of Commons to showcase the contribution the 

Royal Navy makes to our way of life. I am delighted 

that the shadow Secretary of State has agreed to co-host 

that event with me. It shows how we can build depth 

and breadth in our colleagues’ knowledge of defence 

and related matters. 

Secondly, I repeat a point made by the Secretary of 

State. The covenant must be about actions, not just 

about words. We judge our service personnel in a binary 

way. Did we win? Did we secure our objectives? Our 

armed forces invariably do so. As politicians we do not 

have the same reputation. Given the catalogue of anecdotes 

about the failures of previous Governments, it is 

unsurprising that we face a sceptical audience in the 

armed services and their families. 

The debate has been about words—about legal status— 

but our focus beyond today must be on action and 

results. I pay tribute to the Secretary of State and his 

ministerial team; they have done a lot in a short time on 

operational allowances, mental health services, rest and 

recreation and education, but the covenant is about 

much more than welfare issues, which leads me to my 

third and final point. 

The covenant is just as much about our industrial 

strategy, the size of the defence budget and the voice of 

the military in future defence reviews as it is about 

welfare issues. In future months, I shall be arguing not 

just for service pensions to be linked to the retail prices 

index, for medals for submariners and the Arctic convoy, 

for damp-coursing in naval housing and additional 

allowances for those who search for improvised explosive 

devices, as well as for those who dispose of them, but 

also for a larger defence budget in future years, support 

for exporting Royal Navy-designed ships and for military 

representation on the secretariat of the National Security 

Council. Why? Because if the armed forces covenant is 

to be realised, it requires funds. It requires that we make 

the right procurement decisions and that we have a 

Parliament that listens to and learns from the concerns 

and day to day issues of service personnel. 

In that sense, the subject of the debate is a decoy. 

Despite wonderful contributions, it is a piece of theatre. 

We know that the military covenant will be enshrined in 

law, but it will be the subsequent actions of the House 

on the broader, more fundamental issues that ultimately 

decide whether the covenant is worth the paper it is 

written on. I urge the shadow Secretary of State to 

focus on that in future Opposition day debates. 

6.39 pm 

Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab): I 

shall make three quick observations. If the covenant is 

about anything, it must be about human resources and 

how we deal with people. First, will the Minister look at 

the composition of the Defence Board? If that was the 

board of a large international company, it would include 

human resources representatives. It does not, other 

than a human resources representative of one of the 

outside companies. 

Secondly, the defence cuts go to 17,000 service personnel 

and 25,000 civilian personnel. Will the Minister ensure 

that we do not end up making the military, which will 

be on higher wage rates, perform functions that cheaper 

civilian personnel had performed, and that the proper 

resources are made available? Thirdly, will he consider 

whether, if the budget is not increased, he will be able to 

withdraw British troops from Germany in 2020? Will he 

bear in mind that military personnel deserve some 

stability in their life, and that making promises that he 

cannot keep is not a good idea? 

6.40 pm 

Gemma Doyle (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab/Co-op): 

We have had an excellent debate this afternoon, including 

the speeches that we have just heard from the hon.


1064 

Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) and 

my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston 

(Ms Stuart). We called for the debate today to enable 

Members to hold the Government to account for the 

promises that they made to our service personnel. The 

Government said that the military covenant is shattered, 

but they have failed to offer a clear plan to strengthen it, 

and they have broken their promise to write the covenant 

into law. 

Numerous Members paid tribute today to our armed 

forces and they are right to do so. None did so more 

movingly than my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton 

North East (Mr Crausby), who paid tribute to his 

father. Our servicemen and women do difficult and 

dangerous work all over the world and we owe them a 

huge debt of gratitude for the sacrifices that they make 

to safeguard our liberty. We must not forget our armed 

forces families, as the hon. Member for Gosport (Caroline 

Dinenage) reminded us. Theirs is a huge sacrifice too, 

having their husbands and wives, mothers and fathers, 

sons and daughters spend many months away from 

home risking their lives. That puts a great strain on 

families, but their support is priceless. We owe them our 

sincere thanks, but we also owe them fair treatment. 

There was great progress on support for our armed 

forces under the previous Government. We delivered a 

cross-Government approach to forces’welfare. The Service 

Personnel Command Paper set out improved access to 

housing schemes and health care, free access to further 

and higher education for service leavers with six years’ 

service, and extended travel concessions for veterans 

and for those seriously injured. We proposed strengthening 

the military covenant by enshrining the rights of our 

service personnel, their families and veterans in law 

through an armed forces charter. My hon. Friend the 

Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) explained why that 

measure is so important. 

Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con): Will the hon. 

Lady give way? 

Gemma Doyle: Iamhappytogiveway,butImaybe 

able to do so only once. 

Christopher Pincher: I am obliged to the hon. Lady. It 

has been a pleasure to serve with her on the Select 

Committee on the Armed Forces Bill and now on the 

Bill Committee. She mentioned enshrining the covenant 

in law, but she heard the evidence of General Mans, 

who told the Committee on 8 February 2011: 

“I don’t think there is a requirement to set down standards”. 

In the same Committee sitting she heard the evidence of 

Admiral Montgomery, who said: 

“I have detected no appetite for legally enforceable measures 

within this covenant, none whatsoever.” 

Why are those gentlemen wrong and why is she right? 

Gemma Doyle: Indeed, it has been a pleasure to serve 

with the hon. Gentleman on that Bill Committee. As he 

and I have already discussed, there has been some 

confusion over two separate issues. One is about a 

highly prescriptive covenant being written into law, and 

the other is about enshrining the covenant into law at 

all, which the Armed Forces Bill does not do, but which 

his own Prime Minister has said he wants to do. 

That takes me neatly to the main thrust of today’s 

debate—the Government’s approach to our armed forces 

and to the military covenant. In opposition the 

Conservatives declared that the covenant was “shattered” 

and they promised to rebuild it. That does not fit with 

the coalition Government’s record of action since they 

have been in office. Last week, on 10 February, a 

spokesperson for the RAF Families Federation, in evidence 

to the Armed Forces Bill Committee, said: 

“At the moment, there is a real feeling within the armed forces 

that they are being battered from all sides.” 

The Government must pause and reflect on those 

comments. 

The hon. and gallant Members for Milton Keynes 

North (Mark Lancaster) and for Newark (Patrick Mercer) 

spoke about their own service experiences. They both 

said that they do not know and they do not really care 

whether the armed forces covenant is enshrined in law. I 

entirely respect that position, and I entirely respect their 

service. My concern is that the Prime Minister promised 

that the military covenant will be enshrined in law, and 

that the Armed Forces Bill, as drafted, does not do that. 

The Conservative and Liberal Democrat manifestos 

made wide-ranging pledges on covenant issues, but we 

have heard little about how, in government, they will 

take those forward. The Government’s plan to link 

public sector pension rises to the consumer prices index, 

rather than the retail prices index, means that inflation 

will hit service personnel and war widows hard, as my 

hon. Friends the Members for Erith and Thamesmead 

(Teresa Pearce) and for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) 

explained. That change is fundamentally unfair on the 

people who serve to defend our way of life, as my hon. 

Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock 

(Sandra Osborne) noted, which is why we have suggested 

an alternative, fairer approach. 

What action have the Government taken on the covenant? 

The Prime Minister established a taskforce to seek out 

“low-cost, innovative policy options to help rebuild the military 

covenant”. 

The Government have said that they will ensure that 

our brave soldiers will get the best, but can the Minister 

really look them in the eye and assure them that that 

will happen, given that the Government have said that 

they want it done on the cheap? 

As I have mentioned, Labour have proposed enshrining 

the rights of our armed forced in law. Last summer, it 

looked as though the Prime Minister had adopted our 

idea. He visited the aircraft carrier HMS Ark Royal and 

promised her sailors that 

“Whether it’s the schools you send your children to, whether 

it’s the healthcare you expect, whether it’s the fact that there 

should be a decent military ward for everyone who gets injured…I 

want all these things refreshed and renewed and written down in a 

new military covenant that’s written into the law of the land.” 

Fast-forward eight months and what a change we 

have: HMS Ark Royal has been consigned to the scrap 

heap and the Prime Minister’s promise has not fared 

much better. The Government have not enshrined a 

military covenant in law, and nor do they propose to do 

so in the Armed Forces Bill. We have had much debate 

on this point in the Bill Committee, with Ministry of 

Defence officials tying themselves in knots, frankly, 

arguing both that the covenant should not be laid down 

in law and that the Bill will in fact enshrine it in law—it 

was quite a sight to behold. However, the Under-Secretary


1066 

[Gemma Doyle] 

of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for South 

Leicestershire (Mr Robathan), who is responsible for 

veterans and is serving on the Committee, has finally 

admitted that the covenant will not be laid down in law. 

The hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) 

raised the concerns of the Royal British Legion. Its 

e-mail to MPs today stated: 

“We do not understand why the Government is now claiming 

that the commitment to produce an ‘Armed Forces Covenant 

report’ is somehow the same thing as enshrining the military 

covenant in law. It is not the same thing at all.” 

Neither the covenant, nor the principles by which we 

would understand it to operate, will be enshrined in law. 

The Government are not being honest with our armed 

forces. They promised a military covenant enshrined in 

law, but what is being offered is little more than fuzzy 

assurances and woolly platitudes. They should fulfil 

their promise, as our motion seeks to make them do, 

and ensure that they offer nothing less than the unshakable 

commitment and the cast-iron guarantee that our 

servicemen and women deserve. 

Furthermore, like service personnel and charities, we 

have concerns about the annual covenant report that 

the Government plan to introduce. It is too narrowly 

defined and lacks the independence from Government 

required to ensure that it is an effective tool for improving 

the lives of members of our armed forces. It is to be 

welcomed that the Secretary of State will lay a report 

before Parliament for debate, as the hon. and gallant 

Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) mentioned, but 

as it stands only health, education and housing are 

specifically cited as issues to be considered in that 

report. That is insufficient. 

Of course those issues are vital to service personnel, 

their families and veterans, but there are many other 

concerns that affect their daily lives. I visited Colchester 

garrison this week, along with other members of the 

Bill Committee, and the hon. Member for Colchester 

(Bob Russell) spoke with pride today about the 16 Air 

Assault Brigade currently serving in Afghanistan. The 

concerns raised with me on Monday were about cuts to 

allowances, cuts to pensions and the difficulties faced 

by service family members seeking employment. As 

things stand, the Secretary of State would not be obliged 

to report on how those issues affect our armed forces. I 

think that he should at the very least report on issues 

that fall within his remit. 

The Opposition have proposed that the scope of the 

covenant report should be expanded to include issues 

such as mental health care, pensions, benefits, employment 

and training. The Government have rejected our proposals 

in Committee in a clear indication that they want the 

Secretary of State to decide which issues should be 

reported to Parliament. I would like to address many 

other issues, but time does not permit me to do so. 

Today’s debate has been an important opportunity to 

hold the Government to account on their approach to 

our service personnel, their families and veterans. Our 

brave servicemen and women would be right to expect a 

lot from this Government, given their pre-election rhetoric, 

but they are not being honest. They have U-turned on a 

pledge delivered personally by the Prime Minister to 

enshrine the military covenant in law. It is no wonder 

that the chairman of the Forces Pension Society has 

said: 

“I have never seen a Government erode the morale of the 

armed forces so quickly.” 

Our brave servicemen and women, their families and 

our veterans deserve better. 

6.49 pm 

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence 

(Mr Andrew Robathan): The British people and, indeed, 

a great many Members will have been puzzled by today’s 

debate, because all parts of the House agree on the 

substance of the issues and on looking after the armed 

forces, and we have heard from both sides how much 

people care about armed forces personnel, their families, 

veterans, the injured, widows and so on. So what we 

have heard, I fear, is a synthetic debate about semantics— 

dancing on the head of a pin. We on the Government 

Benches are absolutely concerned about results, not 

about party political point-scoring. 

I shall turn my attention first, if I may, to the hon. 

Member for Bolton North East (Mr Crausby), who 

gave a very moving account of his father on D-day. The 

hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: we all, of whatever 

age, owe a huge debt to those who fought in the second 

world war on D-day and on other occasions. I have to 

say, however, that I am sorry he thought that people 

who went off after D-day and voted Conservative were 

voting weirdly; I have always thought that it was a bit 

weird to vote Labour, but never mind. We agree also on 

defence expenditure, but if I may say so gently, we 

cannot spend money that we do not have, and that is 

why we have to cut the defence budget. 

My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Milton 

Keynes North (Mark Lancaster) made, without doubt, 

the best joke of the day. He also spoke sensibly from 

experience, including recent operational experience, and 

I say to him, “Trust me. We will not forget the reserves.” 

The reserves review will report this year to me. 

The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) started 

calmly and asked to be non-political, but then I found 

that, rather sadly, she turned tribal and became rather 

party political. I do not doubt her sincerity, however, 

and I assure her that I and Her Majesty’s Government 

similarly care deeply for the armed forces. 

My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newark 

(Patrick Mercer) spoke from experience and, again, 

rather movingly, this time about the covenant manifested 

in Newark. I thank him for his contribution, and he is 

right: we must, indeed, look after our people in the 

armed forces. 

Turning to the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and 

Cumnock (Sandra Osborne), I am sorry to say this, but 

“the Ark of the covenant” was without doubt the worst 

joke of the day. Again, however, I do not doubt her 

commitment to, and support for, the armed forces. My 

hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) is 

a great supporter of the armed forces and, indeed, of 

the covenant, and he made a sensible and knowledgeable 

contribution. 

The hon. Members for Erith and Thamesmead (Teresa 

Pearce) and for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) spoke 

about pensions, and again I do not doubt their sincerity. 

We are deeply concerned about, and looking specifically


1068 

at the issue of, widows and maimed personnel in terms 

of pensions. The hon. Lady referred to a 40-year-old 

squadron leader and how much his pension might be 

affected, but she should know that I have drawn a 

pension from the armed forces for more than 20 years, 

and although she may not think it, I have managed to 

earn a little on the way as a Member, so we need to be 

realistic about the issue: we cannot exempt everybody 

from the change to CPI from RPI. People who think we 

can are totally in denial about the state of the public 

finances, which the previous Government left to us. We 

have to clear up that mess, and we have no other duty 

than to do so before we deal with other matters. 

Angela Smith rose— 

Nick Smith rose— 

Mr Robathan: I shall give way to the hon. Lady, 

because she sat through the debate and did not get in. 

Angela Smith: The Minister is being very generous. Is 

it not the case, however, that the current Government 

knew about the deficit before the election? On that 

premise, why did they make the promise that they made 

to the electorate? 

Mr Robathan: We did not appreciate quite what an 

awful state—[Interruption.] I could point the House to 

innumerable references to, “When we open the books, 

we will find out what things are like.” We did not 

appreciate the awfulness. We certainly did not know 

that the MOD budget for the next 10 years was overspent 

by £38 billion. I am not sure what promise the hon. 

Lady is alleging that we are breaking, because I cannot 

see one. 

Nick Smith: Will the Minister give way? 

Mr Robathan: Yes, but I will make this the last time. 

Nick Smith: The Minister hinted that he might be 

able to make some progress on pensions for widows and 

for people who have suffered injury. Can he give us 

some more detail on that? 

Mr Robathan: I have had many discussions with 

representatives of the War Widows Association and the 

Forces Pension Society, and we are looking at particular 

cases and how we can perhaps take this forward. I 

cannot make any concrete commitment, but I can assure 

the hon. Gentleman that should we make any progress 

or change, I will let him know. 

I thank my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for 

Beckenham (Bob Stewart) for his contribution. He, too, 

has been in receipt of a pension for a few years—a 

bigger one than mine, but there we go. 

My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Caroline 

Dinenage), although not gallant herself, is married to a 

gallant officer. I am grateful for her contribution, in 

which she spoke from her experience of service family 

life. She is of course absolutely right: we have to look 

after the armed forces, and that is what we pledge to do. 

I was rather surprised when the hon. Member for 

Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), for whom I have always 

had a bit of affection, started to quote from blogs. I 

think we all read blogs from time to time, but most of 

the stuff that is written there is not worth repeating. 

Huw Irranca-Davies: Far from blogs, I also quoted 

Chris Simpkins of the Royal British Legion, who said: 

“The British public has shown it sees” 

the role of coroner 

“as vital in ensuring bereaved Service families can have confidence 

in the investigations of their loved ones’ deaths. We believe it is 

fundamental to the inquest process and to the fulfilment of the 

Military Covenant”. 

The Minister should not respond to the blogs but to the 

Royal British Legion. 

Mr Robathan: I will come to that if I have time at 

the end. 

My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North 

(Penny Mordaunt) might qualify as almost gallant in 

her role in the Royal Naval Reserve. I am grateful to her 

for what she said. She is absolutely right that this 

Government believe in action, not words—not spin, but 

results. 

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston 

(Ms Stuart) made three swift points that seemed pretty 

reasonable. I would love to respond and wonder if she 

could write to me about them. 

I now turn to the Front-Bench contribution by the 

right hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy). 

I expect that he now regrets having called this debate, 

because he has not come out of it with any credit. Like 

the hon. Member for Ogmore, he quoted at length the 

Royal British Legion. I have here the Royal British 

Legion’s initial comments on the proposed armed forces 

covenant, dated 21 January—not four weeks ago—in 

which it says that it broadly welcomes the proposals. I 

am afraid that one can quote selectively at any stage, 

and Labour Members are doing so. 

I am afraid that the hon. Member for West 

Dunbartonshire (Gemma Doyle) regurgitated the 

arguments that we have heard in the Select Committee 

on the Armed Forces Bill, and they had no more 

resonance. The Committee has made three visits—to 

the Nottingham reserves centre, to Colchester and to 

Headley Court—and I am disappointed that of the six 

Labour Members on the Committee, who make so 

much fuss about these things, three did not come on any 

of those visits. 

Mr Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) (Lab) claimed to 

move the closure (Standing Order No. 36). 

Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put. 

Question agreed to. 

Main Question accordingly put. 



[6.59 pm 






Anderson, Mr David 

Austin, Ian 



Balls, rh Ed 

Banks, Gordon 

AYES 


Bayley, Hugh 









Blomfield, Paul


1070 




Brown, Lyn 



Bryant, Chris 




Cairns, David 



Caton, Martin 


Clark, Katy 



Coffey, Ann 


Cooper, Rosie 




Creagh, Mary 


Cruddas, Jon 

Cryer, John 










Dobbin, Jim 


Donaldson, rh Mr Jeffrey 

M. 



Dowd, Jim 

Doyle, Gemma 

Dromey, Jack 



Eagle, Maria 

Efford, Clive 




Evans, Chris 





Flint, rh Caroline 

Flynn, Paul 








Greatrex, Tom 

Green, Kate 


Griffith, Nia 





Harman, rh Ms Harriet 




Hendrick, Mark 


Heyes, David 

Hillier, Meg 




Hoey, Kate 


Hood, Mr Jim 







James, Mrs Siân 

C. 




Jones, Graham 

Jones, Helen 






Kendall, Liz 



Lavery, Ian 


Leslie, Chris 

Lewis, Mr Ivan 

Lloyd, Tony 


Long, Naomi 

Lucas, Ian 






Mann, John 


McCabe, Steve 










McKechin, Ann 









(Easington) 

Munn, Meg 



Murray, Ian 

Nash, Pamela 


Onwurah, Chi 


Owen, Albert 


Perkins, Toby 













Roy, Lindsay 

Ruane, Chris 


Sarwar, Anas 


Shannon, Jim 



Sheridan, Jim 

Shuker, Gavin 




Adams, Nigel 

Afriyie, Adam 

Aldous, Peter 

Alexander, rh Danny 





Baker, Norman 

Baker, Steve 

Baldry, Tony 







Berry, Jake 




Blackman, Bob 



Boles, Nick 

Bottomley, Sir Peter 



Brake, Tom 

Bray, Angie 


NOES 



Smith, Angela 

Smith, Nick 

Smith, Owen 





Tami, Mark 




Trickett, Jon 

Turner, Karl 

Twigg, Derek 


Vaz, rh Keith 

Vaz, Valerie 

Walley, Joan 


Weir, Mr Mike 








Wishart, Pete 

Wood, Mike 





Phil Wilson and 

Mr David Hamilton 






Bruce, Fiona 




Burns, Conor 


Burstow, Paul 


Burt, Lorely 

Byles, Dan 


Cairns, Alun 


Carmichael, rh Mr Alistair 












Crabb, Stephen


1072 




Davies, Glyn 



de Bois, Nick 








Duncan Smith, rh Mr 

Iain 



Ellison, Jane 




Evans, Graham 




Farron, Tim 




Fox,rhDrLiam 



Freer, Mike 







Gibb, Mr Nick 


Gillan, rh Mrs Cheryl 

Glen, John 







Green, Damian 




Gummer, Ben 




Hames, Duncan 





Hands, Greg 




Hart, Simon 

Harvey, Nick 






Hemming, John 



Hinds, Damian 




Hopkins, Kris 



Howell, John 



Hurd, Mr Nick 


James, Margot 

Javid, Sajid 




Jones, Andrew 




Kelly, Chris 

Kirby, Simon 




Lamb, Norman 





Lee, Jessica 








Liddell-Grainger, Mr 

Ian 

Lidington, rh Mr David 





Loughton, Tim 

Luff, Peter 

Lumley, Karen 



May, rh Mrs Theresa 

Maynard, Paul 




McLoughlin, rh Mr Patrick 

McVey, Esther 

Menzies, Mark 



Miller, Maria 

Mills, Nigel 

Milton, Anne 



Morgan, Nicky 


Morris, David 

Morris, James 


Mowat, David 



Munt, Tessa 



Neill, Robert 


Newton, Sarah 






Opperman, Guy 

Osborne, rh Mr George 


Parish, Neil 

Patel, Priti 


Pawsey, Mark 

Penning, Mike 

Penrose, John 

Percy, Andrew 

Perry, Claire 







Pugh, John 


Redwood, rh Mr John 


Reid, Mr Alan 





Rogerson, Dan 

Rudd, Amber 

Russell, Bob 

Rutley, David 


Sandys, Laura 

Scott, Mr Lee 


Sharma, Alok 







Question accordingly negatived. 

Smith, Henry 

Smith, Julian 


Soubry, Anna 





Stewart, Bob 

Stewart, Iain 


Stride, Mel 



Swales, Ian 


Swinson, Jo 



Tapsell, Sir Peter 


Thurso, John 






Uppal, Paul 











Webb, Steve 



White, Chris 

Wiggin, Bill 








Wright, Jeremy 

Wright, Simon 

Yeo, Mr Tim 




Mr Shailesh Vara and 

Mark Hunter 

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (TODAY) 

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing 

Order No. 15), 

That, at this day’s sitting, (1) the Motion in the name of 

Sir George Young relating to Adjournment of the House (Today) 

and (2) consideration of any Lords Messages that may be received 

may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—(Sir George 

Young.) 

Question agreed to.

1073 Military Covenant 16 FEBRUARY 2011 

1074 

DEFERRED DIVISONS 


Order No. 41A(3)), 

That, at this day’s sitting, Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred 

divisions) shall not apply to the Motion in the name of Sir George 

Young relating to Adjournment of the House (Today).—(Mr Heath.) 


Parliamentary Voting System and 

Constituencies Bill 

Consideration of Lords message 

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle): A message 

has been received from the Lords on the Parliamentary 

Voting System and Constituencies Bill. Under the Order 

of the House of 15 February, any message from the 

Lords relating to the Bill may be considered forthwith, 

without any Question put. The text of the Lords insistence 

on amendments 1 and 8, and reasons, is available in the 

Vote Office as Bill 152. A paper is also available in the 

Vote Office setting out the motion, which I now call on 

the Minister to move. 

Lords message considered forthwith (Programme Order, 

15 February). 

Clause 1 

REFERENDUM ON THE ALTERNATIVE VOTE SYSTEM 

7.14 pm 

The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Mark 

Harper): I beg to move that this House insists on its 

disagreement with the Lords in their amendments 1 and 

8, but proposes amendment (a) in lieu. 

Yesterday the House debated whether to oppose including 

in the Bill Lord Rooker’s amendments specifying that if 

less than 40% of the electorate vote in the referendum 

the result should not be binding. We have accepted an 

amendment in lieu. We do not accept that there should 

be a threshold in the referendum, and the amendment 

does not propose one. It simply states that the Electoral 

Commission must publish information about the turnout. 

If we were simply to oppose Lord Rooker’s threshold 

amendment again without this amendment, and were 

their Lordships to reject our position, the rules on 

double insistence would result in the loss of the Bill. We 

have tabled our amendment to avoid that eventuality. 

I explained in some detail yesterday why the Government 

disagreed with their lordships’ proposal, both on principle 

and on the basis of the practical difficulties identified 

by both the Government and the Electoral Commission 

in giving it effect. I said then that I considered those 

arguments compelling, and the House agreed. When 

the motion to disagree was voted on, it was carried by 

317 votes to 247, a majority of 70. That was on the back 

of a conclusive rejection of the proposals for a threshold 

made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) 

on Report. I think that we made our view clear, and by a 

clear margin. 

Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab): I understand the 

Minister’s point about the technical reasons for the 

Government’s amendment, but does he not owe it to the 

House to explain what he considers to be the benefits of 

the amendment if we are to vote on it? 

Mr Harper: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I 

will give the details as I proceed with my speech. If he 

does not think that I have done so satisfactorily, he can 

intervene again. I should say at this point that, although 

I shall attempt to be generous in giving way, I also want 

to ensure that other Members have an opportunity to 

contribute to the debate, so I may not be quite as 

generous as I was yesterday.

1075 Parliamentary Voting System and 16 FEBRUARY 2011 Parliamentary Voting System and 1076 



Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con): Having studied the 

amendment, I trust that the Minister will not spend 

another 25 to 30 minutes going through all the stuff 

about the Electoral Commission. We want to get down 

to the real stuff. 

Mr Harper: If my hon. Friend will allow me, I will 

make some progress. 

The House of Lords has now asked us to consider the 

matter again, after voting to reinstate the original provisions. 

It is only right, therefore, that I briefly report the 

reasons that it gave for doing so, and explain why I do 

not believe that those reasons are sufficient to change 

the clearly expressed view of the House of Commons. 

First, though, let me deal briefly with the suggestion 

made by the Lords that it was necessary for this House 

to consider the issue again because we had not given it 

proper scrutiny. 

The House of Commons has debated the issue of 

thresholds on a number of occasions, and has voted 

conclusively against the principle twice. We specifically 

considered the merit of Lord Rooker’s proposal. During 

the Lords debate, Lord Falconer suggested that I had 

misrepresented it, but I thought that I had made myself 

clear when I said that his amendment sought to make 

the referendum result indicative should turnout fall 

below 40%, rather than ruling out implementing the 

result altogether. My point was that this proposal is a 

threshold nevertheless, and I make no apology for making 

the case against it yesterday. 

Mrs Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest) (Con): The Minister 

has just referred to two occasions on which the House 

has debated thresholds. Both times, the amendments 

under discussion had been tabled by me. I believe that 

thresholds are appropriate in the context of such matters 

as referendums. However, I accept that my amendments 

were defeated by the House of Commons, and that the 

will of the House of Commons must prevail. The 

House of Lords should accept that too. 

Mr Harper: I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s support. 

I am sure that her clarion call will be heard at the other 

end of the building. 

This morning Lord Wallace made the important 

point that when a referendum poses a yes/no question, a 

turnout threshold effectively makes every abstention a 

no vote. A number of noble Lords supporting Lord 

Rooker’s amendment suggested that that would not be 

the case with the kind of threshold that he had proposed. 

Let me make clear that it would. Under his amendment, 

abstentions would still mean that a yes vote might not 

be upheld. The amendment would still create an incentive 

for those who favour a no vote to stay at home. Those 

who favour a no vote might well think that abstaining 

could create a low enough turnout to see off a yes vote. 

Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) 

(SNP): Is not one of the problems with their lordships’ 

threshold that it invalidates only one of the options—the 

alternative vote system? If the referendum turnout was 

under the threshold, both the first-past-the-post and 

AV options should, in fairness, be invalidated—if indeed 

we accept the principle of a threshold, which we should 

not. If we do accept it, either result should be invalidated 

in such circumstances. 

Mr Harper: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, 

because the threshold sets up an incentive for one side 

to campaign for people to stay at home. As democrats, 

we should all be arguing for people to turn out to vote, 

be it yes or no. That should apply no matter what side of 

the argument we are on, and Government Members 

have been very frank about the fact that we will be 

campaigning on different sides. 

Kevin Brennan: Will the Minister give way? 

Mr Harper: I have already given way to the hon. 

Gentleman. 

Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab): Only once. 

Mr Harper: Once was enough. Let me make some 

progress. 


Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle): Order. 

Mr Brennan, the Minister has given way once and he 

has said that he is not going to give way again. 

Mr Harper: I am grateful to you, Mr Deputy Speaker. 

A related point made in the other place was the 

argument that Lord Rooker’s threshold was appropriate 

because the question being decided in the referendum 

was constitutionally significant. My argument is that 

we are having the referendum because this is an important 

issue—it is about how we are elected. It is not right that 

we make that decision, because the people should decide 

how Members are elected to this House. 

Mr Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con): 

What is meant by “the people”? Is there any size of 

turnout that the Minister would regard as not really 

constituting a verdict of the British people? Is it not 

sensible for a fundamental constitutional and political 

change such as this to have a minimum turnout threshold 

to warrant and justify it? 

Mr Harper: Our system does not have a minimum 

turnout threshold for elections and we do not have a 

tradition of thresholds for the 10 referendums that have 

been held in this country. Only one of those referendums 

had a turnout threshold and its effect was to thwart the 

clearly expressed will of the people. It may have been 

something I agreed with, but it meant that that issue 

festered for another decade. 

Kevin Brennan rose— 

Mr Harper: I have already given way to the hon. 

Gentleman and I am going to make some progress. 

There are some perverse mathematical effects of such 

a barrier. As I said yesterday, this Lords amendment 

provides that if 39% of the electorate turned out the 

result would not be binding, even if 75% of those voting 

were in favour of change, whereas if 41% of people 

turned out the result would be binding, even if far fewer 

people actually voted in favour of the proposal. In the 

first scenario, 30% of the electorate might have voted 

for change but be denied it, whereas in the second only 

21% might need to vote for AV to see it implemented. 

Why should that be the case? I have heard no arguments, 

either in this House or in the other place, to explain how 

that would be fair.




Kevin Brennan: Will the Minister give way? 

Mr Harper: I am not going to give way to the hon. 

Gentleman. 

I know that some Members favour this Lords amendment 

because this referendum is binding, but the Government 

have made it very clear that we want to offer the people 

the chance to make a decision. If they make that 

decision, it would not be right for the matter to come 

back to this House and for us to say, “We have heard 

what you said and we are going to ignore it.” That 

would not be right, however much we might not like 

what the people have told us. We accept that when we 

stand for election and we should accept it in a referendum. 


Mr Harper: I am not going to give way. 

The key arguments against the threshold remain as 

compelling as ever. I have addressed some of the points 

made by their lordships during their debate today. Although 

they are entitled to ask us to consider the matter again, 

I do not believe that the points they raised change the 

balance of argument. 

Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con): 

Does my hon. Friend not recognise that there is a 

difference between an ordinary election and constitutional 

change? A common feature of many constitutions is 

having thresholds for constitutional change. Just because 

we have an unwritten constitution, that does not mean 

that we are absolved of any responsibility to show that 

there is a reasonable threshold for constitutional change. 

If there were only a 10% turnout in London, where 

there are no forthcoming local elections, would that 

really constitute a valid result? 

Mr Harper: I have two points to make. First, on my 

hon. Friend’s last point, we are talking about a national 

referendum and the important thing is to get people to 

vote across the whole of the United Kingdom. Secondly, 

we do not have a tradition in this country of thresholds 

for referendums either. Ten referendums have been held 

and only in the devolution referendum in the 1970s was 

a threshold inserted—the rest of the referendums had 

no such provision. He is being too pessimistic, because 

people will engage with this question. However, it would 

be wrong to thwart a clear decision—a yes vote—on the 

basis of the sort of mathematical formula that I have 

just set out. It could have quite perverse results and give 

an incentive for people to stay at home. 

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con) rose— 


Mr Harper: I am just going to deal with the point 

the hon. Gentleman raised earlier. I am asking hon. 

Members on both sides of the House to disagree with 

amendments 1 and 8. In their place, we have proposed 

an amendment in lieu, which provides: 

“Following the referendum, the Electoral Commission must— 

(a) publish the most accurate estimate that it is reasonably 

possible to make of the turnout in each of England, 

Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland”. 

Information on turnout is useful and important; a 

turnout threshold is not. 

Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab): As I said yesterday—I 

know that I do not carry the whole House with this first 

sentence, but perhaps I will carry more of it later—I 

support the alternative vote and will be voting yes in the 

referendum. However, the way in which the Deputy 

Prime Minister has conducted this piece of legislation, 

or rather the way in which he has not conducted it, is 

steadily putting me off the idea. It is an enormous 

shame that he does not have the courage to be in the 

Chamber this evening even to represent his own view. I 

say to Liberal Democrat friends who would like this 

legislation to pass, that it would be a good idea to 

progress in a slightly different way. 

There have been many misunderstandings about the 

nature of the threshold that Lord Rooker suggests 

should be introduced, which their lordships agreed to 

by a significant majority earlier today. Some think that 

the threshold would act in a way that other thresholds 

have acted elsewhere—in other words, that it would 

make it impossible for the Government then to bring 

forward the alternative vote. That is expressly not what 

it does and I am afraid that the Minister rather elided 

his interpretation of the Rooker amendment yesterday 

evening. It is absolutely clear. As Lord Rooker said in 

this afternoon’s debate in the other place, “I have said 

all along that if the turnout was less than 40%, the 

House could decide to implement AV and I would not 

argue with that.” 

The simple point that we are making is that because 

this is not a fatal, kill-all threshold, but would mean 

that Parliament would have to think again, it puts the 

decision in the right and proper place. Everyone who 

supports the alternative vote has some version of a 

threshold in their mind, whether it is 1%, 5% or 10%. 

Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab) rose— 

Mr MacNeil rose— 

Chris Bryant: I will give way in a moment. Of course 

we do not expect there to be only 10% or 15% voting in 

elections and we do not expect that to be the threshold 

in elections later this year, but there will be a significant 

difference between the turnout in England, Wales, Scotland 

and Northern Ireland. I say to Government Members 

who are concerned about how English people view the 

way in which the House transacts its business that if the 

votes of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland end up 

effectively rigging the vote across the whole United 

Kingdom because they are having other, substantial, 

national elections on the same day, I think that will 

bring the decision into disrepute, and that is a problem. 

Paul Farrelly: Just before the Minister summarily sat 

down, he said that if there were a clear decision, it 

would be wrong to thwart it in this way, but he did not 

define what he meant by a clear decision. Will my hon. 

Friend ask the Minister to give the House a definition? 

Chris Bryant: I am afraid that I have been asking the 

Minister to provide clear definitions and clarity for 

some time but we certainly did not get much of that 

yesterday. My point is fairly simple. The amendment 

that has come from their lordships would not kill off 

the decision that might come through if fewer than 

40% of voters voted in the referendum in May, it simply 

means that Parliament would have to take cognisance 

of the decision, so it would be an advisory referendum 

rather than an implementing referendum.




Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab): Is it not 

the case that the amendment was originally carried by 

one vote in the Lords and was today carried by a 

majority of 62, including 27 Conservatives? Does not 

that show the strength of feeling in the Lords about the 

necessity for this modification in the Bill? 

Chris Bryant: I believe my hon. Friend was in the 

Chamber yesterday when we had an interesting moment. 

The Minister effectively advanced his own threshold 

argument, which was that winning by only one vote in 

the House of Lords somehow did not really matter. I 

think their lordships listened to what he said and decided 

that they would introduce a threshold of their own—a 

60-vote majority—which they surpassed quite easily. I 

am grateful to the Minister for helping us win more 

significantly in the House of Lords earlier today. I hope 

that his contribution this evening will do that again. 

sometimes be listened to. Whatever system we end up 

with for the two Chambers, I would simply say that as in 

most other countries in Europe that have a parliamentary 

system, there will be a second Chamber with a particular 

concern for constitutional matters. 

If the Bill had made progress as the result of prelegislative 

scrutiny, with a Joint Committee considering 

all of its proposals, or for that matter if there had been 

two separate Bills, one on the AV referendum and 

another on parliamentary constituencies, I would agree 

wholeheartedly with the right hon. Gentleman. However, 

I believe that the Government have abused every single 

constitutional convention in driving the Bill forward, so 

I am afraid I am not with him on this occasion. 


Chris Bryant: And now for the hon. Gentleman. 

7.30 pm 

Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab): One of the key 

arguments being made is that AV would mean that all 

Members of the House would have 50% of the vote, or 

close to it, and therefore have legitimacy. Does it not 

follow that if there is a miserly turnout in the referendum, 

it will not have legitimacy and the matter should come 

back to the House for us to debate whether the result 

should stand? 

Chris Bryant: It is a particular irony for those who 

advocate the alternative vote, as I do, which in the 

majority of situations will mean that an MP will have 

secured 50% of the vote— 

Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD): Will the 

hon. Gentleman give way? 

Mr MacNeil Will the hon. Gentleman give way? 

Chris Bryant: I will in a moment. I am still dealing 

with this question. I know that the hon. Member for Na 

h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) is going to make a silly 

point, and I will let him make it in a couple of moments. 

It is suggested that we are advancing a system that 

guarantees that the vast majority of MPs will have 

50% of the vote—some of us already achieve that—but 

then it is said that that provision should be delivered on 

perhaps a 30% or 35% vote. 

Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD): Will the hon. 

Gentleman give way? 

Sir Alan Beith rose— 

Chris Bryant: I will give way to the right hon. Member 

for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) first, because 

he asked first. 

Sir Alan Beith: I am grateful. If the hon. Gentleman 

loses the vote in the Commons tonight, does he think 

the unelected House is then morally entitled to defy the 

expressed will of this House? 

Chris Bryant: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I 

have advocated an elected House of Lords for a very 

long time, and that is still my position. However, many 

people, including himself when he was on the Opposition 

Benches, have argued that the sagacity and wisdom of 

people down the other end of the building should 

Mr MacNeil: Surely if a threshold is in place, it is an 

incentive not to participate. I hope that the Labour 

Front Benchers do not want to create such an incentive. 

Surely it is those who care who will vote. Those who are 

happy either way will probably not vote and will accept 

whatever those who care deliver. If the threshold that 

the hon. Gentleman wants were not reached, would 

that not invalidate both first past the post and AV, not 

just one of them? 

Chris Bryant: I knew the hon. Gentleman was going 

to make a silly point, because he made the same silly 

point earlier. We have to have elections to this House, 

and they will either be under the first-past-the-post 

system or, if the referendum question is carried, under 

AV. I therefore do not accept his argument. I also point 

out to him that I believe there will be very different 

turnouts in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland from 

that in England. That is why I have never supported 

holding the referendum on the same day as other elections 

there. 

Kevin Brennan: To return to the amendment in lieu 

that the Minister has proposed, does my hon. Friend 

agree that it effectively constitutes a direct insult to the 

other House, first because of its puerile nature and the 

fact that it is totally unrelated to the amendments from 

the other place, and secondly because of the Minister’s 

cursory explanation of it, which gave the game away? 

Chris Bryant: My hon. Friend is, as always, spot on, 

and I will come to the Government amendment in lieu 

after I have made one significant point. Implementing 

referendums are fundamentally dangerous. All too often 

in other democracies, such referendums have been a 

way of circumventing the process of parliamentary 

democracy. That is a particularly dangerous way of 

doing business under coalition Governments. I do not 

believe that implementing referendums is a good idea, 

except for when there is a settled constitutional view 

that has been established on the basis of consensus, 

which is certainly not the situation with the AV referendum. 

Everybody has a threshold in their own mind, but the 

truth is that the Government are proceeding as they are 

because they know perfectly well that if they were to 

introduce a stand-alone Bill to introduce the alternative 

vote, it would not be carried in the House or in the 

House of Lords. That is the profound danger with the 

way in which the Government are trying to proceed.




Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab): I apologise that I 

was not here at the commencement of these proceedings—I 

got caught short in the gymnasium. 

I put it to my hon. Friend that it scarcely lies in the 

mouths of the Conservatives to challenge the authority 

of the other place when they were happy to see that 

authority used to the greatest extent on these provisions 

just before the election when they vetoed their inclusion 

from the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. 

Chris Bryant: My right hon. Friend is absolutely 

right. In addition, the Liberal Democrats and the 

Conservatives so respect the House of Lords that they 

have decided to pack it with pliant Members so that 

they can start getting better results in votes. I praise 

those Members of the House of Lords, including Baroness 

Trumpington, who has never voted against the Conservative 

Whip, and who is notwithstanding a very splendid 

woman, who today decided to vote for the amendment 

in the name of Lord Rooker. 

I support the alternative vote, but to me it is an even 

more important principle that the views of the British 

people, completely and definitively established, are enacted. 

That is why Lord Rooker’s threshold is appropriate. 

Finally, the Minister’s amendment in lieu has absolutely 

no value. It would mean merely that the process that is 

already adopted by the Electoral Commission would be 

implemented. He knows that it is a chimera—the smile 

without the Cheshire cat. 

whole. We are being asked to reject that provision. I am 

no longer going down the route of my original proposal, 

which one of their Lordships referred to as “the fatal 

amendment”. I propose, for all the reasons that have 

been so ably put forward this evening, to follow what 

the House of Lords said. 

There is no reference to thresholds in this coalition 

agreement—none whatever. None of the political parties 

expressed any genuine manifesto commitment to the 

alternative vote and no commitment whatever to the 

threshold. Given that the Bill purports to provide for a 

fair electoral system with preference votes, one would 

have thought that its proponents would at least have the 

decency and common sense to give the electorate a fair 

deal—[Interruption.] Yes, and the courage, as one of 

my hon. Friends says. I thought that the Liberal Democrats 

believed in fairness and constitutional propriety, but I 

was mightily mistaken. 

Mr Jenkin: Can we dispense with this argument that 

any kind of threshold somehow provides an incentive 

for the no campaign to campaign for people to stay at 

home? The truth is that this is simply a test of whether 

there are enough people motivated in favour of change 

to justify it. If enough people are not prepared to vote 

for change, why should it take place? That seems to me 

to provide the reason why a threshold should exist for 

every referendum. Incidentally, when the Conservatives 

were in opposition, we voted for a threshold in every 

referendum. 

Mr Cash: I entirely endorse the final remarks of the 

hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant)—the 

Government amendment in lieu is a load of rubbish. 

It is important to get across what is really going on 

here. In the context of the referendum, the Conservative 

party is being led like a lamb to the slaughter. The 

reality is that the referendum is entirely to do with 

Liberal party aspirations as expressed in the coalition 

agreement. I have here an extract from the right hon. 

Member for Deauville—[Laughter.] I meant the right 

hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr Laws), who might as well 

have come from Deauville. He quotes the Secretary of 

State for Energy and Climate Change, the right hon. 

Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne), as saying: 

“Our historic mission is to create a British Liberal party whose 

influence will be embedded in our politics through a reformed 

voting system – a Liberal party capable of dealing with both 

other parties.” 

The reality, therefore, is that what lies at the heart of 

this debate is not the rubbish that we have heard from 

the Minister on the Electoral Commission, but the glue 

that holds the coalition together. 

I pay tribute to the noble Lord Rooker and the other 

Lords and Ladies who made such magnificent speeches 

this morning, which I had the privilege to witness. They 

are right that the Bill provides for a binding referendum, 

and that the essence of the argument is that the Bill is a 

constitutional issue, because it proposes to change our 

constitution in a fundamental way for the first time. 

I believe that 40% is a reasonable test. It is accepted 

by all the constitutional authorities—including, ironically, 

Vernon Bogdanor, who was the Prime Minister’s own 

tutor. This threshold of 40%, which has come down to 

us in an amendment from the House of Lords, is 

reasonable and fair with respect to the electorate as a 

Mr Cash: I agree with my hon. Friend and point out 

that no European country other than France does not 

have a threshold. Over the generations, we in this House 

have always regarded constitutional matters as of such 

fundamental importance as to require a free vote and to 

rule out the sort of programming and guillotining that 

we are seeing here. Yesterday, I had a mere two minutes 

in which to express the arguments on my amendment. 

I heartily dislike this Bill and I believe that its effect 

will be exceedingly damaging to the Conservative party 

and exceedingly damaging to our national interest. I 

strongly urge my hon. Friends to vote for the threshold 

arrangements proposed by the noble Lords. I believe 

that doing so would be in the interests of the Conservative 

party, its individual members and its councillors who 

are soon coming up for local elections, as well as in the 

national interest of the electorate as a whole. 

Other Members wish to speak, so I shall bring my 

remarks immediately to an end. The Government should 

be careful about what they wish for because it might 

come true. 

Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab): 

The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex 

(Mr Jenkin), who intervened a few moments ago, is of 

course absolutely right. The Conservatives have voted 

for thresholds in referendums whenever they felt it 

suited them and whenever they thought it would be to 

the disadvantage of a Labour Government. Indeed, 

Scottish devolution was delayed by 20 years because the 

Conservative party voted for a threshold on the referendum 

on Scottish devolution in 1979. 

It is appropriate that this motion should stand in the 

name of the leader of the Liberal Democrats because 

this entire Bill is about the Liberal Democrats. Anybody




who has the opportunity should read the Nuffield study, 

“The British General Election of 2010”, which makes it 

absolutely clear in a masterly piece of research that the 

sticking-point on whether the Liberal Democrats would 

go into a coalition with the Conservatives was whether 

the referendum that we are debating this evening would 

be introduced by a coalition Government. What the 

Government are doing—I rarely agree with the hon. 

Member for Stone (Mr Cash), but he is absolutely right 

this evening—is rigging the British political system with 

this Bill. The Bill was introduced, and is being railroaded 

through, to placate 8% of the House of Commons; 

92% of the House of Commons do not want it. 

7.45 pm 

Mr MacNeil: rose— 

Paul Farrelly rose— 

Sir Gerald Kaufman: I will give way in a moment, but 

I want to proceed on this point. 

When I was shadow Home Secretary, I negotiated 

with the then Conservative Home Secretary, Leon Brittan, 

about a Representation of the People Bill—that is what 

Bills dealing with the political system and elections in 

this country used to be called— which he was introducing. 

The dog’s breakfast that is before us this evening is a 

misrepresentation of the people Bill, based on an obligation 

to placate the self-interest of the third party in the 

House. There is no doubt whatever about that. 


Sir Gerald Kaufman: I will give way in a moment, but 

I want to complete this segment of my argument, 

taking into account the limited time. 

This is a partisan Bill. All the Representation of the 

People Bills that went through the House of Commons, 

from when I first entered the House, were agreed between 

the Government and the Opposition—I negotiated with 

Leon Brittan even down to the threshold for retaining a 

deposit—but not now. The Conservatives do not want 

the Bill. We are dealing not with the question of whether 

we are for or against the alternative vote; we are dealing 

with the question of whether a fundamental aspect of 

our British political system should be decided not on its 

principles, or on whether it is appropriate and admirable 

for the country, but on whether it suits the interests of a 

minority party, which wants to go on having coalitions, 

as that is the only way in which its useless Members 

would be able to sit on the Government Front Bench. 

Mr MacNeil: The right hon. Gentleman referred to 

rigged referendums, but would a threshold not rig a 

referendum by blocking a change that the majority of 

those taking part wanted? 

Sir Gerald Kaufman: I understand the hon. Gentleman’s 

point, but I do not necessarily agree with him. 

Paul Farrelly: The hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) 

quoted not the Member for Deauville, or even Trouville, 

but the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr Laws). Does 

my right hon. Friend recognise that those of us who are 

more sympathetic to AV have legitimate concerns about 

its operation in practice because of the behaviour of the 

Liberal Democrats since the general election. They talk 

of five more years of the coalition, but we cannot be 

sure that they will not direct their supporters to use 

their second preference against the Labour party, for 

instance. In those circumstances, is it not reasonable to 

have a threshold, so that we can be certain that the 

British people have expressed a clear opinion? 

Sir Gerald Kaufman: We do not know what the turnout 

will be on 5 May. What we do know, in my constituency, 

is that we will murder the Liberal Democrats in the 

local elections, whatever the threshold. My hon. Friend’s 

point is relevant, because the issue is not whether one is 

for or against AV. The debate is not about that; it is 

about whether we seek to appease a small minority of 

the House of Commons by rigging our precious electoral 

system, which has served us well. 

Stephen Williams (Bristol West) (LD): This is an 

extraordinary occasion in that the unelected House of 

Parliament is, with absolutely no sense of irony, telling 

the elected half of Parliament how to conduct a ballot. 

The simple principle is that in elections and referendums 

it is the people who turn up who decide the result, not 

the people who do not turn up. 

In my brief remarks last night I recalled many election 

results in Bristol—I am sure you would have found this 

very interesting, Madam Deputy Speaker, had you been 

in the Chair—when the turnout had fallen below 40%. I 

have since looked up a few more statistics. For the 

European Parliament elections in 2009, only 34% of the 

British public turned out to vote. I say in all candour to 

Conservative coalition colleagues that I do not recall 

any of them saying at the time that that was not a valid 

election result. In fact, I recall them saying that the 

Conservative party had won that election. 

Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con): Is the 

hon. Gentleman not at all concerned that, having listened 

to the arguments he deployed last night, the Lords 

majority was 62 rather one? 

Stephen Williams: I thank the hon. Gentleman, who 

is my Political and Constitutional Reform Committee 

colleague, for that intervention, but I think he can 

predict my answer. What disturbs me about the response 

from their Lordships last night is that it ignores the will 

of the elected House. Our fellow Select Committee 

colleague, the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing), 

got that balance exactly right. 

The Welsh Assembly election in 2003 had a turnout 

of only 38%. I ask my Labour friend, the hon. Member 

for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who is an ally in arguing 

for a yes vote should we have the referendum in Wales, 

does he really think the Government of Rhodri Morgan 

who were elected in 2003 had no validity because only 

38% of his constituents turned out? Does the right hon. 

Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) 

think the Labour administration of Manchester city 

council, elected on a 27% turnout in 2008, has no 

legitimacy whatever? That same question could be asked 

of Sheffield with 36%, or Leeds—a Liberal Democrat- 

Conservative coalition—with 35.7%. 

Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con): In 

general elections the turnout is normally 70% or more. 

Is it right that that 70% of people should have their 

voting system changed by fewer than 40%?




Stephen Williams: If we were at a different point in 

the electoral cycle, we could be having this referendum 

on the day of a general election. We may well have a 

referendum on future changes on the date of the next 

general election in May 2015. However, that is four and 

a half years away, so we are having the referendum 

rather sooner, and everyone who is conducting the 

arguments about this threshold knows that, other than 

in a general election, the turnout is likely to be lower 

than 40%. That is why I have quoted the statistics I have. 

Mr MacNeil: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? 

Stephen Williams: The hon. Gentleman has made a 

lot of interventions, and other Members wish to get in. 

When an election is over—you will recall the first 

general election I fought was against you, Madam Deputy 

Speaker—and the result is in, the people have spoken. 

As democrats, none of us says the people have spoken 

but with a caveat; we sit down and accept the result. On 

this occasion, I say that the voters should have the final 

word in a referendum—the voters who turn up to 

vote—and on this matter their elected representatives 

should have the final word. 

Mr Winnick: I am not going to beat about the bush. I 

am not in favour of the change. I am not going to 

pretend I am and put forward various reasons why the 

Lords amendment should be accepted. If I had any 

doubts at the beginning—I must confess that at times I 

did consider the possibility of a change in the electoral 

system—the way this Government have gone about 

their business has certainly persuaded me to support 

the no campaign. 

An article in today’s Evening Standard by a former 

editor of The Spectator makes a valid point about how 

little interest there is in changing the electoral system; 

there is very little enthusiasm for that. As I asked 

yesterday, where is the pressure? Where are the letters 

and e-mails? Where are the people coming to our surgeries 

and saying, “This is the most crucial issue of all”? It is 

important to bear in mind the fact that there would 

have been no possibility of such a referendum if the 

Conservatives had a working majority; indeed, they 

would be arguing the opposite of what the Minister was 

saying. 

I do not want to eat my words. On many occasions, 

when I was sitting on the Government Benches, I said 

that the view of the elected Chamber should prevail. I 

do not deny that I said it, and I cannot say that I have 

drastically changed my mind. Indeed, my hon. Friend 

the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) has made the 

point that the Conservatives were only too willing to 

allow the unelected Chamber to overturn the decision 

of the Commons when there was a Labour Government. 

I have no desire to eat my words, but on a major 

constitutional issue the Government should be willing 

to listen, even more so when we are talking about a 

voting system that has been in operation for a long time 

and there is so little evidence of a desire for change. As 

my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, 

Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) said, the only reason 

why the measure is being introduced is the coalition. 

There is no other reason whatever. There is certainly no 

enthusiasm for it in the Conservative party, either on 

the Back or Front Benches. 

When the Lords last voted on the proposal the 

majority was only one, but today it was 62—including 

27 Conservative Back Benchers and, in many respects 

more important, Cross Benchers. They do not have a 

particular party view, but it is understandable that they 

should be concerned that if there is to be a vote on a 

change to the electoral system there should be credibility 

in the turnout. The provision is not binding. The point 

has been made on a number of occasions: if turnout is 

less than 40%, it does not mean that there will not be 

another referendum. The Government and Parliament 

can reconsider the position. What if turnout is less than 

30%? Will we really work on the assumption that that 

gives sufficient credibility and is sufficient justification 

for changing the electoral system? 

The Minister said that if there was a threshold, it 

would be an incentive for the no campaign. Surely it 

would be an incentive for the yes campaign. If the yes 

people are so keen on change, it is up to them to 

campaign as hard as possible to persuade the electorate 

of their case. The Government have put through most 

of the measures in the Bill. They should show some 

generosity and consideration for the strength of feeling. 

They should not be so obstinate. [HON. MEMBERS: “Be 

nice.”] There would be no harm at all in the Government 

showing a less obstinate spirit and recognising the strength 

of feeling both in this place and next door. 

If there was a free vote in the House of Commons, 

this measure would be overwhelmingly rejected. 

Mr Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con): 

The Government give as their reason for disagreeing: 

“Because the outcome of the referendum should be determined 

by those who vote in it and should not depend on how many do 

not vote.” 

I challenge that. I do not accept it. One of the reasons 

why I challenge the process is that we are under a 

guillotine. During the whole passage of the Bill we have 

been guillotined. Their lordships are part of Parliament 

and therefore used to be considered custodians of the 

constitution, so that we in our party passion might not 

force through something that altered the balance of the 

constitution. I oppose the motion for that reason. 

The Bill is a major constitutional change. No one has 

argued otherwise. It will change the voting system. We 

have almost universal suffrage. Everyone is entitled to 

vote. If they choose not to exercise— 

Stephen Williams: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? 

Mr Shepherd: I shall not, if the hon. Gentleman will 

forgive me. We have so little time and others want to 

speak. 

We have universal suffrage so if a proposition is put 

to us, I shall take the older course of action, which the 

hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) hinted 

at. Those who seek change from a settled position have 

the right to advocate it in a referendum, but those who 

are not convinced about change are not negligible. They 

are part of the equation and their very reluctance to 

vote was normally taken, in an older tradition, as 

acquiescence in the existing arrangements—that is, they 

did not step forward and seek change by the exercise of 

their vote. That was a profound and reasonable position 

to adopt.




Those who want change have the opportunity in a 

referendum to vote for it. Those who do not vote have 

not indicated consent, so the level of consent can be 

very low indeed in the context of the universal suffrage 

of our country. Dismissively, the Government say that 

the outcome is not to be determined by those who do 

not vote. 

8pm 

The question that I originally asked those on the 

Labour Front Bench was about the no figure at which 

they thought there was legitimacy in the number of 

those who had voted. I am glad that the Labour Front- 

Bench team changed its view on that. I am grateful to 

the noble Lord Rooker for his amendment. I am grateful 

to those Conservatives, many of whom I have served 

with and disagreed with over the past 30 years, who 

stood up and were prepared to be counted. It is appalling 

that the constitution of Britain is held in the hands of 

so few people, determined by a golden image, the Liberal- 

Conservative coalition agreement. The measure does 

not even reflect what was contained in that agreement, 

yet we are meddling with our constitution. I urge the 

House to accept what the Lords have said in their 

reasoned thoughts. 

Kevin Brennan: Like my hon. Friend the Member for 

Rhondda (Chris Bryant), I support AV and will vote yes 

in the referendum. 

Hon. Members might wonder about the Minister’s 

desperate desire to sit down without explaining the 

amendment that he is asking us to send back to the 

House of Lords. He knows that in the other place 

Members rightly think that this House has not properly 

considered the matter, not least because he hogged all 

the time yesterday when he gave us an hour for debate. 

Now we have a mere hour to do the same, and many 

hon. Members want the opportunity to speak. We still 

have not considered the matter fully and had a full and 

proper debate in the House. 

Mr Straw: Picking up the point made by the hon. 

Member for Stone (Mr Cash), does my hon. Friend 

accept that the coalition agreement, or the needs of the 

Liberal Democrats, has undermined the traditional 

relationship between this place and the other place? In 

every previous example that I can think of when we 

were in government, there would have been a compromise 

in such a situation. That was the case scores of times, 

but Ministers lack any authority to grant a compromise. 

Kevin Brennan: My right hon. Friend is right. I shall 

come to that point. 

The Minister is still trying to obfuscate over the 

threshold and suggest that in some way it would negate 

the proposals in the Bill. What is unusual about the 

proposed referendum is that the Government are making 

it binding. Normally under our constitution, referendums 

have been advisory to Parliament, not binding in their 

outcome, and that includes the devolution referendums 

that were mentioned. The difference in threshold in the 

Scotland and Wales Bill back in 1979 was that it required 

40% of those voting to vote in a certain way. 

All the amendment does is say that if 40% of people 

fail to vote in total in the referendum, Parliament 

should reconsider the matter. That is an entirely different 

and reasonable position and in keeping with the traditions 

of our constitution that referendums are advisory and 

not binding, particularly when turnout is so low. 

The amendment that we are sending down to the 

House of Lords is an insult to the other place. The 

Minister’s puerile explanation of it and the cursory way 

he dealt with the amendment that he is now asking us to 

vote for was a complete insult to our intelligence and 

that of the public. 

I am afraid that when one lifts a stone in this place, 

procedurally what one sees underneath is sometimes 

quite unpleasant. Constitutionally, the Minister had to 

table an amendment, but instead of putting down a 

serious amendment that attempted to meet the House 

of Lords somewhere along the line of compromise, he 

tabled the parliamentary equivalent of a colouring-in 

book; he had to fill it in with something and so produced 

this puerile and meaningless amendment. It is an insult 

to the other place and to our intelligence. They sit there 

on the Front Bench, hairy man and smooth man, 

abusing our constitution. The Government should try 

to meet the other place somewhere on the spectrum of 

compromise. That would have been the reasonable thing 

to do and in line with our constitution. 

As someone who will vote yes to AV in the forthcoming 

referendum and encourage as many people as possible 

to vote, I think that the idea that this House should not 

even have the constitutional right to look at the outcome 

of the referendum if only a very small number of 

people vote is an insult to democracy. 

Mrs Laing: The arguments of Lord Lamont and his 

colleagues in the other place are absolutely right, as was 

everything the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton 

(Sir Gerald Kaufman) said this evening; I would repeat 

them in my remarks, but time will not permit me to do 

so. Sadly, those two rights are incompatible, because the 

choice before this House this evening is no longer about 

AV referendums and thresholds. I hate AV and do not 

want this £100 million referendum. I have always been 

in favour of a threshold and have said so many times in 

this House, but that is not the choice before us. 

Sadly, the choice before us is between a Labour 

Government who ruined this country’s economy over 

13 years and a coalition Government between the 

Conservatives and the Liberals that will give the country 

the stability it needs to recover from the dire economic 

situation. This referendum on a simple majority, which 

is stated in the coalition agreement, is a high price to 

pay for that stability. I, for one, agree to pay it with a 

very heavy heart. 

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am slightly troubled by my hon. 

Friend’s remarks, because I was unaware that this had 

been put down as a confidence motion. 

Mrs Laing: I appreciate my hon. Friend’s intervention. 

It is not a confidence motion, but sadly it is for some of 

us who have loyalty to the Prime Minister, because we 

are Conservatives first and foremost and want to see the 

stable government that is now being provided in every 

area other than constitutional development. We want to 

see that stable government and so must support our 

Prime Minister and his coalition. For some of us, it is 

done with a heavy heart, but that is the price that the 

Liberals have sought in order to improve their party




[Mrs Laing] 

political advantage. The right hon. Member for Manchester, 

Gorton is absolutely right that we ought to have a 

threshold, but it is too late. The Bill is at its end. Let us 

just get on with the process of having a referendum and 

ensure that the British people see it for what it is and do 

not vote to change our constitution. 

Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP): With 

the greatest respect to the hon. Lady, for whom I have 

great respect, I think that that is one of the saddest 

contributions that she has ever made in this House. 

Earlier today, the Home Secretary came to the House 

and said that, in the making of laws in this country, 

Parliament is superior to the courts, but here we are, 

going for the lowest common denominator—the survival 

of a coalition Government. In reality, however, that 

cannot be so. Is the hon. Lady suggesting that, over this 

issue, for which there is no appetite in the country, 

the Liberal Democrats would actually pull down 

the Government? Is she suggesting that, in actual fact, 

the Deputy Prime Minister would leave his gilded office 

over such an issue? I suggest that he most certainly 

would not. 

Mrs Laing: The hon. Gentleman is right; I do not 

disagree. He is right also about it being my saddest 

speech. I hated making it, and this is a dreadful situation 

to be in, but my suggestion was not about the Deputy 

Prime Minister, but about the Prime Minister, who gave 

his word that there would be a referendum. I wish that 

he had not, but he did. 

Dr McCrea: The Prime Minister giving his word to 

the Deputy Prime Minister is one thing; what counts is 

the Prime Minister’s word to the people of this United 

Kingdom. Our Prime Minister has no appetite or conviction 

for this legislation at all. This is a grubby deal simply to 

keep a party happy, and to keep its Back Benchers 

happy at this time, but on a major constitutional issue 

such as this, is that the way in which we run our 

country? Is that the way in which we are supposed to 

make our decisions? On a previous occasion, the question 

was asked, “Would the coalition collapse if this issue 

were defeated?” The answer, if I can remember, from the 

Deputy Prime Minister was no, so to try to suggest that 

it would collapse is not factual at all. If it were, I suggest 

that it would be blackmail, and we cannot blackmail 

hon. Members of this House. 

What we are here to ensure is what we, by conviction, 

believe is best for the country, not the lowest common 

denominator. So, I ask this question: where is the pressure 

coming from for this legislation or for AV? It is certainly 

not coming from the Conservative party, or from the 

Prime Minister, because he takes the very opposite view. 

It is simply coming from a few members of the Lib 

Dems, who believe that, from now on in, they can hold 

the country to ransom. They hope that, as far as governing 

is concerned, they will hold the balance of power in any 

election that follows. 

The hon. Lady had better remember, and let us make 

no mistake, that if the Lib Dems thought that, in order 

to keep their ministerial cars after the next election, a 

coalition would be better with Labour, they would join 

a coalition with Labour. They are not doing this out of 

conviction; they are doing it for personal, petty position, 

and I suggest that that is a ridiculous way of dealing 

with such a constitutional issue. 

Mr Cox: We have but, I think, two minutes— 

[Interruption.] One minute. 

During the time in which this subject has been before 

the House, I have voted consistently but regretfully 

against the Government’s position. I cannot understand 

why we voted for thresholds in opposition and are 

voting against thresholds in government. I cannot 

understand why a party—the Liberal Democrats—that 

preaches constitutionalism does not appreciate that 

constitutional protections and constitutional safeguards, 

such as minimum thresholds on fundamental— 

8.14 pm 

One hour having elapsed since the commencement of 

proceedings on the Lords message, the debate was interrupted 

(Programme Order, 15 February). 

The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already 

proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83G), 

That this that this House insists on its disagreement with the 

Lords in their amendments 1 and 8, but proposes amendment (a) 

in lieu. 



[8.14 pm 

Adams, Nigel 

Aldous, Peter 

Alexander, rh Danny 





Baker, Norman 

Baker, Steve 

Baldry, Tony 








Berry, Jake 



Blackman, Bob 



Boles, Nick 


Brake, Tom 

Bray, Angie 





Bruce, Fiona 




Burns, Conor 


Burstow, Paul 


AYES 

Burt, Lorely 

Byles, Dan 


Cairns, Alun 

Cameron, rh Mr David 






Clegg, rh Mr Nick 









Davies, Glyn 

de Bois, Nick 










Edwards, Jonathan 


Ellison, Jane 



Evans, Graham 



Fabricant, Michael




Farron, Tim 




Fox,rhDrLiam 



Freer, Mike 






Gibb, Mr Nick 


Gillan, rh Mrs Cheryl 

Glen, John 







Green, Damian 




Gummer, Ben 




Hames, Duncan 




Hands, Greg 




Hart, Simon 

Harvey, Nick 






Hemming, John 




Hinds, Damian 




Hopkins, Kris 




Howell, John 




Hunter, Mark 


Hurd, Mr Nick 


James, Margot 

Javid, Sajid 



Jones, Andrew 




Kelly, Chris 

Kirby, Simon 




Lamb, Norman 





Lee, Jessica 







Lidington, rh Mr David 




Long, Naomi 



Loughton, Tim 


Luff, Peter 

Lumley, Karen 

Macleod, Mary 




Maynard, Paul 





McVey, Esther 

Menzies, Mark 



Miller, Maria 

Mills, Nigel 

Milton, Anne 




Morgan, Nicky 


Morris, David 

Morris, James 


Mowat, David 



Munt, Tessa 



Neill, Robert 


Newton, Sarah 





Opperman, Guy 



Parish, Neil 

Patel, Priti 


Pawsey, Mark 

Penning, Mike 

Penrose, John 

Perry, Claire 







Pugh, John 

Randall, rh Mr John 



Reid, Mr Alan 






Rogerson, Dan 

Rudd, Amber 

Russell, Bob 

Rutley, David 


Sandys, Laura 

Scott, Mr Lee 


Sharma, Alok 






Smith, Henry 

Smith, Julian 


Soubry, Anna 




Stewart, Bob 

Stewart, Iain 

Stride, Mel 








Austin, Ian 



Balls, rh Ed 

Banks, Gordon 













NOES 


Swales, Ian 


Swinson, Jo 




Thurso, John 





Uppal, Paul 











Webb, Steve 

Weir, Mr Mike 



White, Chris 


Wiggin, Bill 








Wishart, Pete 

Wright, Simon 

Yeo, Mr Tim 




Mr Shailesh Vara and 

Jeremy Wright 


Brown, rh Mr Gordon 

Brown, Lyn 



Bryant, Chris 



Cairns, David 




Caton, Martin 




Clark, Katy 




Cooper, Rosie 


Corbyn, Jeremy

1093 Parliamentary Voting System and 16 FEBRUARY 2011 

1094 




Creagh, Mary 


Cruddas, Jon 

Cryer, John 











Dobbin, Jim 





Dowd, Jim 

Doyle, Gemma 

Drax, Richard 

Dromey, Jack 



Eagle, Maria 

Efford, Clive 




Evans, Chris 





Flint, rh Caroline 

Flynn, Paul 








Greatrex, Tom 

Green, Kate 


Griffith, Nia 






Harman, rh Ms Harriet 




Hendrick, Mark 


Heyes, David 

Hillier, Meg 



Hoey, Kate 






James, Mrs Siân C. 




Jones, Graham 

Jones, Helen 






Kendall, Liz 


Lavery, Ian 


Leslie, Chris 

Lewis, Mr Ivan 


Lloyd, Tony 

Lucas, Ian 






Mann, John 


McCabe, Steve 










McKechin, Ann 









(Easington) 

Munn, Meg 



Murray, Ian 

Nash, Pamela 



Onwurah, Chi 


Owen, Albert 


Percy, Andrew 

Perkins, Toby 











Roy, Lindsay 

Ruane, Chris 


Sarwar, Anas 


Shannon, Jim 




Sheridan, Jim 

Shuker, Gavin 





Smith, Angela 

Smith, Nick 

Smith, Owen 





Tami, Mark 




Question accordingly agreed to. 


Trickett, Jon 

Turner, Karl 

Twigg, Derek 


Vaz, rh Keith 

Vaz, Valerie 

Walley, Joan 








Wood, Mike 





Phil Wilson and 

Jonathan Reynolds 

Business without Debate 

ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE (TODAY) 

Ordered, 

That, at this day’s sitting, the Speaker shall not adjourn the 

House until any Message from the Lords has been received, any 

Committee to draw up Reasons which has been appointed at that 

sitting has reported, and he has notified the Royal Assent to Acts 

agreed upon by both Houses.—(Sir George Young.) 

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (THURSDAY) 

Ordered, 

That, at the sitting on Thursday 17 February, notwithstanding 

the provisions of Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an 

Act or on European Union documents), the Speaker shall put the 

Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motions in 

the name of Secretary Iain Duncan Smith relating to Pensions 

and Social Security no later than three hours after their commencement 

or at 6.00 pm, whichever is the earlier; proceedings may continue, 

though opposed, after the moment of interruption; and Standing 

Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.—(Sir George 

Young.) 

EUROPEAN UNION DOCUMENTS 


Order No. 119(11)), 

INTERINSTITUTIONAL AGREEMENT 

That this House takes note of European Union Documents 

No. 9193/10, relating to the functioning of the Interinstitutional 

Agreement on budgetary discipline and sound financial management, 

No. 10346/10 and Addenda 1 and 2, relating to a Commission 

Communication on striking the right balance between the 

administrative costs of control and the risk of error, and Nos. 5129/11 

and 15759/10, relating to a proposal for a Regulation on the 

financial rules applicable to the annual budget of the Union and 

corresponding Opinion of the European Court of Auditors; and 

supports the Government’s approach to ensure that, especially at 

a time when households and governments across the EU are 

taking difficult decisions to balance their budgets, EU expenditure 

must be subject to strict budgetary discipline and appropriate 

principles of sound financial management.—(Mr Dunne.) 



Order No. 119(11)),

1095 Business without Debate 16 FEBRUARY 2011 Business without Debate 1096 

EU BUDGET REVIEW 

That this House takes note of European Union Document 

No. 15285/10 and Addendum, relating to the EU Budget Review; 

supports the Government’s efforts to reduce the size of the EU 

budget and deliver savings and value for money for taxpayers, 

including a substantial reduction in spending on the Common 

Agricultural Policy; and further supports its efforts to reprioritise 

expenditure to support growth and competitiveness and tackle 

climate change and global poverty and to protect the UK’s 

abatement, which remains fully justified due to distortions in EU 

spending.—(Mr Dunne.) 


Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo): Under 

the Order of the House of earlier today, the House is 

not to be adjourned until any message from the Lords 

has been received and Royal Assent has been notified to 

any Acts agreed upon by both Houses. I therefore 

suspend the sitting to await a message from the Lords. 

When the House is ready to resume, the bells will be 

sounded. A warning notice will be put on the Annunciator 

in the usual way. 

8.31 pm 

Sitting suspended (Order, 15 February). 

11.50 pm 

On resuming— 

ROYAL ASSENT 

Mr Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance 

with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that Her Majesty has 

signified her Royal Assent to the following Act: 

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies 

Act 2011. 

PETITIONS 

Proposed Sale of Zurbaran Paintings 

11.50 pm 

Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab): I wish to 

present a petition from residents of Bishop Auckland, 

County Durham and the north-east, who believe that 

the Church Commissioners should not sell Auckland 

castle or the Zurbaran paintings. Bishops of Durham 

have lived in Bishop Auckland for 900 years. You cannot 

take the bishop out of Bishop Auckland. 

I believe that the Church Commissioners have seen 

the light in regard to the castle, but have yet to see the 

light in regard to the Zurbaran paintings. Because the 

matter is so important, there are more than 3,000 

signatures to the petition. 

The petition states: 

The Petition of residents of Bishop Auckland, County Durham 

and the North East, 

Declares that the Petitioners believe that the Church Commissioners 

should not sell Auckland Castle or the Zurbaran Paintings. 

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons 

urges the Church Commissioners not to proceed with the sale. 

And the Petitioners remain, etc. 

[P000888] 

Mobility Component of Disability Living Allowance 

11.51 pm 

Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab): I rise to present a 

petition on behalf of care home residents, children at 

special boarding schools, and others who are concerned 

for their welfare. I welcome the presence of my hon. 

Friend the Members for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne 

Begg) and for Glasgow East (Margaret Curran), who 

have also supported the petition. 

The petition declares 

that the mobility component of Disability Living Allowance 

(DLA) helps meet some of the extra costs disabled people can 

face getting around; further declares that the Government plans 

to stop paying DLA to people living in residential care, which will 

mean that many people no longer have the money to meet these 

extra costs and face being trapped at home. 

People will lose £49.85 a week or £18.95 a week, and it 

will simply mean that they cannot get out. 

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons 

calls on the Government to keep the mobility component of 

Disability Living Allowance for people living in residential care. 

I have more than 6,900 signatures on a petition in 

similar terms. I think that that shows how strongly 

people feel about the important issue of not being 

trapped in residential care. 

Following is the full text of the petition: 

[The Petition of care home residents and others concerned 

for their welfare, 

Declares that the mobility component of Disability 

Living Allowance (DLA) helps meet some of the extra 

costs disabled people can face getting around; further 

declares that the Government plans to stop paying DLA 

to people living in residential care, which will mean that 

many people no longer have the money to meet these 

extra costs and face being trapped at home. 

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of 

Commons calls on the Government to keep the mobility 

component of Disability Living Allowance for people 

living in residential care. 

And the Petitioners remain, etc.] 

[P000887] 

Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD): On a point of order, 

Mr Speaker. I know how keen you are that Ministers 

should make announcements to the House first. This 

evening, BBC television news reported that the Government 

were planning to abandon their consultation on the 

Forestry Commission land disposals. Sir, I wonder whether 

you have received any indication that a Minister will 

come to the House to make a statement, even at this late 

hour, or if not tonight, tomorrow. 

Mr Speaker: The short answer is no. Many matters 

are subject to speculation and conjecture, even in our 

media—a fact of which the hon. Gentleman, on the 

strength of nearly 14 years’ experience in the House, is 

well aware.

1097 16 FEBRUARY 2011 Incinerators (Hertfordshire) 1098 

Incinerators (Hertfordshire) 

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House 

do now adjourn.—(Mr Goodwill.) 

11.54 pm 

Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con): We come to 

a subject in which the media do have an interest, particularly 

in the county of Hertfordshire, because it is a subject of 

wide concern to the residents of Hertfordshire and, in 

particular, to my constituents. I am talking about the 

possible location of an incinerator on a site in Harper 

lane. That is actually within the constituency of my 

hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main), 

who is in her place and is planning to intervene in this 

debate, but the plan considerably affects my constituents, 

particularly those in the community of Radlett. 

Waste management is a matter for Hertfordshire 

county council, as it is for other county councils, and it 

has decisions to take on the issue. But how those 

decisions are taken, the process that is followed and the 

timing of decisions raise wider concerns, and these 

concerns have been reflected in cases involving other 

local authorities up and down the country. For that 

reason alone, Ministers need to examine the way in 

which local authorities take decisions on waste management. 

To a layman, the process being followed in Hertfordshire, 

which has led to the selection of Harper lane as a 

possible site, seems somewhat odd, if not bizarre. 

Last July, Hertfordshire county council announced 

that Harper lane was under consideration as one of two 

possible locations in Hertfordshire for a major waste 

incinerator to be operated by E.ON. Notwithstanding 

that, the council launched a consultation last November 

on a new waste plan. Thus, the consultation began 

some three or four months after the announcement of 

this possible location. The following was said on behalf 

of the county council at the time: 

“We already have a Waste Plan for the county, but this is now 

out of date and needs to be reviewed. The new plan, which will 

cover the period 2011-2026, will set out the county council’s 

policies and proposals for the future annual treatment of three 

million tonnes of waste. This includes identifying areas that may 

have the potential to accommodate waste facilities as well as 

safeguarding existing facilities.” 

That raises the question: what was the point of the 

consultation undertaken by the council, given that it 

had already announced that the Harper lane site was 

one of two possible locations for the incinerator? The 

council had already narrowed its choice of site down to 

just two in Hertfordshire. 

The question of where this all fits into the Government’s 

strategy also arises, because last June my right hon. 

Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food 

and Rural Affairs announced a major waste policy 

review, which was to examine 

“what policies are needed to reduce the amount of waste generated 

and to maximise reuse and recycling, while also considering how 

waste policies affect local communities, individual households 

and businesses.” 

The review is considering the role of energy from waste, 

and I understand that its preliminary results will be 

published by the Department in 2011. Yet by that time, 

Hertfordshire county council will be a very long way 

down the road on implementing its plans and may even 

have appointed a preferred bidder to deal with its waste 

incineration. 

So my question to the Minister is: should a county 

council undertake such a course when a Government 

consultation is under way and may produce results that 

are at odds with the course taken by the county council? 

In respect of both the council’s own consultation, which 

was announced hard on the heels of a decision on 

possible locations for the site, and the Government’s 

consultation, which was still taking place when that 

announcement was made, there would seem to me, as a 

layman, to be obvious prematurity in the council’s 

decision to narrow the choice of sites down to two, 

including the Harper lane site. 

That is not the only strange aspect of the process 

being followed by the county council, because in October 

2008 the council submitted an outline business case to 

the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 

that enabled it to obtain £115 million of private finance 

initiative credits. The Harper lane site was not the 

reference site for that bid, nor, as I understand it, was it 

in the plans of the four shortlisted bidders with an 

energy-from-waste proposal. Notwithstanding that, Harper 

lane emerged, out of the blue, as one of two shortlisted 

sites last July. In June of this year, if not before, the 

county council is set to announce its preferred bidder 

and site. 

Up to that point, there will have been no opportunity 

for public consultation about the emergence of Harper 

lane as a site. Indeed, in the process that has been 

followed, the public could be said to have been kept in 

the dark because there is essentially no public information 

on why Harper lane was chosen as a second potential 

incinerator site. It does not fit with the stated criteria of 

Hertfordshire county council for a number of reasons, 

including the fact that the site is in the green belt and 

has poor main road access, being located close to a 

notorious traffic congestion blackspot. 

There are also very serious environmental issues relating 

to the Harper lane site, which will become apparent in 

due course. Local people have had no opportunity to 

have their say on any of this. As a strong supporter of 

the Localism Bill and the localism principle, I am 

tempted to ask the Minister how this all fits in with the 

concept of localism. Of course, before a final decision 

on the location of the incinerator site can be taken, a 

separate planning process will have to be conducted by 

Hertfordshire county council and presumably local people 

will then have a say. That will come only after the 

county council has appointed a preferred bidder for the 

preferred site and presumably entered into some sort of 

legal relationship with the preferred bidder. 

Doubtless, Hertfordshire county council will be 

scrupulous in observing the requirements of the planning 

process, but, to say the least, how can this appear fair to 

the lay observer and to interested local residents? Would 

not they be entitled to conclude that the process is 

flawed? Many residents all over Hertfordshire might 

want to ask whether there should be an incinerator at 

all and whether incineration is the most environmentally 

friendly process in all the circumstances. Certainly, the 

assumptions being made about incineration in this case 

seem to be unambitious when it comes to recycling and 

waste minimisation in both of which Hertfordshire has 

a good record. Let it be said that Hertfordshire is a 

green council with a very good record on recycling and 

is very good at stimulating environmental awareness. 

The recycling and composting rate for Hertfordshire is

1099 Incinerators (Hertfordshire) 16 FEBRUARY 2011 Incinerators (Hertfordshire) 1100 

in excess of the national rate and Hertfordshire is on 

course to achieve a rate of recycling 50% of all household 

waste by 2013 if not before. 

Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP): Is it possible that if 

a number of people were unhappy with the application 

and objected to it through the planning application 

process, the planning authority could say no to it and 

that concerns could be addressed at that stage? 

Mr Clappison: That is possible, but by that time 

Hertfordshire county council would already have a preferred 

bidder and might have entered into a legal relationship 

with it, so it would, in a way, be judging its own cause in 

the eyes of local people. There would then be a question 

of whether it could take that decision and be seen to be 

a disinterested party, which is very important to the 

planning process. That is a very strange process to 

follow. 

Up to this point, even before we reach any of those 

considerations, there has been no opportunity for local 

people to have their say, no opportunity for full ventilation 

of the environmental issues at stake and no opportunity 

for the case against incineration to be put—the case in 

favour of more recycling and other environmentally 

friendly ways of dealing with waste. Neither, it seems, 

has there been any opportunity thus far for a consultation 

on a full environmental impact assessment. Local people 

are aware of a number of serious environmental concerns 

about the Harper lane site, including the fact that it will 

be on an inner groundwater source protection zone and 

the fact that it is a close neighbour of the Wildlife 

Trust’s nature reserve of Broad Colney lakes and of 

Hounds Wood. In the eyes of many local people, the 

development would be highly damaging to the local 

environment and could hardly be more unsuitable on 

environmental traffic and local infrastructure grounds. 

Local people have come together under the auspices 

of the Watling incinerator group, known as WING, to 

put the very compelling case against such a development, 

but should they not have already had the opportunity to 

put their case formally at an earlier stage to help shape 

decisions and to participate in genuine consultation, so 

that the process appears to be one in which people have 

had a chance to have their say? The process appears to 

be open to the many questions being asked about it. 

12.4 am 

Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con):I congratulate my 

hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison) 

on introducing this important debate at this late hour. 

As he observed, the site in question is in my constituency, 

but it is on the edge and much of the traffic and other 

impacts will affect his constituency. 

My poor old constituency is in the same corner of the 

county that only recently was under threat from a rail 

freight interchange. One of the arguments against that 

was that fact that lorries access the Harper lane site, the 

very part of the county that the county council said at 

the time was particularly heavily congested and unsuitable 

for having more traffic. That was a really strong argument. 

The half a lane of road available in the area is now one 

of the main rat runs to escape problems on the M25 

and M1. 

I visited the site in question about 18 months ago, or 

it might have been two years now—time is flying. I was 

aware then of an aspiration to have an incinerator on 

the site. It is already a gravel working site and there is 

recycling there. It is heavily utilised, and access for 

lorries is compromised. At that time, we were aware that 

there was concern, particularly because of the previous 

Government’s landfill directives, about the great pressure 

on Hertfordshire to deal with its waste through a new 

incinerator. 

What concerns me, like my hon. Friend, is the lack of 

transparency in the process. Whispers and rumours 

abound that we must not upset a Minister in another 

corner of Hertfordshire, or that some deal has been 

stitched up. If we are to give the lie to local people’s 

worries, we need a transparent process that they can 

buy into and have a degree of faith in. 

My hon. Friend mentioned a particularly important 

aquifer. The whole of Hertfordshire is characterised by 

chalk streams, aquifers with a potentially very big drain 

on them because of the sheer number of people living 

near them, and low rainfall. On top of that, not so long 

ago there was a big disaster at Buncefield, which has 

severely compromised another of our aquifers. That 

watercourse is still undergoing monitoring for the long-term 

impacts of PFOS—perfluorooctane sulfonate—as a result 

of the Buncefield disaster. We in Hertfordshire are 

extremely concerned that the environmental impact of 

anything else that goes on in our environmentally sensitive 

area must be taken into account. 

Plenty of people in St Albans, and I know in my hon. 

Friend’s constituency as well, say that the particulates 

coming from lorries travelling in and out of the Harper 

lane site, the potential compromising of an aquifer and 

the concern about pollution from lorries queuing through 

Park Street village and into Radlett will compromise an 

already congested area and add to the health concerns 

that residents already have. Those concerns were profoundly 

expressed when both of us were fighting the rail freight 

interchange. 

We should ensure that the public do not have any hint 

that there is a stitched-up deal done behind closed 

doors. They should not have to have any worries about 

whether a different site has greater potential value to a 

council as housing development land, and whether the 

council will therefore sacrifice what it sees as a scrubby 

bit of green belt somewhere else. 

The Harper lane site is important, and it already 

delivers a lot to Hertfordshire through recycling and 

gravel extraction. It gives a lot, and it does not need 

to give any more. It is grossly unfair to expect one 

corner of the county, on the edge of my hon. Friend’s 

constituency and mine, to deliver so much more than 

others, without people having had any say about whether 

it is the best place to put an incinerator, if we are to have 

one at all. 

I do not have a particular concern about incinerators 

per se. I used to have the waste portfolio when I was a 

district councillor, and I visited incinerator sites. They 

are very well run if they are well sited, but I do not 

believe that Harper lane is the site on which to put an 

incinerator. It is already a compromised site and a rat 

run, and it is heavily utilised by lorries. To have waste 

going into the area to be incinerated as well would be a 

blow too far and cause further concerns about aquifers.


[Mrs Anne Main] 

I should like the Minister to address in his comments 

the potential for a delay in the scheme, should it come 

through, in the interests of localism and because of 

concerns about the environmental impact. Local people 

should not have to feel that it is another scheme being 

railroaded past them. They cheered when we had a 

change of Government, because they felt that it was the 

end of railroaded schemes. Now there is potential for a 

scheme that is seen to be a done deal. 

Let us have transparency, localism and a fair say for 

the local community. Let us say that this is not the right 

site for a number of environmental reasons. We need to 

explore those reasons, not pay lip service to them in a 

dashed-through consultation, all in a bid to find a waste 

site to consume what will probably be waste from other 

areas, not just Hertfordshire. As my hon. Friend the 

Member for Hertsmere said, we do a pretty good job of 

recycling our waste in Hertfordshire. We do not need to 

import other people’s rubbish. 

12.10 am 


Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Richard Benyon): 

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere 

(Mr Clappison) on securing a debate of such importance 

to his constituents. I also congratulate him and my hon. 

Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) on the 

passion with which they spoke. As I am sure they are 

aware, this subject would normally come under the 

remit of my noble Friend Lord Henley, but I have none 

the less been very interested in the issues raised in this 

evening’s debate. This Government have pledged to be 

the greenest ever. That is not an aspiration; it is an 

imperative. We have also pledged to devolve decision 

making as much as possible from the central to the local 

level. It is in the context of those two pledges that I 

welcome the chance to respond to this debate and the 

concerns that have been raised. 

We need to rebuild our economy, and we need the 

new economy to be sustainable. It can be sustainable 

only if it is green, and a green economy is a zero-waste 

economy. That does not mean that there will be absolutely 

no waste—we are realistic—but it does mean that resources 

are fully valued, economically and environmentally. It 

also means that one person’s waste is another person’s 

resource. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere 

said, the Government are currently conducting a thorough 

review of our waste policy. We are due to report in the 

spring, so I shall not seek to pre-empt our findings 

today. Nevertheless, the recovery of energy from certain 

wastes has a role to play in moving us towards a 

zero-waste economy. 

A green economy means generating renewable energy. 

We have tough targets for that, with 15% of energy 

required to be from renewable sources by 2020. We need 

an energy mix to meet our energy needs and the need to 

reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Recovering energy 

from waste is part of that. Waste can be a renewable 

source of energy, offsetting the fossil fuels that would 

otherwise have been burned and reducing methane 

emissions from landfills. That offers a net climate change 

benefit. I have not forgotten that this debate is about 

incinerators, but it is important to emphasise that recovering 

energy from waste can be achieved by using many 

different technologies, of which incineration is only 

one. There is no silver bullet, but incineration is one of 

the many means available for meeting our renewable 

energy needs. 

My hon. Friend has used this debate to raise his 

constituents’ concerns, just as my hon. Friend the Member 

for St Albans raised her constituents’ concerns so ably. 

The Watling incinerator group—a group of committed 

local people—is understandably worried about how 

incinerators might affect local air quality and the natural 

environment, and about the health of communities in 

the vicinity of the proposed incinerator. I must emphasise 

that all modern waste incinerators are subject to stringent 

pollution controls. Modern incinerators must comply 

with the waste incineration directive, which sets strict 

emission limits for pollutants. The Environment Agency 

will not grant the permits required for an incinerator to 

operate if a facility is not compliant with the directive. 

Mrs Main: That is why I said I had not set my face 

against incinerators. I have visited some incinerator 

sites and I am aware of exactly what the Minister says. 

However, it is the location of the sites and the access to 

them, along with the lorries and the pollution that they 

generate, that also need to be taken into consideration. 

Richard Benyon: I entirely accept the points that my 

hon. Friend raises, and I am of a similar mind. 

Studies have failed to establish any convincing link 

between emissions from incinerators and adverse effects 

on public health. In 2009, the Health Protection Agency 

reviewed the existing evidence on public health and 

incinerators. It concluded, on reviewing the existing 

evidence, that any effect on people’s health from incinerator 

emissions was likely to be so small as to be undetectable. 

It affirmed that adverse health effects from modern, 

well-regulated waste incinerators did not pose a significant 

threat to public health. 

This debate is also about communities, and we need 

to meet the challenges at local level. My hon. Friends 

will be aware that I am unable to comment on the 

specifics of this particular application, as it is currently 

subject to a competitive tender process, and it would 

therefore be inappropriate for me to comment. What I 

can say is that vigorous debate within a community is 

healthy, and necessary in order to ensure that the right 

choices are made in each community. 

In these debates, we need to be alive to the facts that 

all communities produce waste and that responsibility 

must be taken for dealing with it in a way that best 

balances the needs of the community and the environment. 

Our aim is to allow those who are best placed to make 

decisions to take them in a balanced and informed way, 

with as little red tape as possible. A reformed planning 

system will be underpinned by the Localism Bill. This 

will create a less bureaucratic, more decentralised and 

more collaborative process and will help to build the big 

society by radically transforming the relationships between 

central Government, local government, communities 

and individuals. 

As my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere said, 

the Government are also undertaking a review of waste 

policy, which is looking at all aspects of policy development 

and delivery in England, including the possible role of 

energy from waste and related infrastructure needs. 

However, it has never been the intention that the review


should prohibit any particular type of technology or 

take any decisions that would have a direct impact on 

individual projects. The waste review will report in May 

this year. Hertfordshire county council will have to 

decide how this timetable impacts on the progress of its 

own plans, but I do not believe that its actions in any 

way undermine the waste review. 

To put us on the road to a zero-waste economy, we 

need to manage all our waste according to the waste 

hierarchy. The hierarchy involves an environmental order 

of preference for the outcomes of waste. After the 

preferable options of preventing, reusing and recycling 

waste, there is recovery and, finally, landfill—the least 

desirable environmental outcome. The order of the 

hierarchy can be changed for individual waste types, if 

it can be proved that that makes environmental sense 

over the life-cycle of a product. Generally, however, the 

hierarchy works, and that means keeping waste out of 

landfill whenever possible. Gone are the days when we 

do not worry about putting waste in holes in the ground. 

We know that biodegradable waste rots in landfill, 

giving off methane, which is a greenhouse gas more 

potent than carbon dioxide. My hon. Friend the Member 

for St Albans made some very good points about the 

impact on water in aquifers. That is fundamental to our 

concerns about landfill. 

Following the logic of the waste hierarchy, it is reasonable 

to ask whether, if we are burning waste, we need not 

recycle it. Worse, might we be providing incentives 

specifically not to reduce, reuse or recycle before recovering 

energy from waste? Those are valid concerns that the 

Government’s waste review is setting out to address. 

But we know from other countries that recycling and 

energy from waste can co-exist. In the Netherlands, for 

example, recycling rates are around 65%, alongside 

33% energy from waste. The picture is similar in Denmark 

and Sweden. 

We are doing this not only because it makes sense but 

because it is the law. The waste hierarchy will shortly 

become UK law through the revised waste framework 

directive. We have legal targets to keep waste out of 

landfill, and the Climate Change Act 2008 rightly sets 

tough targets for every sector of the economy to contribute 

to the UK-wide carbon budgets. The waste sector is no 

exception. All those obligations will help our drive 

towards growing a zero-waste, green economy. 

I hope that my hon. Friends the Members for Hertsmere 

and for St Albans will continue to make their case 

passionately on behalf of their constituents. They will 

find that they are able to engage in a process in which 

they will be listened to, and in which they will be part of 

the decision-making process. That is what this Government 

are about. We want them to be part of the process, 

rather than feeling that they are having these developments 

inflicted on them with no ability to say anything. 

I congratulate my hon. Friends on the high quality of 

the debate and on the passion with which they have 

raised this issue. I hope that I have gone some way 

towards explaining why we are confident that incinerators 

do not pose a threat to public health, and why our 

policy on incinerators is part of, rather than in opposition 

to, our being the greenest Government ever. I hope I 

have been able to assure them that, as a Government, 

we are committed to giving power to communities such 

as those in their part of Hertfordshire. 


12.20 am 

House adjourned.

1105 16 FEBRUARY 2011 Deferred Divisions 

1106 

Deferred Divisions 

IMMIGRATION 

That the draft Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Order 2011, 

which was laid before this House on 24 January, be approved. 




Afriyie, Adam 

Aldous, Peter 







Austin, Ian 



Baker, Steve 

Baldry, Tony 


Balls, rh Ed 

Banks, Gordon 




Bayley, Hugh 








Berry, Jake 





Blackman, Bob 






Boles, Nick 





Brake, Tom 

Bray, Angie 








Bruce, Fiona 


Bryant, Chris 




Burnham, rh Andy 

Burns, Conor 

AYES 

Burstow, Paul 

Burt, Lorely 

Byles, Dan 


Cairns, Alun 

Cairns, David 



Campbell, Mr Gregory 




Carswell, Mr Douglas 


Caton, Martin 







Coffey, Ann 





Cooper, Rosie 





Creagh, Mary 



Cruddas, Jon 










Davies, Glyn 


de Bois, Nick 




Dobbin, Jim 






Doyle, Gemma 


Dromey, Jack 







Eagle, Maria 

Efford, Clive 



Ellison, Jane 






Evans, Chris 

Evans, Graham 









Flynn, Paul 



Fox,rhDrLiam 



Freer, Mike 







Gibb, Mr Nick 



Glen, John 










Greatrex, Tom 

Green, Damian 

Green, Kate 





Gummer, Ben 






Hames, Duncan 






Hands, Greg 






Hart, Simon 








Hermon, Lady 

Heyes, David 

Hillier, Meg 


Hinds, Damian 






Hopkins, Kris 



Howell, John 





Hunter, Mark 


Hurd, Mr Nick 




Javid, Sajid 






Jones, Andrew 


Jones, Graham 

Jones, Helen 





Kelly, Chris 

Kendall, Liz 

Kirby, Simon 







Lavery, Ian 



Leadsom, Andrea 

Lee, Jessica 





Leslie, Chris 




Liddell-Grainger, Mr Ian

1107 Deferred Divisions 16 FEBRUARY 2011 Deferred Divisions 

1108 


Lloyd, Tony 



Loughton, Tim 

Lucas, Ian 

Luff, Peter 

Lumley, Karen 




Mann, John 




McCabe, Steve 











McKechin, Ann 



McVey, Esther 

Menzies, Mark 






Mills, Nigel 

Milton, Anne 






Morgan, Nicky 




(Easington) 

Morris, James 


Mowat, David 



Munn, Meg 

Munt, Tessa 



Murray, Ian 



Nash, Pamela 

Neill, Robert 


Newton, Sarah 







Onwurah, Chi 

Opperman, Guy 



Owen, Albert 

Paisley, Ian 

Parish, Neil 

Patel, Priti 


Pawsey, Mark 


Penning, Mike 

Percy, Andrew 

Perkins, Toby 

Perry, Claire 







Pugh, John 






Reid, Mr Alan 









Rogerson, Dan 


Roy, Lindsay 

Ruane, Chris 

Russell, Bob 

Rutley, David 


Sandys, Laura 

Sarwar, Anas 

Scott, Mr Lee 


Shannon, Jim 

Sharma, Alok 




Sheridan, Jim 

Shuker, Gavin 








Smith, Angela 


Smith, Henry 

Smith, Julian 

Smith, Nick 

Smith, Owen 


Soubry, Anna 







Stewart, Bob 

Stewart, Iain 



Stride, Mel 





Swales, Ian 


Swinson, Jo 



Tami, Mark 








Trickett, Jon 



Turner, Karl 


Uppal, Paul 



Vaz, rh Keith 

Vaz, Valerie 






Hood, Mr Jim 





Long, Naomi 


NOES 





Walley, Joan 





Webb, Steve 



White, Chris 



Wiggin, Bill 







Wilson, Phil 





Wright, David 



Wright, Simon 








Ritchie, Ms Margaret 


Weir, Mr Mike 



Wishart, Pete 

TERRORIST FINANCE TRACKING PROGRAM 

That this House takes note of European Union Documents 

No. 11048/10 relating to a draft agreement, No. 11173/10, relating 

to a draft Council Decision on the signature of the agreement, 

and No. 11172/10, relating to a draft Council Decision on the 

conclusion of the agreement between the European Union and 

the United States of America on the processing and transfer of 

financial messaging data from the European Union to the United 

States for the purposes of the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program; 

agrees that the programme is an extremely important tool in the 

global counter-terrorism effort, providing valuable contributions 

to numerous high profile cases; and notes that the programme has 

achieved an appropriate balance between counter-terrorism and 

data protection. 





AYES 

Afriyie, Adam 

Aldous, Peter


1110 







Austin, Ian 



Baldry, Tony 


Balls, rh Ed 

Banks, Gordon 



Bayley, Hugh 








Berry, Jake 





Blackman, Bob 






Boles, Nick 






Brake, Tom 

Bray, Angie 








Bruce, Fiona 


Bryant, Chris 




Burnham, rh Andy 

Burns, Conor 

Burstow, Paul 

Burt, Lorely 

Byles, Dan 


Cairns, Alun 

Cairns, David 



Campbell, Mr Gregory 





Caton, Martin 






Coffey, Ann 





Cooper, Rosie 





Creagh, Mary 



Cruddas, Jon 










Davies, Glyn 


de Bois, Nick 




Dobbin, Jim 






Doyle, Gemma 


Dromey, Jack 







Eagle, Maria 

Efford, Clive 



Ellison, Jane 






Evans, Chris 

Evans, Graham 









Flynn, Paul 



Fox,rhDrLiam 



Freer, Mike 







Gibb, Mr Nick 



Glen, John 










Greatrex, Tom 

Green, Damian 

Green, Kate 




Griffith, Nia 


Gummer, Ben 






Hames, Duncan 






Hands, Greg 






Hart, Simon 









Hermon, Lady 

Heyes, David 

Hillier, Meg 


Hinds, Damian 







Hopkins, Kris 




Howell, John 





Hunter, Mark 


Hurd, Mr Nick 




Javid, Sajid 






Jones, Andrew 


Jones, Graham 

Jones, Helen 





Kelly, Chris 

Kendall, Liz 

Kirby, Simon 







Lavery, Ian 



Leadsom, Andrea 

Lee, Jessica 





Leslie, Chris 






Lloyd, Tony 


Long, Naomi 



Loughton, Tim 

Lucas, Ian 

Luff, Peter 

Lumley, Karen 






Mann, John 




McCabe, Steve 




McCartney, Karl


1112 








McKechin, Ann 


McVey, Esther 

Menzies, Mark 






Mills, Nigel 

Milton, Anne 






Morgan, Nicky 




(Easington) 

Morris, James 


Mowat, David 



Munn, Meg 

Munt, Tessa 



Murray, Ian 



Nash, Pamela 

Neill, Robert 


Newton, Sarah 







Onwurah, Chi 

Opperman, Guy 



Owen, Albert 

Paisley, Ian 

Parish, Neil 

Patel, Priti 


Pawsey, Mark 


Penning, Mike 

Percy, Andrew 

Perkins, Toby 

Perry, Claire 







Pugh, John 







Reid, Mr Alan 




Ritchie, Ms Margaret 






Rogerson, Dan 


Roy, Lindsay 

Ruane, Chris 

Russell, Bob 

Rutley, David 


Sandys, Laura 

Sarwar, Anas 

Scott, Mr Lee 


Shannon, Jim 

Sharma, Alok 




Sheridan, Jim 

Shuker, Gavin 








Smith, Angela 


Smith, Henry 

Smith, Julian 

Smith, Nick 

Smith, Owen 


Soubry, Anna 







Stewart, Bob 

Stewart, Iain 



Stride, Mel 




Swales, Ian 


Swinson, Jo 



Tami, Mark 







Trickett, Jon 





Hood, Mr Jim 

NOES 


Turner, Karl 


Uppal, Paul 



Vaz, rh Keith 

Vaz, Valerie 




Walley, Joan 





Webb, Steve 

Weir, Mr Mike 



White, Chris 




Wiggin, Bill 








Wilson, Phil 



Wishart, Pete 



Wright, David 



Wright, Simon 




McDonnell, John

267WH 

16 FEBRUARY 2011 Economic Regeneration (Glasgow) 

268WH 

Westminster Hall 


[MR ROGER GALE in the Chair] 

Economic Regeneration (Glasgow) 

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting 

be now adjourned.—(Mr Goodwill.) 

9.30 am 

Margaret Curran (Glasgow East) (Lab): Thank you 

very much, Mr Gale. I am very pleased to speak here 

this morning. This is my first Westminster Hall debate 

since I was elected as a Member of Parliament at the 

last election, and I am pleased that the subject is my 

own city of Glasgow—the great city of Glasgow. I am 

sure that you will hear much of that this morning, 

Mr Gale. 

Of course Glasgow is vital to the current economy of 

Scotland, and over the years it has also contributed a 

great deal to Scotland and the United Kingdom. Although 

Glasgow has suffered many setbacks and difficulties 

along the way, I argue that the city has fought to 

overcome them with significant success. It is important 

that we understand the key ingredients of that success 

and that we do not repeat the mistakes of the past. 

Instead, we must deepen and enhance the processes of 

regeneration, so that we can benefit from them in the 

future. 

The second city of the empire, Glasgow inspires great 

pride and loyalty in its people: pride in the skills and 

contribution made by working people to the economy, 

and loyalty to a city famed for its humour and resilience. 

By 1870, Glasgow was producing more than half of 

Britain’s tonnage of shipping and a quarter of all the 

locomotives being built in the world. Of course, our 

interest in shipbuilding continues to this day, as I am 

sure Ministers know. In my constituency, Glasgow East, 

we had Parkhead forge, which was a powerhouse of the 

steel industry. It was one of the biggest steel employers 

in the world—at one point, it employed 30,000 people—and 

it made an enormous contribution to the war effort. 

The plant finally closed its doors in the 1980s. 

I argue, with some regret, that that great contribution 

to Scotland’s economy has not been properly recognised 

or rewarded over the years. There is a real sense among 

Glaswegians that our work and contribution was used 

when times were good, but that we were abandoned 

when change was under way, and we cannot let that 

happen again. As a result of that abandonment, we 

were left with a legacy of ill health, high poverty and 

mass unemployment. That situation was particularly 

bad during the 1980s, when unemployment soared. 

There was a sharp decline in public services, urban 

decay set in and a cycle of worklessness and hopelessness 

became embedded in too many communities and too 

many families. The next generation worked hard to 

tackle that legacy through economic and social regeneration. 

As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, there 

were many successes along the way. As a result of 

economic diversification and increased investment in 

infrastructure, health and education, Glasgow achieved 

a great deal. 

More than 53,000 jobs were created in the city between 

2000 and 2005, which was a growth rate of 32%. Between 

1998 and 2001, the city’s financial services sector increased 

by 30%, and it is now one of Europe’s largest financial 

centres. In 2005, more than 17,000 new jobs were created. 

In 2006, private sector investment in the city reached 

£42 billion, which represented a 22% increase in such 

investment within a single year. That shift in Glasgow’s 

fortunes marked very significant progress and played a 

vital part in helping to change Glasgow’s image of 

economic decline and worklessness. In doing so, it 

inspired confidence in the people of Glasgow, and 

it inspired investors to have confidence in the city. Of 

course, it also demonstrated that the famous Glasgow 

resilience pays off. 

A debate about regeneration is about not only the 

physical aspects of a place but its people. Glasgow has 

had a strong sense that the process of economic regeneration 

and the accompanying process of cultural renaissance 

that it experienced in the 1980s and 1990s should benefit 

all its citizens and not only those who were skilled and 

able to make the most of those opportunities. Too 

often, Glasgow was characterised as a city of two 

halves, and there was a real push to ensure that all the 

people of the city benefited from any regeneration 

process. Glasgow’s problems of ill health, poverty and 

deprivation were so deep-rooted that there needed to be 

a step change in how we tackled them. A vital ingredient 

was the regeneration of some of the most disadvantaged 

communities, a number of which are in the east end of 

Glasgow in my constituency. Long before the big society 

was ever heard of, Glasgow pioneered community 

development. 

We are all aware of the mistakes that were made in 

the past when things were “done to” communities rather 

than “with them”, particularly in relation to housing. 

Economic regeneration is at its best when we work with 

people who have experienced the problems and have a 

vested interest in finding the solutions, rather than 

when we impose top-down reforms. That is best illustrated 

in the housing sector. Through housing stock transfer, 

the city has been able to bring additional major spend 

into housing investment. That process not only involved 

tenants in a completely new way but delivered a programme 

of sustainable housing in Glasgow. In my previous role 

as a Member of the Scottish Parliament, I was the 

Minister with responsibility for housing in different 

ministerial capacities, and I was substantially involved 

in housing stock transfer. If anyone wants to hear me 

talk for half an hour about housing stock transfer, I am 

very willing to oblige, but such talks are obviously not 

in great demand at the moment. 

Given the challenges facing Glasgow, it is important 

to understand how we made progress. Glasgow city 

council was instrumental in building a lasting partnership 

with the private sector, a partnership which continues to 

this day. That partnership with the private sector will be 

the theme of my contribution to the debate, including 

how it is possible to get the public and private sectors to 

work together. My real fear is that that partnership is 

being jeopardised at the moment. The experience that 

we had in Glasgow of the partnership between public 

and private is relevant to the discussions of today and 

the priorities that we set. 

In Glasgow, the private sector understood the need to 

invest in education and the benefits that it accrues from 

that investment. The private sector benefited enormously

269WH 




270WH 

[Margaret Curran] 

from the developments in housing and in particular 

from housing stock transfer. For example, the £1 billion 

investment by Glasgow Housing Association has seen 

unparalleled improvements in housing throughout the 

city. Perhaps the employment opportunities that arise 

from such housing investment are not properly understood, 

but in fact 4,000 people were directly employed between 

2006 and 2010 as a result of the investment in housing 

in Glasgow. Nearly half those people were employed 

through community benefit clauses, which shows that 

public intervention works by creating sustainable 

employment. Of the 2,000 people who were employed 

through community benefit clauses, half of them were 

trainees or apprentices. Once again, that employment 

has had a real impact in the communities in which those 

people lived and worked. 

We have experienced a bit of a jolt to the process of 

regeneration in Glasgow in recent years, since the Scottish 

National party came to power. I would argue that 

during that time the partnership approach to regeneration 

has been undermined. That is exemplified through the 

development of the Scottish Futures Trust. That trust 

was set up by the SNP Administration, and it was 

meant to be part of a new approach to raising private 

finance, allegedly for investment. However, it has failed 

to commission the building of a single new school, and 

funding for capital investment projects has fallen by £1 

billion at the cost of 37,000 jobs in the construction 

industry. 

The SNP Government have refused point blank to 

listen to the pleas of the business community in Glasgow, 

and as a result of that cut in capital investment and 

other cuts, the construction of school buildings has 

been scrapped and thousands of teachers and nurses 

have lost their jobs. The “Salmond slump”, as it is now 

termed in Scotland, has also seen the cancellation of 

vital capital infrastructure projects such as the Glasgow 

airport rail link. The cancellation of GARL has meant 

the loss of 1,300 jobs. For the first time in a long time, 

Glasgow unemployment figures have begun to fall behind 

those of England. 

There is no doubt that the decline in investment 

under the SNP Administration has hit Glasgow hard. 

In my own constituency, the number of new or refurbished 

schools between 1999 and 2007 was 14, so we had 14 

brand new or refurbished schools in the east end of 

Glasgow in that time. Since the SNP came to power, not 

one school in my constituency has been built or 

refurbished—there has been no investment at all in 

schools. Recently Glasgow city council has had more 

than its fair share of budget cuts, as the council itself 

will confirm. There has been a 3.6% budget cut, which 

is the highest cut for many years and above the national 

average. 

Glasgow is battling on, and there are still regeneration 

projects that matter enormously. I want to refer to two 

of those projects that are of great importance—first, 

the Commonwealth games, and secondly the Clyde 

Gateway. The 2014 games will be an exciting occasion, 

and there was great celebration in Glasgow when we 

won them. It is an occasion to celebrate sport in a city 

famed for its sporting achievements. As the Member of 

Parliament for the great football team of Glasgow 

Celtic, I expect everyone to be aware of our great 

expertise on the football field, and I am sure that we will 

inspire interest in other sports when the Commonwealth 

games are held. It is, however, also an opportunity to 

foster economic regeneration, most particularly in areas 

of the city that still need rejuvenation. More than 9,000 

businesses entered the bidding process for affiliated 

contracts and subcontracts, and it is expected that the 

games will create 1,000 jobs and stimulate £1 billion of 

infrastructure investment in Glasgow, most particularly 

addressing our urge to ensure that the most deprived 

areas benefit. In the east end of Glasgow the games are 

of great significance, so will the Minister, in his response, 

focus on the games? We could perhaps learn things 

from the UK’s experience with the Olympic games, and 

the UK Government could perhaps play a part in 

ensuring that the Commonwealth games are an important 

success. 

The Clyde Gateway is another important development 

in the east end of Glasgow. It has been identified in the 

national planning framework as Scotland’s top regeneration 

project. It has the target of creating 21,000 jobs and 

10,000 homes over two decades. It is vital to the success 

of Glasgow, but recently there have been some problems 

with its funding. The SNP Government have taken 

some action to address the concerns, but the role of 

Scottish Enterprise has, I think, been controversial in its 

support of the gateway. We cannot afford to let the 

project slip, and some of my hon. Friends will perhaps 

want to make more detailed reference in their contributions 

to the progress, or lack thereof. Hopefully, we can 

particularly focus on that in the coming months, as it is 

key to the regeneration of Glasgow. Both the Clyde 

Gateway and the Commonwealth games are important 

to regeneration, particularly as they have a focus on and 

locus in addressing the issue of deprived communities, 

as well as having a stake in Glasgow’s future. 

Glasgow is, of course, facing the double whammy of 

a Tory-led Government—hon. Members will have expected 

me to move on to this topic. In debates such as this, I 

always want to be polite, so I will say this in the most 

generous personal terms, but I cannot resist making 

political criticisms and I hope that the Minister will take 

what I say in the tenor in which it is meant. We have 

seen some difficulties and challenges since the election 

of the new Government, including the cancellation of 

the future jobs fund, which was doing so much to tackle 

problems of unemployment and particularly of youth 

unemployment, where we were just beginning to grapple 

with some of the more deep-seated issues. We have seen 

the cuts in public expenditure, and we have heard from 

the Government that when cuts are made in public 

expenditure, the private sector will step in to fill that 

gap. I say assertively to the Government that that did 

not happen when the SNP cut expenditure. In fact, the 

business community put quite a different case in Glasgow, 

where it said that when public expenditure is used 

wisely, it can assist private sector development, and we 

have seen the details of that in Glasgow and the real 

success of the model. 

We have also seen a raft of cuts in housing benefit, 

which has undermined that twin process of economic 

and social regeneration. I would be the first at the 

barricades saying that welfare reform is important, 

particularly because of the constituency that I represent. 

I was a great supporter of the welfare reforms introduced 

by the previous Labour Government, but how reform is

271WH 




272WH 

done is critical. The number of people on incapacity 

benefit tripled under the previous Tory Government, 

but fell during the previous Labour one. It is concerning 

that this Government’s welfare reforms are perhaps 

undermining regeneration. A particular example is the 

Government’s decision to take away 10% of housing 

benefit from someone who has been on jobseeker’s 

allowance for a year. Even if that person is doing all 

that is required of them and is desperately looking for 

work, they will still lose their benefit. That not only has 

a harsh impact on the family but undermines housing-led 

regeneration, because it affects funding for housing 

associations in Glasgow, which would be a desperate 

setback for our city. In all honesty, such a punitive, 

nasty cut reminds Glaswegians of the bad old days. We 

have had the higher education cuts that have come 

through the block grant, and investment in education, 

particularly at university level, matters so much for a 

skilled work force, because it enables growth in key 

sectors such as life sciences and finance. 

Centre stage in this discussion has to be unemployment. 

The numbers have been creeping back up in Glasgow, 

particularly with the real concerns about the retraction 

in the economy shown in the recent growth figures. In 

Glasgow in December, 15 claimants were chasing every 

vacancy—in my constituency, the figure was 25. That is 

deeply worrying for those individuals, families and 

communities, and it has an enormous impact in the city 

as a whole. It is all very well telling people that they 

must go back to work, but there are no jobs to go to, 

which cuts the feet from under the policy. We cannot 

have welfare to work if there is no work, and it is 

employment and the lack of it that lies at the heart of 

the regeneration debate. 

For generation after generation, Glasgow has experienced 

surges in unemployment through profound economic 

shifts without the right action to protect its people and 

to get its economy back on its feet, and it looks as 

though we are experiencing that yet again. I have no 

doubt that the Government will respond by saying that 

it is all the fault of the previous Government, and that 

there is nothing else that has to be done apart from 

tightening our belts. That has been said to Glaswegians 

before, and it is has been proved very wrong indeed, 

many times. I argue very strongly that the people of 

Glasgow understand that the banking crisis was the 

fundamental cause of the recent economic experiences, 

and there is great resentment that that sector is not 

being made to contribute more to the solutions. Britain’s 

debt was among the lowest in the G7, and the Tories 

actually argued that we should perhaps have gone further 

in our plans for public expenditure. In reality, as Glasgow 

has shown, it is not “public sector investment bad,” as if 

that were somehow a drag on the economy that stifles 

private sector development; it is both the public and 

private sectors working together in partnership that is 

good and that matters. 

I will draw my remarks to a close, and I thank hon. 

Members for attending the debate. One of the first 

demands that I had when I became a Member of 

Parliament came from Glasgow’s Evening Times, that 

other significant element of Glasgow life, which my 

hon. Friends know. The paper contacted me and insisted 

that my job here is to stand up for Glasgow and that I 

should make that one of my central claims, which is 

what I agreed to do—we always agree, I am sure, with 

the Evening Times. I will continue to do that, because it 

is our job here to highlight the city’s strength and 

potential. 

People have many images and stereotypes of the city 

of Glasgow, and I never deny the problems that we face. 

I have hopefully done some work to try to deal with 

some of our city’s great difficulties, but it is also a city of 

great strength, promise and resource, and we have to 

learn from not only its problems but its great successes. 

I hope that the Minister will listen and will take back 

Glasgow’s message to the Government. That message is 

that they should think again about cuts in housing 

benefit in particular and that they should support our 

fight for jobs, particularly as we have seen the job crisis 

increase. They should recognise Glasgow’s contributions 

and work with us to support economic and social 

regeneration. 

Mr Roger Gale (in the Chair): Four hon. Members on 

the Back Benches wish to participate in the debate. The 

Chair chooses to give preference, when possible, to 

Members who have written to Mr Speaker to indicate 

that they wish to take part, so I propose to call Mr Greatrex 

next. It might be for the convenience of Members if I 

also indicate that I shall then call Ms Swinson, Mr Bain 

and Mr Sarwar, in that order. If hon. Members would 

be good enough to confine their remarks to 10 minutes, 

that will enable me to call the Opposition Front-Bench 

spokesperson at 10.30 am. 

9.49 am 

Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/ 

Co-op): I will endeavour to keep my remarks as brief as 

possible, so that other Members are able to make their 

points. 

I congratulate my parliamentary neighbour, my hon. 

Friend the Member for Glasgow East (Margaret Curran), 

on securing this important debate. She rightly spoke of 

the history, character and legacy of the city of Glasgow 

and, importantly, of the city’s potential. I pay tribute to 

her and the other hon. Members who are standing up 

for the great city of Glasgow in this debate. 

I speak as somebody who definitely does not represent 

a Glasgow constituency. My constituents who live closest 

to Glasgow are not slow to remind me that they live in 

the Royal Burgh of Rutherglen. They might have Glasgow 

postcodes and phone numbers, but the River Clyde 

forms a natural boundary between Rutherglen and the 

east of the city, although that natural boundary might 

not be respected in future by the Boundary Commission, 

depending on the outcome of deliberations elsewhere 

today. However, I suppose that that is a debate for a 

much later hour. 

Although my constituency interest is not directly in 

Glasgow, the fact that my constituency neighbours Glasgow 

gives me a strong connection with the city across the 

river. The southernmost part of my constituency shares 

many characteristics with the east end of Glasgow, as 

described by my hon. Friend in her speech. Due to that 

connection, my constituency has a direct interest in the 

regeneration of Glasgow, particularly through the Clyde 

Gateway project, which she mentioned and I will discuss 

briefly. 

I realise that the Minister will get both a geography 

and a history lesson during this debate. I hope that the 

Clyde Gateway is a fairly self-explanatory description

273WH 




274WH 

[Tom Greatrex] 

of the regeneration area. It takes in the area to either 

side of the Clyde and east of the city, and includes the 

constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for 

Glasgow Central (Anas Sarwar) and for Glasgow East 

on one side, and mine on the other. The Minister might 

be less familiar with the work of the Clyde Gateway 

urban regeneration company. I pay tribute to the work 

of Clyde Gateway, which has learned the lessons from 

sometimes less successful regeneration initiatives in other 

parts of the country. Clyde Gateway has actively involved 

and engaged communities since its establishment in late 

2007, and its priorities have been led by what local 

communities say they need and want for the area. 

It is fair to describe this as a once-in-a-lifetime chance 

to make a difference to some of the most deprived areas 

of Glasgow and South Lanarkshire. The opportunity 

has been created partly by the Glasgow bid for the 

Commonwealth games in 2014, as my hon. Friend 

mentioned, and partly by the construction of the final, 

missing section of the M74 from Cambuslang in my 

constituency to join the M8. The improved transport 

connection and legacy sports facilities from the games 

will make a massive difference to the area. At the same 

time, an opportunity is at stake to do much more in 

relation to housing, industry and jobs—not only 

construction work but sustainable long-term jobs. 

So far, only some of those benefits have come to 

fruition in the form of improvements in and around 

Rutherglen station, the opening in the past few weeks of 

small business units in Stonelaw road in Rutherglen and 

an innovative arrangement with Campbell Construction 

Group to ensure that the construction jobs and training 

associated with the Clyde Gateway project are geared as 

far as possible towards local people. 

The Clyde Gateway area on the side of the river that I 

represent has a long and proud industrial history, but 

history does not always get us far. It does not provide 

many jobs, keep local people in the communities where 

they want to live or help economic growth. Although 

the pits have long gone and the Cambuslang Hoover 

factory has been closed for several years—some of the 

physical structure is still around—the steel works continue. 

There is huge potential to help regenerate what was 

once and can again be a thriving economic base in my 

constituency. 

The potential is clear. Thanks to the work of Clyde 

Gateway, public support exists and some of the first 

projects have been delivered. Visible progress has been 

made not just in Rutherglen but in Bridgeton on the 

other side of the river. The project has also gained the 

support of business organisations, Glasgow city and 

South Lanarkshire councils and, until recently, Scottish 

Enterprise, the regeneration agency in Scotland. Clyde 

Gateway has been an evolving success story, with huge 

potential and the support—at least in words—of Ministers 

in the devolved Administration in Edinburgh. 

It was therefore of great concern when in January this 

year, without notice, consultation or explanation, Scottish 

Enterprise announced that the budget of Clyde Gateway 

and other URCs in Scotland would be cut by nearly 

half, which is well beyond the level anticipated or warned 

about and places in doubt the future of Clyde Gateway 

and its ability to deliver some key projects. Many people 

felt utterly betrayed, not by Clyde Gateway or by their 

local authorities, which were keeping to their side of the 

bargain as founders of the regeneration company, but 

by the crass actions of Scottish Enterprise. 

The once-in-a-lifetime opportunity has been left cruelly 

in limbo by Scottish Enterprise. Last week, after pressure, 

John Swinney, the Finance Minister in Holyrood, managed 

to find the money to reinstate the sum cut from the 

budget for URCs for this year by creating an underspend 

elsewhere, a juggling act of the type I am sure Treasury 

Ministers are practising for March. 

Clyde Gateway is still at the mercy of Scottish Enterprise. 

A week later, Scottish Enterprise has still not confirmed 

how much money will be redirected back into the 

projects to which it committed, nor what the long-term 

position is given its previous commitments to funding 

until 2016. Scottish Enterprise said in its business plan, 

published less than a year ago, that it will 

“continue to work…to deliver national regeneration priorities” 

such as Clyde Gateway, ring-fencing £12.5 million in 

2011-12 and 2012-13 and maintaining funding until 

2016. 

As I am sure the Minister will understand, the continued 

ability to lever in private sector investment and commitment 

from potential employers depends on stability and 

confidence that plans will be delivered, not left in the 

lurch. It is not good enough that, although John Swinney 

was forced to restore the money cut from the budget, 

Scottish Enterprise has failed to explain what that will 

mean for Clyde Gateway next year. There is no sense of 

what the position will be in the further two years for 

which money was previously committed. 

We have heard in this debate and will continue to 

hear about the importance of regeneration to many 

communities in Glasgow. Clyde Gateway covers one 

aspect of that regeneration in a specific area, but it is a 

crucial time for the east end of the city and the areas 

across the river in Shawfield and Rutherglen. If taken, 

this opportunity can make a difference to many people. 

If it is missed, they will be cruelly let down. The area 

has needed regeneration for far too long, as is obvious 

to anyone travelling through it. Progress has been made 

recently, creating hope, but there is now a danger that 

due to the twisted logic of Scottish Enterprise, the 

opportunity could be lost. 

I realise that it is not the Minister’s direct responsibility, 

but I take this opportunity to place on the record my 

hope that Scottish Enterprise will do what it can to 

make clear its ongoing commitment to Clyde Gateway 

so that crucial capital projects can progress. Failure to 

do so will let down the communities in my constituency 

and other hon. Members’ in a shoddy and disgraceful 

way. 

9.58 am 

Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD): I congratulate 

the hon. Member for Glasgow East (Margaret Curran) 

on securing her first Westminster Hall debate on this 

very appropriate topic, and on how she introduced it. 

She is well known for being dedicated to her constituency 

and constituents, and she captured the city of Glasgow’s 

past and continuing energy. 

Like that of the hon. Member for Rutherglen and 

Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex), my constituency is just 

outside the city of Glasgow, although it does not have 

the same natural boundary. The town of Bearsden in

275WH 




276WH 

my constituency is right next to Anniesland in Glasgow, 

and Bishopbriggs in East Dunbartonshire runs into 

Springburn in Glasgow. It is fair to say that people in 

the west of Scotland who live near the city are very 

aware of whether they are within Glasgow city boundaries, 

but the further away they live, the more solidarity they 

feel with Glasgow. As a student in London, I recall 

sometimes feeling like an outpost of the Glasgow tourist 

board. When I said that I was from Glasgow, people 

would say to me, “Oh, that’s a dirty, horrible industrial 

city,” and I found myself putting those myths straight. 

Although Glasgow has a proud industrial heritage, it 

is also a city with stunning Victorian architecture—indeed, 

it was the UK city of architecture and design in 1999—and 

an exciting mix of culture. It was the European city of 

culture in 1990, which was in itself a great catalyst for 

regeneration, similar to that which we have seen in 

Liverpool recently. Glasgow is now very much a modern, 

vibrant and confident city, and people with an outdated 

view of it should visit in order to experience what it is 

like today. Many of my constituents work in Glasgow—the 

transport links are good—so the economic regeneration 

of the city is important for the health, well-being and 

prosperity of people living in East Dunbartonshire. 

Glasgow has a wide hinterland. It is very much the focal 

point for all of the west of Scotland in terms of economic 

activity, which covers everything in the region, from the 

bustling city centre to the tranquillity of the shores of 

Loch Lomond. 

On regeneration, I want to touch upon a particular 

part of the hinterland, namely the town of Kirkintilloch 

in my constituency. It is celebrating its 800th anniversary 

as a burgh this year, and it is the focus of much 

regeneration. I think that the hon. Member for Rutherglen 

and Hamilton West will know a great deal about 

Kirkintilloch’s initiative from his previous work for 

East Dunbartonshire council. The initiative has brought 

together a multimillion pound regeneration package, 

including a new leisure centre, a new health centre and a 

newly opened link road, which, as well as alleviating 

some traffic problems, makes Kirkintilloch much more 

accessible to people travelling there from Glasgow. It 

has helped to regenerate the town, which certainly 

needed it—it is, perhaps, the part of my constituency 

that has been in most need of regeneration. That has 

been successful and much of it has now been completed. 

The town has recently been allocated £361,000 for 

town centre regeneration from a Scottish Government 

fund. Therefore, although the hon. Lady has genuine 

criticisms of the Scottish Government, it is perhaps fair 

to say—particularly because no representative of the 

Scottish National Party is present—that the Government 

in Holyrood have done some things right. However, I 

agree with her complaint about the cancellation of the 

Glasgow airport rail link. I do not now fly to London—I 

take the train instead—but that was an important project 

that would have been helpful had it not been cut. 

Kirkintilloch has a great deal of heritage—as I have 

said, it is celebrating its 800th anniversary. The Forth 

and Clyde canal runs through it, and it has much 

Roman heritage. In fact, much of my constituency runs 

along the line of the Antonine wall, which not long ago 

became a world heritage site. 

That brings me to the issue of economic regeneration 

and tourism. It is frustrating that we underperform in 

that area in the west of Scotland. One of Scotland’s 

biggest industries is tourism, but so many people I meet 

who say that they have visited Scotland have been only 

to Edinburgh and think that that is enough. We must 

and can do more to draw people across, even if it is only 

for a day trip, so that they do not just think, “We’ll go to 

Edinburgh.” After all, the two cities are only 45 minutes 

apart on the train, and the west of Scotland has a 

wealth of activities and things to offer people that they 

would not necessarily get in Edinburgh. We should be 

promoting that more. 

As I have said, we have the world heritage site of the 

Antonine wall. We also have the west highland way, 

which is one of the world’s greatest long-distance walks 

and which starts in Milngavie in my constituency. We 

have not properly exploited its economic benefits. Obviously, 

there is a current economic benefit, but it could be so 

much greater. The recent opening of a tourist information 

centre in Milngavie was a welcome start to that process, 

but it speaks volumes that, until recently, this world-famous, 

long-distance walk did not even have a tourist point at 

its start. It has not been given the priority that it should 

have for many years. 

Another reason why we should attract more people 

to Glasgow is that—if I may be slightly biased—we are 

a much friendlier city than Edinburgh has a reputation 

for being. I am sure that if people come, they will want 

to come back and become ambassadors. Those of us 

who represent the west of Scotland in this place and in 

other Parliaments have a responsibility to be ambassadors, 

as the Evening Times rightly told the hon. Lady. We 

need a renewed focus on tourism at all levels of government. 

The 2014 Commonwealth games provide a great 

opportunity to sell Glasgow, and they are also clearly a 

huge boost for economic regeneration through the 

investment for building various facilities. We should 

make sure that there are good links—I understand that 

this is the case—between the teams preparing for 2012 

and 2014, but we should also use the expertise of 

Manchester, which had such a successful Commonwealth 

games in 2002. Beyond the boundaries of the city, 

enlightened local authorities surrounding Glasgow have 

the opportunity to do what some of those surrounding 

Manchester did in 2002—own the Commonwealth games 

and use it for economic, educational and cultural benefit 

by linking up with countries that may want to base their 

training camps in those parts of the west of Scotland. 

They could also create much more meaningful links 

with local school projects and get the whole community 

involved. Moreover, the 2012 London Olympics and the 

2014 Commonwealth games even have the potential to 

encourage some countries partaking in both games to 

base their training camp for 2012 in and around Glasgow 

and to return there in 2014, so there would be a relationship 

over several years. 

This is a Westminster Hall debate, so there is a 

general spirit of consensus, which has been well noted 

this morning. I will end, however, on a slight note of 

discord. The hon. Lady is right that it is essential that 

the public and private sectors work together and that 

that can be successful. I take slight issue, however, with 

the suggestion that we have a low level of debt and that 

it is not a major problem. The fact that we have more 

than a trillion pounds of national debt is a threat to 

economic regeneration. The fact that we are spending 

£120 million every single day in debt interest almost 

makes me want to weep, because it makes me think

277WH 




278WH 

[Jo Swinson] 

about what else that £120 million could be spent on. We 

can all think of things in our constituencies that would 

promote regeneration and on which that money could 

be well spent, but at the moment it is, effectively, just 

dead money going on debt interest. 

In the grand scheme of things, much needs to be done 

to promote economic regeneration in Glasgow and 

elsewhere, but I agree that tackling the deficit has to be 

a key part of that. If we do not do that, we will not have 

the environment that is essential for confident business 

growth, which will, ultimately, deliver the further 

improvements that we all want to see in Glasgow and 

elsewhere. 

10.7 am 

Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab): It is a 

pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Gale, 

in this important debate on the Glasgow economy. I 

congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow 

East (Margaret Curran) on securing the debate and 

on speaking with the experience of 12 years as a 

parliamentarian serving Glasgow, both in this House 

and the Scottish Parliament. She was also a champion 

for social justice when she was a Minister in a previous 

Scottish Executive. 

It is clear that, prior to the global economic downturn 

in 2008, Glasgow was on the cusp of a real economic 

renaissance. Between 1998 and 2008, there were more 

Glaswegians in work than ever before, while 30,000 jobs 

were created in business services—a 60% increase—and 

more than 4,000 new jobs in the financial services 

sector. Glasgow experienced strong retail growth in that 

period, with 1,500 shops in the city centre, which even 

now generate £2.4 billion per year in retail sales turnover. 

Glasgow also extracts real economic benefit from tourism, 

as the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) 

has said. The current expansion in hotel capacity is key 

to attracting new events and to the hosting of a successful 

Commonwealth games in 2014. 

Even in recent times, major companies have continued 

to invest in Glasgow’s biggest asset, its people, by 

announcing major recruitment programmes. In autumn 

2010, Vertex, a provider of customer management 

outsourcing, announced plans to create 368 jobs, while 

1,500 new jobs have been announced in the financial 

sector by Barclays, Santander, esure, Morgan Stanley 

and Odyssey Financial Technologies. There has also 

been a 75% increase in the leasing of office space in the 

city. 

I would like to emphasise three points. First, investment 

in infrastructure is needed if Glasgow is to remain 

competitive in increasing its output in retail and business 

services. The particular priorities are upgrading Glasgow’s 

drainage and water catchment system to mitigate flood 

risks, and improving transport networks. There is an 

overwhelming case for constructing a high-speed rail 

network from London through the major English cities 

to Glasgow and Edinburgh at the earliest opportunity. 

That is worth £20 billion in economic benefits to both 

cities. The city council, the business community, the 

Scottish Council for Development and Industry, and 

Labour Members are concerned about the lack of 

momentum by the Department for Transport in initiating 

the necessary discussions with the Scottish Government 

on the planning and financial issues involved in the 

construction of high-speed track in Scotland. I hope 

that the Financial Secretary and the Secretary of State 

for Scotland will encourage the Secretary of State for 

Transport not to leave that essential work in the slow 

lane. The Scottish Government also need to play a 

central role in increasing capacity, principally between 

Glasgow airport and the city centre, through the 

reinstatement of capital funding for the Glasgow airport 

rail link, which has—as my hon. Friend pointed out—the 

potential to create 1,300 jobs in the west of Scotland. A 

further priority is the upgrade of major roads, such as 

the completion of the M74, because half of those who 

work in Glasgow live in constituencies outside the city’s 

boundaries—for example, that of the hon. Member for 

East Dunbartonshire. 

Secondly, more has to be done to tackle Glasgow’s 

historic underperformance in labour productivity, 

particularly in the service sector. BAK Basel Economics 

benchmarked Glasgow against a group of 35 European 

cities, and Glasgow averaged an annual growth rate of 

2.3% in productivity from 2000 to 2005, which puts it in 

the top 10 cities. However, Glasgow lay in 33rd place in 

relation to measures of labour productivity in 2005, 

which is relatively low in comparison with other major 

EU cities. Thirdly, Glasgow’s economy needs to diversify 

in order to take advantage of the expansion in the 

renewables sector, of our universities as centres of scientific 

and other research excellence, and of high-value-added 

manufacturing. 

The life science community within the west of Scotland 

is home to 180 companies, including those in Nova 

park, Robroyston in my constituency. Those companies 

range from major pharmaceuticals, to diagnostics, 

therapeutics, medical devices, contract researchers and 

manufacturers, all of which jointly employ more than 

80,000 people. However, continued business support 

from the Government is required to ensure that they 

flourish in the coming decade. 

Glasgow is home to a quarter of the west of Scotland’s 

core energy sector businesses and many other energy 

sector supporting businesses. Research undertaken by 

the sustainable Glasgow initiative found that Glasgow 

currently emits around 4 million tonnes of CO 2 per 

annum, which is linked to its energy use. The initiative 

proposes a series of measures to reduce those carbon 

emissions, such as renewable energy systems, fuel switching 

and energy management systems. 

Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab): I am speaking 

as a Glasgow constituency Member rather than as an 

Opposition Front Bencher. I very much welcome what 

my hon. Friend has said. Does he agree that Glasgow is 

a perfect location for the new green investment bank 

proposed by the Government, given its track record not 

only in financial services, but in innovation and in 

having a connection with the renewable energy sector? 

Mr Bain: I am most grateful for that intervention. As 

on so many other matters, my hon. Friend anticipates 

the argument I was about to advance. She has pointed 

out why it is particularly regrettable that the creation of 

the green investment bank, which could kick-start 

many renewable energy projects in Glasgow, has been 

caught up in a game of Whitehall pass the parcel. As

279WH 




280WH 

the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and 

Skills revealed last week, plans for capitalisation are 

unlikely to be published before May at the earliest. It is 

still uncertain whether the green investment bank will 

have sufficient operational independence from the Treasury, 

and there is a wider need for capital for new innovatory 

business start-ups. In addition, there is a strong argument 

for investigating the case for a wider British investment 

bank. 

The city council has identified low pay as an area 

requiring urgent attention. In 2006, the average Glaswegian 

earned 2% less than the UK average, but thanks to the 

adoption of a living wage policy—first of £7 an hour, 

but rising to £7.15 an hour this year—by 150 businesses 

that employ 50,000 people in Glasgow, average earnings 

are now 3% above the UK average. 

It would not be fair to leave out the records of the 

Scottish and UK Governments in recent months on 

assisting Glasgow in developing a strategy for growth. I 

regret to say that Glasgow has not been particularly 

well served by either Government. The city council 

experienced a cut in funding of 3.6% from the Scottish 

Government, which was 1% more than previously indicated 

and is the worst financial settlement since 2007. Despite 

that, the city council has made job creation, particularly 

for young people, a priority. It has invested in the 

Commonwealth apprenticeship initiative, through which 

241 companies took on 600 apprentices last year, and 

the Commonwealth jobs fund, which aims to create 

1,000 jobs for young unemployed people across Glasgow 

through a £6,500 subsidy per job. That is open to every 

private and third-sector employer in the city. 

However, it is clear that, at a UK level, the cut in 

capital and investment allowances is affecting manufacturing 

exporters and harming Glasgow business. The UK 

Government’s failure to continue the future jobs fund 

beyond the spring and the revelations this morning that 

fewer people will proceed through the Government’s 

work programme than under the initiatives of the previous 

Government add to concerns that the hard-earned progress 

on employment levels of the past 13 years will slip 

backwards. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow 

East intimated in her remarks, incomes will also be 

damaged by the Government’s proposals on housing 

benefit, which it has been estimated will cost £10 million 

to £12 million a year in lost spending capacity by the 

poorest families and individuals in the city. 

The Glasgow economy has the potential for continued 

growth in existing and new areas in the next decade, but 

it will require Government at all levels to exhibit a 

sustained and credible strategy for growth, rather than 

simply a plan for an over-hasty fiscal retrenchment that 

may cost jobs and damage Glasgow’s competitiveness. 

10.17 am 

Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab): I join my 

colleagues in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member 

for Glasgow East (Margaret Curran) on securing the 

debate. During 12 years as an elected Member of both 

this House and the Scottish Parliament, she has 

demonstrated her commitment to the city of Glasgow. I 

am delighted to stand side by side with her and every 

other Glasgow Member of Parliament to say that our 

first priority is and always will be to stand up for the 

great city of Glasgow, which we are all proud to be from 

and serve. 

From the outset, it is important to recognise the huge 

amount of regeneration that has taken place in the city 

of Glasgow over the past 13 years. Within my constituency, 

we have seen tremendous regeneration next to the Clyde, 

involving the media Hub, the BBC, ITV, the Scottish 

Exhibition and Conference Centre development, the 

Clyde auditorium and the science centre. I am pleased 

to say that all that development is happening within my 

constituency. There has also been tremendous development 

in the city centre. Sauchiehall street and Buchanan 

street have the second highest footfall of any UK city 

centre, second only to Oxford street in London. There 

has also been a huge amount of housing regeneration 

right across the city. However, sadly, that has stalled 

through the recession and as a result of these difficult 

times. 

As the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire 

(Jo Swinson) rightly pointed out, the 2014 Commonwealth 

games will provide a great opportunity to sell Glasgow 

not only nationally but globally, and will bring opportunity 

for the east end of the city. It is important to recognise 

that Glasgow has had a tumultuous economic history, 

and that the growth and development seen in recent 

years is extremely fragile, particularly in such a tough 

economic climate. All hon. Members present today 

understand that regeneration is driven by economic 

growth, be it a particular area or the nation as a whole. 

The regeneration that Glasgow enjoyed under 13 years 

of a Labour Government is at threat at its roots as a 

result of inaction from the Scottish Government and a 

new UK Government policy. However, as with all 

development and regeneration, cutting off support too 

early means cutting the lifeline to projects, which will 

end before they have begun, squandering the initial 

investment and leaving communities back where they 

started. 

Therefore, in spite of the current climate, it is important 

that we ask the Government to remember fragile areas 

such as Glasgow when they make cuts and choose 

where to invest. That includes cuts to initiatives such as 

employment zones, and investment in projects such as 

high-speed rail. The people of Glasgow have been forgotten 

in the past, when the closure of the shipyards left 

generations unemployed, and I hope this debate will 

help to ensure that Glasgow is not forgotten again. 

It is important to remember that regeneration is not 

only about the physical development of new areas through 

Government and developers investing large amounts of 

capital, but giving renewed energy to existing systems 

and supporting the local economy and local people, so 

that Glasgow can regenerate itself from within. One 

way that the previous Government began to achieve 

that was by supporting unemployed people back into 

work—an essential step to bring growth back into 

deprived areas is to increase employment. 

Despite investment in Glasgow in the last decade, 

which has improved prospects for thousands of people, 

the city still has one of the highest unemployment rates 

in Scotland and has been hit hard by the recession. The 

announcement by the Government that they will scrap 

the future jobs fund, which created more than 1,100 jobs 

for Glasgow and 15,500 jobs across Scotland, is devastating. 

The Government insist that their replacement back to 

work programme—when it eventually appears—will provide 

a more effective system for getting people back to work. 

However, in the news just yesterday, we heard that the

281WH 




282WH 

[Anas Sarwar] 

number of people expected to benefit from the scheme 

in 2012-13 will be down by almost 300,000 on the 

number who benefited from the previous Government’s 

programme nationwide. 

Labour’s employment zones, which were due to be 

scrapped six months before the new work programme, 

were also of great benefit to the city of Glasgow. I am 

pleased that the Government have done a U-turn on 

scrapping them six months before the new work programme 

had begun. It is a shame that it took Labour party 

pressure from the Opposition Benches and Glasgow 

Labour MPs having to fight with the Government to 

make them do that U-turn. The Government should 

have seen sense in the first place. 

We have to recognise that with regeneration and 

unemployment, one size does not fit all. The Government 

need to demonstrate that they are paying attention to 

areas with serious long-term unemployment problems 

through plans to provide focused support to get people 

in those areas back to work, particularly given their 

plan to penalise the long-term unemployed with policies 

such as a 10% cut in their housing benefit. 

Poverty and a lack of opportunity are huge problems 

in my constituency, and the cuts to regeneration projects 

such as the Glasgow airport rail link and the Clyde 

Gateway, coupled with cuts in employment programmes, 

only threaten to compound the situation. It is important 

to recognise that the people are willing to work, but jobs 

must be available for them to fill. It is the growth of 

Scottish business that will ultimately drive the creation 

of the economy that Glasgow requires to regenerate 

itself. Therefore, in addition to supporting work programmes 

and investing capital in Glasgow itself, the Government 

must be mindful of longer-term policy decisions that 

will affect Glasgow’s independent growth. That includes 

supporting Glasgow’s growing sectors and ensuring 

that it remains well connected. 

The Glasgow to Edinburgh improvement project will 

go a long way toward supporting Glasgow’s growth by 

improving connectivity between the two cities, reducing 

travel times and costs to businesses, and creating one 

central hub. Although strengthening Scotland’s internal 

links is important, Glasgow will struggle to present 

itself as a viable place for start-ups, or to maintain a 

good environment for growth, if it is not adequately 

connected to the rest of the UK. The Scottish market 

alone is not large enough to support very large businesses, 

particularly those in manufacturing, and international 

businesses will require strong links with London and 

the rest of the UK market before they will be attracted 

to settling in Glasgow. That is why it is such a concern 

that the plans for High Speed 2 do not currently include 

an extension to Scotland. Under the present proposals, 

journey times between London and Glasgow will be 

reduced by only half an hour if High Speed 2 terminates 

in Manchester. With current proposals planned for 

completion as far off as 2025, that prompts the question 

of how long Glasgow, and indeed the rest of Scotland, 

will have to wait before they benefit from an adequate 

rail connection to the rest of the UK. 

Britain is already behind our European counterparts 

in providing proper high-speed connections—the French 

TGV began operating more than 25 years ago. Scotland’s 

growth will be actively disadvantaged if there is not 

even a longer-term plan to link Scotland with the rest of 

Europe. When we add to that the recent announcement 

that British Midlands International is to stop its Glasgow 

to London service, we can understand the deep concerns 

the Scottish business community will have when it finds 

competing in the international market increasingly 

challenging. Both Glasgow and Edinburgh city councils 

have come together on this. I can assure you, Mr Gale, 

that Glasgow and Edinburgh do not come together on 

many issues, but they have on high-speed rail. Independent 

research conducted for both councils has shown that a 

high-speed link could be worth up to £7 billion to the 

Scottish economy. What Glasgow needs in order to 

grow is a long-term commitment from the Government 

that high-speed rail for Scotland is a top priority, and 

that they will endeavour to make it happen at the same 

time it happens for the north of England. 

Glasgow is a vibrant city and a great place to live, and 

I wholeheartedly believe that it will continue to grow if 

we can create opportunities for the people living there. 

There is no real reason why, given the right support, 

Glasgow cannot become an economic hub in its own 

right and help to drive growth for the rest of Scotland. 

What Glasgow needs is continued commitment from 

the Government to ensure that those opportunities will 

begin to appear, and evidence to show that Glasgow has 

not been forgotten, as it sadly was in the past. 

10.25 am 

Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab): It is a pleasure to 

serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gale. I begin by 

congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow 

East (Margaret Curran) on securing this debate, which 

is of crucial importance not only to Glasgow and to 

those who have a concern about and an interest in 

Scotland, but to the wider UK economy. I am pleased 

that she has been supported today by my hon. Friends 

the Members for Glasgow Central (Anas Sarwar), for 

Glasgow North East (Mr Bain) and for Rutherglen and 

Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) and by my hon. Friend 

the Member for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin), the 

shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, who is speaking 

in a personal capacity today. I also very much welcome 

the contribution from the hon. Member for East 

Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson). 

What struck me about the debate is that my hon. 

Friends have made an important case that is applicable 

not only to Glasgow, but to many other parts of the 

UK. The key to economic growth and the success of 

local economies is partnership. It is about not only what 

government, the voluntary sector or individual 

entrepreneurial spirit can do, but the partnership that 

brings those things together. My hon. Friends have 

discussed national UK Government investment in Scotland, 

economic projects that link Scotland to other parts of 

the United Kingdom, the clear benefit that public 

expenditure brings to Scotland and how such public 

expenditure relates to the private and voluntary sectors 

and to the social progress of people who live and work 

in the great city of Glasgow and the surrounding 

community. 

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East began 

by pointing out that Scotland has a great manufacturing, 

cultural and social history, including shipbuilding, the 

automotive industry and football—one of Glasgow’s 

great exports is Kenny Dalglish, who has brought great

283WH 




284WH 

success to my part of the world. The key point is that 

that manufacturing history and support is where we 

need to build that partnership for the future. What I 

have taken from the debate is the issue of partnership. 

Secondly—my hon. Friends have touched on this, and I 

shall return to it—a strategy for growth is needed that 

involves the public sector, looks at key infrastructure 

projects and helps to develop the voluntary and private 

sectors. There is also a need—this is key to where the 

Government are currently failing—for that strategy, 

that partnership, that development, and that active 

government to focus on social fairness. Even at a time 

when there are challenges with the deficit, which we 

have all recognised, the way in which the Government 

implement their deficit reduction strategy can, as my 

hon. Friends have touched on, damage social fairness 

and the social fabric of our communities. 

That is particularly important because—I do not yet 

have the figures for Scotland—unemployment in the 

United Kingdom rose by 44,000 in the last month to 2.5 

million people. Particularly worrying is the rise of 66,000 

in youth unemployment, which has now risen to 965,000 

people between the ages of 16 and 24, which makes a 

total unemployment rate of 7.9%. When the Labour 

Government left office in May last year, unemployment 

was starting to fall and there were signs of growth after 

a difficult period. Sadly, I have to report that unemployment 

will undoubtedly hit the city of Glasgow, as it will 

elsewhere in the United Kingdom. 

My hon. Friends made the case that the Minister has 

to explain key policies that he has promulgated in the 

House and now has to follow. Those policies are having 

and will have a severe impact on Glasgow’s economy. 

We need to challenge them, as my hon. Friend the 

Member for Glasgow East has by securing this debate, 

and look at alternatives. We must ensure that however 

we tackle the deficit, which we need to do in part—the 

Minister knows that when I was a Labour Minister in 

the Home Office, the Department had plans to make 

£1.5 billion of savings, so it was something that we were 

planning to do. However, the scale, pace, depth and 

front-loading of this Government’s cuts are severely 

damaging communities in Glasgow and other parts of 

the UK. 

The budgets for the devolved Administrations—this 

is key to my area, Wales—show that the capital budget, 

which impacts on housing, education and infrastructure 

in Glasgow and elsewhere, is being cut by the Government, 

and in Scotland that process is being supported by the 

unfair application of the cuts by the Scottish National 

party-led Government. The £3.4 billion of capital spending 

in 2010-11 that was planned by the Labour Government 

will be cut by this Government to £2.3 billion of capital 

spending in 2014-15. The cut is from £3.4 billion 

this year to £2.5 billion in 2011-12, which makes a 

£900 million cut in the capital programme. 

My hon. Friend mentioned that her constituency has 

had no investment in schools thanks to the SNP 

Government in Scotland and that it faces difficult challenges 

in respect of housing and infrastructure. Those issues 

will be magnified tremendously by this Government’s 

£900 million cut to the Scottish Executive’s budget. 

Again, there are ways in which we can tackle deficit 

reduction, but that level of drop front-loaded in the first 

year will hit Glasgow and other parts of the UK extremely 

hard. The £900 million cut for Scotland will mean that 

the private sector, which is so dependent on recovery in 

Scotland, will suffer. It will be hit by not being able to 

create the jobs that would have met some of that capital 

expenditure demand. My hon. Friend pointed to real 

challenges in her contribution and was supported by 

other hon. Friends. The Minister needs to recognise 

that the front-loading will cause real difficulty. The cuts, 

which are too quick, will exacerbate unemployment, as 

we have seen with the rise today. 

I am sorry that there is no one here from the SNP, but 

I do not wish to intrude on private grief. I represent a 

constituency in Wales. The nationalists in Wales, to give 

them their due, would have been here to argue their case 

if the debate had been on the economy of Cardiff or 

Swansea. I am sorry that we have not had a contribution 

from SNP MPs. They might have explained how they 

would implement the draconian cuts at a local level. 

Perhaps that is something that we will return to at a 

later date, perhaps even outside this Chamber. My hon. 

Friend may wish to raise this issue elsewhere and discuss 

the SNP’s lack of interest in this debate and in Glasgow. 

The capital cuts and, indeed, the revenue cut, which, 

cumulatively, is a 7% reduction in real terms in the 

resource budgets of the Scottish Parliament, will impact 

heavily on the ability of Glasgow to weather what is still 

a difficult period coming out of a recession which, as 

my hon. Friend said, was not the fault of the people of 

Glasgow East, yet they are the very people who will 

have to bear the real hardships caused by public sector 

reductions and the Government’s social policies. The 

rise in VAT and cuts to housing benefit will be extremely 

difficult. The unfairness of those changes hit hardest 

the poorest people in Glasgow, whom my hon. Friend 

has represented for 12 years here and in the Scottish 

Parliament. 

There are some good news stories which should not 

be forgotten in this debate. Hon. Friends from both 

sides of the Clyde have mentioned the Clyde Gateway 

project and the importance of progressing it. I want to 

support them from the Opposition Front Bench in their 

endeavours to influence not only the Scottish Executive 

but the Westminster Government to ensure that it is a 

success. The project embodies the partnership that my 

hon. Friends have discussed today. It has the potential 

to develop large areas of the east end of Glasgow plus 

Rutherglen and Shawfield in South Lanarkshire. It involves 

investment of more than £62 million between 2008 and 

2011, with Scottish Enterprise hopefully bringing forward 

£42 million to 2016. It will lever in private sector investment 

of up to £1.5 billion for private development, which will 

create jobs and homes. 

The project is symptomatic of why the Government’s 

approach to public spending is so wrong. The Clyde 

Gateway scheme shows that public-private partnership 

can create jobs, homes and social progress. It is not a 

one-size-fits-all scheme, in which the public sector appears 

to be the devil to all other aspects of society. The 

Government are committed to reducing the public sector, 

not only to reduce the deficit but because they do not 

like public spending and public investment as a whole. 

I hope that the Minister will endorse and support the 

Clyde Gateway scheme, that the UK Government will 

give it succour, and that that will also apply to the 2014 

Commonwealth games. As my hon. Friends have said, 

the games will be a key economic generator and will put 

the spotlight on Glasgow’s tourism potential. They will

285WH 




286WH 

[Mr David Hanson] 

be a showcase for the great skills of the people of 

Glasgow and for the city’s great attributes. They will 

involve £1 billion of investment in infrastructure, 1,000 

additional jobs and 15,000 volunteers—the big society 

will be alive in Glasgow, irrespective of any Conservative 

party initiatives, which mean, in effect, a small state. I 

hope that the Minister will touch on that proposal 

today, recognise that it will result in economic growth 

and development in Glasgow, and support it. 

Despite those positives, the Government’s policies on 

public spending and also on social issues will damage 

the economy of Glasgow. My hon. Friend the Member 

for Glasgow East picked up on various points. Linking 

local housing allowance to the consumer prices index 

will result in lower income for people locally. The cut to 

housing benefit ignores the fact that, in an area with 

rising unemployment, long-term unemployed people 

who are trying their best to find work, who are going to 

interviews and sending out applications and who are 

turning up at the Jobcentre but are still unable to secure 

employment will face a reduction in their income. 

My hon. Friend knows that if the people of Glasgow 

East find that they are unemployed and that their 

housing benefit has been cut, the money that they lose 

will not be spent in Glasgow. They will not be spending 

in local shops, supporting the local economy and voluntary 

organisations, or creating local jobs with that resource 

in the east end of Glasgow. We add poverty to poverty 

by taking unfair cuts forward. 

Glasgow has a younger population compared with 

the rest of Scotland, and, sadly, youth unemployment 

will disproportionately hit that area hardest. The future 

jobs fund has been mentioned. It had the potential to 

create 200,000 full-time, paid jobs for young people up 

and down the country, and Glasgow would have had its 

share. There will be real problems in the future because 

of that cut. 

I was pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for 

Glasgow North East mentioned the living wage campaign. 

That is a big society issue: companies, voluntary 

organisations and the council are agreeing to pay a 

living wage and working together because they recognise, 

without the Government telling them to be part of a big 

society, that they have a partnership interest in the 

future of Glasgow. Many of the challenges are self-evident, 

but the Government are adding to them by front-loading 

public expenditure cuts too fast and too deep. However, 

Glasgow has real positives for future growth, such as 

the Commonwealth games and the Clyde Gateway, 

which we should celebrate on a UK basis. 

Another issue that has been mentioned today is tourism. 

I was struck by the strong representations to extend the 

high-speed rail link along the west coast main line from 

the current proposal, which would run from London to 

the west midlands and through to Manchester. I use 

that London to Glasgow main line, because I get off at 

Crewe and go west. There is an argument for looking at 

such investment over the long term, to ensure that we 

enhance the high-speed link. 

My hon. Friends pleaded for serious consideration of 

developing new industries in Glasgow and made a 

strong case for the green investment bank to be placed 

in the city, growing the financial services sector not only 

in Edinburgh but in Glasgow. The growth and development 

of renewable energy projects, with the support that the 

UK Government can give, are real and positive things. 

My hon. Friends and I came to the debate with severe 

criticisms of Government policy. While needing to tackle 

the deficit, the Government have gone too far, too fast. 

However, we can work with the UK Government on 

some real positives, as well as with the Scottish Executive 

which, hopefully, will be under the control of the Labour 

party after May this year. We could build on the strengths 

and the will of the people of Glasgow to develop their 

own future by attracting new businesses and visitors, 

and by ensuring that the success of the Commonwealth 

games showcases that great city to the rest of the 

United Kingdom. 

I am grateful for the opportunity provided by today’s 

debate, which is the first that my hon. Friend the 

Member for Glasgow East has secured in Westminster 

Hall; I hope that it will be a success. I look forward to 

the Minister defending his draconian cuts but also, I 

hope, working with my colleagues to ensure that he can 

mitigate those cuts and develop a strategy for growth 

for Glasgow into the future. 

10.42 am 

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Mark 

Hoban): I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow 

East (Margaret Curran) on securing the debate. She 

struck me as passionate about her city, its people and 

their prospects. I commend that, and it will serve her 

well in this place. 

I have to disappoint the hon. Member for Rutherglen 

and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex), but I am not sure 

that I need much of a history or geography lesson about 

the city. I have visited Glasgow quite frequently, I have 

met businesses in Glasgow and I am going to Edinburgh 

next month. [Interruption.] I know there is some fraternal 

rivalry between the cities, but the hon. Member for 

Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) is in her place representing 

Edinburgh and ensuring that the Glaswegians do not 

get everything their own way. I understand some of the 

challenges in the Scottish economy. Having been born 

and brought up in the north-east, I recognise from my 

own region some of the trends referred to by the hon. 

Members, such as the decline in shipbuilding, or in coal 

mining, as mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. I see 

strong parallels. 

I congratulate other right hon. and hon. Members, 

including my hon. Friend the Member for East 

Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), on participating in the 

debate and making the case for their constituencies. 

Before I turn to the main text of my contribution, let 

me deal with four areas mentioned by a range of speakers. 

First, it is vital for Glasgow to use the Commonwealth 

games as an opportunity for economic development. I 

note the job creation initiatives around the games. Some 

lessons could be learnt from the London Olympics, not 

only in the regeneration provided for east London but 

in how the games are a focal point for businesses to 

promote the benefits of London as a place of inward 

investment. I encourage people in Glasgow to work 

closely with the Olympic authorities in London to 

understand the opportunity to attract inward investment 

and to raise the profile of the city.

287WH 




288WH 

The Clyde Gateway, as with the spending for the 

Commonwealth games, is a devolved matter, for 

prioritisation by the Scottish Government, but I am 

sure that Scottish Enterprise will have heard the strong 

messages from this morning’s debate. However, if MPs 

and others from Glasgow wish to see funding devoted 

to that project, they must place pressure on the Scottish 

authorities. 

I will raise with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of 

State for Transport the issues about the completion of 

High Speed 2, which affects a number of areas of the 

country not covered by the current route, such as the 

northern part of England as well as Scotland. I will 

ensure that he is aware of the concerns expressed. 

On the green investment bank, I am afraid that 

Glasgow will have to join the queue of bidders for the 

headquarters. A number of parts of the country have 

made representations through their Members for the 

site of the headquarters. Green investment is a huge 

opportunity for economic growth and development. 

Existing skills in local communities or in the universities 

serving those areas can be used to promote renewable 

energy and green industries. The issue affects all parts 

of the country but, at the time of the Budget, my right 

hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that 

at least £250 million from the green investment bank 

will be spent in Scotland. We have not lost sight of the 

important role such investment can play in stimulating 

economic growth. 

As pointed out by the hon. Member for Glasgow 

East, Glasgow was at the forefront of the industrial 

revolution and it remains one of the most important 

and innovative cities in the UK. It is Scotland’s largest 

urban economy, generating £13 billion gross value added 

each year and supporting 400,000 jobs. As we heard, 

the jobs are enjoyed by those living not only in Glasgow 

but in the surrounding areas, as part of the economy of 

the west of Scotland. 

We want to work in partnership with the Scottish 

Government to promote our shared objective of increasing 

economic prosperity for all in Scotland and Glasgow. 

As mentioned, economic regeneration policies are largely 

a matter for the Scottish Government and their local 

authorities and agencies, which was evidenced by the 

criticism made by the hon. Lady of the Scottish National 

party Government. I am sure she will take every opportunity 

over the coming weeks to remind SNP Members of that 

and to question their non-attendance today. 

Setting out the Government’s economic strategy and 

its impact on Scotland—in particular, Glasgow—will 

be helpful. We set out three strands last year: first, to 

reduce the deficit inherited from the previous Government; 

secondly, to increase economic growth, including by 

rebalancing the economy throughout all the countries 

and regions of the UK; and, thirdly, to promote fairness 

for all. 

As my hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire 

rightly pointed out, we have a deficit to tackle and we 

are spending £120 million on interest every day—we 

spend more in interest than we do on schools. Clearly, 

we need to resolve that issue if we are to support 

economic growth, keep interest rates low and protect 

jobs in all parts of the UK. 

The reality that the right hon. Member for Delyn 

(Mr Hanson) keeps trying to escape from—he and I 

have had many debates on such issues—is that the 

previous Government set out cuts starting from April 

this year that would have been only £2 billion less than 

the cuts we have outlined. When he talks about frontloading, 

he ought to think about the previous Government’s 

plans and acknowledge that the cuts this year are only 

£2 billion more than in the plans we inherited. All parts 

of the UK, including Scotland, must bear their share of 

the deficit reduction made necessary by what we inherited 

from the previous Government. 

Funding for the Scottish Government in the spending 

review reflects the Government’s commitment to invest 

in infrastructure and to ensure that conditions for growth 

are in place throughout the UK. The spending review 

increased capital funding in the UK by £2 billion compared 

with June’s Budget plans, which is more than what the 

previous Government had set out as their capital plans 

for the new Parliament. I repeat, the right hon. Gentleman 

must be careful what he criticises: we have been more 

generous in our capital settlement than his Government 

had intended. We are keen to ensure that capital expenditure 

is used to protect projects with high, long-term economic 

value and that spending is focused on investment promoting 

economic growth, including in transport, science, regional 

growth, digital infrastructure and supporting the low-carbon 

economy. Glasgow MPs need to challenge the Scottish 

Government on how they will prioritise their budgets to 

deliver those objectives. These are devolved matters, 

and the Scottish Government are accountable for the 

priorities they set and how they respond to the needs of 

Scotland. 

Margaret Curran: I take the point about devolved 

matters, and we do pursue those. Housing benefit, 

however, is a reserved matter. Will the Minister confirm 

whether the Government are going ahead with the 10% 

cut in housing benefit after a year to those receiving 

jobseeker’s allowance? 

Mr Hoban: I will return to the issue of housing 

benefit in a moment. Let us be clear: the Scottish 

Government have not suffered disproportionate cuts. 

Funding has been determined by the Barnett formula in 

the usual way. The percentage of Scottish Government 

total reduction in departmental expenditure limits for 

2014-15 is below the UK average—they are getting a 

better spending settlement than the rest of the UK. 

Public spending per head in Scotland is substantially 

above the UK average and is expected to remain so over 

the spending review period. The Scottish Government 

have benefited from substantial increases in spending 

since devolution. 

If we are to promote strong and sustainable economic 

growth that is evenly shared across the country and 

between industries, we need to tackle the debt and 

deficit that we inherited. The Government are inviting 

businesses to take part in a fundamental review into 

what each area of Government is doing to address the 

barriers facing industry. They have already acted to 

remove barriers to growth, and the growth review 

announced last year set in train an intensive programme 

of work to drive forward action on the Government’s 

priority areas. That relentless focus on growth will 

continue to form the basis of the Government’s agenda 

for the rest of this Parliament. We started by focusing 

on planning, trade and inward investment, competition, 

regulation, access to finance and corporate governance.

289WH 




290WH 

[Mr Hoban] 

The review will look at all sectors of the economy, 

but we have first identified six key sectors: advanced 

manufacturing; digital and creative industries; business 

and professional services; retail; construction; and health 

care and life sciences. Manufacturing is a strong part of 

the Scottish economy, and it has seen six consecutive 

quarters of growth. That is a helpful sign of the rebalancing 

of the economy. 

As the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, financial 

services is my specialist topic, and the importance of 

financial services to Glasgow has been mentioned a 

couple of times during the debate. In 2009, I visited 

National Australia Bank at the Clydesdale branch in 

Glasgow and spoke to management and businesses 

from the west of Scotland. The financial sector is one of 

the most significant contributors to UK GDP and 

employment, and although London is the heart of that 

industry, there are important financial centres across 

the country, including in Glasgow. Financial services 

firms in Scotland account for 9% of total UK employment 

in the sector. 

Financial services is one of the biggest employers in 

Glasgow. In 2008, 95,000 people were employed in 

financial services firms in Scotland, and many of those 

jobs were based in Glasgow. Major local employers 

include National Australia Group, which I referred to 

earlier, and Lloyds Banking Group. I know that Glasgow 

has recognised the potential role that financial services 

can play in a growing economy. The £750 million joint 

public-private venture investment in the international 

financial services district could bring an extra 20,000 

jobs to the city. 

We often think of the strong tradition of businesses 

that are based in Scotland, but we should not lose sight 

of the fact that many international financial services 

that we associate with Canary Wharf and the City have 

significant operations outside London. Morgan Stanley 

is in Glasgow, as are Deutsche Bank and Citibank. 

Those global businesses chose to locate some of their 

operations to Glasgow, which shows that the benefit of 

having London as a global financial services centre 

spreads beyond the boundaries of the square mile. We 

are doing as much as we can to ensure that the UK 

remains an attractive and competitive place for financial 

services to do business. 

As well as measures for the financial services sector, 

we must ensure that the UK is a good place for inward 

investment. In the Budget we announced plans to reduce 

the rate of corporation tax from 28% to 24% over the 

next four years. We published a corporate tax road map 

that set out a significant programme of corporate tax 

reforms designed to restore the UK’s tax competitiveness, 

including reform of the controlled foreign company 

regime. The Government are responding to business 

concerns about the instability and unpredictability of 

the UK tax system while taking action where they can 

to improve the UK’s competitiveness. We will work with 

our partners in the Scottish Government and elsewhere 

to ensure that Scotland is an attractive place in which to 

do business. 

Increasing fairness is a strand of our work, and that 

point was touched on by a number of hon. Members. 

We must be clear about the important reforms to welfare 

set out by the Government. I recognise that there is a 

degree of support for those reforms from Labour party 

Members, but we clearly need to improve work incentives 

and get more people into work. Too many people must 

make a decision about whether they can afford to go to 

work, or whether the system means that they are trapped 

on benefits. That is why my right hon. Friend the 

Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is setting out 

plans for the universal benefit, which will be introduced 

from 2016. It means that for new claimants, it will 

always be better to be in work than on benefits. That 

sends a positive signal that people should take employment 

opportunities and will be better off if they do. That is 

not just economically better off—significant social benefits 

flow from people being in work. 

The future jobs fund was mentioned by a number of 

hon. Members, and it is a convenient soundbite to say 

that the fund has been scrapped. We should all recognise, 

however, that many of the jobs that were funded were 

temporary and many were in the public sector and did 

not represent good value for money. That is why we are 

bringing forward the Work programme that will strengthen 

support for those seeking to get into work. 

The hon. Lady mentioned housing benefit. She will 

recognise—as do a number of her colleagues—that the 

bill for housing benefit increased significantly under the 

previous Government. There are some anomalies in 

how the system works and the way that it distorts 

incentives. That is why it is important to restructure 

housing benefit and engage in reforms. We recognise the 

challenges that that will create, which is why additional 

money has been set aside to help manage the transition. 

The hon. Lady also spoke about defence and 

shipbuilding. She will know that some of the work on 

the new aircraft carriers is being done on the River 

Clyde, just as some is being done in Portsmouth just 

outside my constituency in the Vosper Thornycroft 

yard. The astute-class submarines will also be based in 

Scotland and there is a great deal of support for Glasgow 

from central Government. However, if we are to achieve 

the great goals of this Government to rebalance the 

economy, spread wealth and prosperity, create jobs and 

ensure that prosperity continues across the nation, not 

just in London and the greater south-east, difficult 

decisions have to be made. We must tackle the deficit 

and find ways to remove some of the barriers to growth 

in the UK. That is why the Government are committed 

to the growth review and to ensuring that we do as 

much as possible to remove the barriers to economic 

growth. 

Having claimed part of Merseyside and north Wales, 

the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) spoke 

about the importance of partnership. It is important to 

recognise the way that Scottish local authorities have 

worked with the private sector on a number of initiatives 

to support economic growth. We need to see more such 

partnerships but we must also tackle some of the underlying 

issues that we inherited from the previous Government, 

including the deficit and the national debt. Alongside 

tackling those things, we must lay the foundations for 

increased prosperity across the whole United Kingdom.

291WH 

16 FEBRUARY 2011 Infrastructure Planning Commission 

292WH 

Infrastructure Planning Commission 

10.59 am 

Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con): It is a 

pleasure to see you in the Chair again, Mr Gale. The 

Infrastructure Planning Commission is examining an 

application from an American waste company by the 

name of Covanta to build an incinerator masquerading 

as an energy-from-waste plant in my constituency. Each 

year, it will burn 585,000 tonnes of waste, which will be 

sourced from Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Hertfordshire, 

Cambridgeshire and, frankly, anywhere in the country 

that will feed the incinerator. On the basis that what 

goes up must come down, it will do so on my constituents. 

We do not buy the argument that the fly ash and the 

emissions from the incinerator’s chimneys will be completely 

harmless, because the particles are too small to measure 

in the atmosphere. As it is too difficult to capture and 

measure the particles, it is not possible to say that what 

will be emitted from the incinerator will be harmless. 

Not surprisingly, the proposal has met with furious 

opposition in my constituency. Constituents, campaign 

groups, local authorities and 24 town and parish councils—I 

can assure people that it is no mean feat for 24 town and 

parish councils to work together on one issue—are all 

burning the midnight oil preparing written submissions 

urging the IPC to reject this diabolical application for 

an incinerator. 

The examination will run until 15 July and the IPC 

should reach its decision by 15 October. Before the IPC 

process existed, there would normally have been public 

examination, with cross-examination of witnesses. My 

constituents would have had the opportunity to express 

and make known their views, probably via a public 

inquiry. The Secretary of State used to take the final 

decision after having all the information in front of 

them and did not have to accept the recommendations 

made by the planning inquiry or the inspector, provided 

that they gave good reason. However, the previous 

Government’s Stalinist approach to that democratic 

process was the Planning Act 2008, which transferred 

the final decision to a new independent body—the 

Infrastructure Planning Commission. 

Evidence is considered by the IPC primarily in writing, 

unless it chooses to hold an oral evidence session. Note 

the word “chooses”. The IPC chooses, not local people. 

Legally, the Secretary of State has no opportunity 

whatever to overturn the IPC’s decision. The IPC makes 

its decisions mainly on the basis of the relevant national 

policy statement. These statements are open to public 

consultation and to consideration by Select Committees 

before approval by the Secretary of State. 

Mr Lee Scott (Ilford North) (Con): I congratulate my 

hon. Friend on securing the debate. Does she agree that 

wider issues are at stake? Not only on incinerators but 

on a number of different planning applications, it is 

vital that local people feel engaged and have had their 

say. Whatever the outcome might be, at least they have 

had their say and put their case. Does my hon. Friend 

agree that that is vital? 

Nadine Dorries: Absolutely. I will go into more detail 

about how undemocratic the IPC process is and how 

local people are completely excluded from the decisionmaking 

process for major infrastructure, whether that 

involves hospitals or whatever else being built in their 

area. 

The national policy statements are open to public 

consultation. While still in draft form and before the 

relevant national policy statement has been designated 

by the Secretary of State, the IPC can still consider the 

evidence, but the Secretary of State will make the final 

decision. To date, the national policy statement remains 

in draft form. The Select Committee on Energy and 

Climate Change, of which I am a former member, has 

published its report on the six revised national policy 

statements. It has made 18 recommendations, the more 

important of which is about the timing of the statements. 

The Committee calls for the national policy statements 

not to be designated until the Localism Bill has been 

enacted, the abolition of the IPC has occurred and the 

national planning policy framework and national 

infrastructure plan are operational and harmonised 

with the electricity market reform process. 

The IPC has published the following statements: 

“If the NPSs which apply to a proposal are adopted before the 

point of decision making on a project, the IPC will make the 

decision. 

If the relevant NPSs have not been adopted at the point of 

decision making on a project, the IPC will make a recommendation 

to the Secretary of State”. 

I say to my right hon. Friend the Minister that this is a 

fundamental question. Given that the IPC hopes to 

conclude its own consultation by July and make a 

decision in October, will he please inform us on which 

date the national policy statements will be designated? 

To date, my constituents have been forced into 

Kafkaesque engagement with a body that is to be 

abolished, with no certainty about whether the national 

policy statement guiding the IPC examination will be 

altered once the deadline for written submissions has 

passed. If the national policy statements are altered and 

designated after the existing public consultation period 

has passed, will the Minister agree that my constituents, 

after having digested a 7,400-page document, will have 

provided their submissions on the basis of documents 

that are no longer relevant and therefore the IPC process 

relating to the Covanta incinerator in my constituency 

must be abolished—scrapped—and begun again on the 

basis of the relevant designated documents? How can a 

process of public consultation exist if the information 

constituents are given is no longer relevant by the time 

the IPC makes its decision? My constituents will have 

been providing consultation responses based on one set 

of rules and the IPC will be making its decision based 

on another, which will enable the IPC to disregard 

completely the public consultation as it will no longer 

be relevant when the IPC makes its decision. 

The consultation process as run by the IPC has been 

woeful and undemocratic. Either the Government are 

wide-eyed localist or they are not. The IPC is not and is 

at odds with present Government policy. On Monday 

17 January, at 10 o’clock on a cold morning in Bedford, 

the IPC held a public hearing—nowhere near the 

community where the facility is to be placed. Guidance 

was given to my constituents not to instruct lawyers and 

not to take legal advice. However, when my constituents 

arrived at the public hearing, they found that both the 

local authorities and the IPC had brought their team of 

lawyers along with them. The atmosphere was, to say

293WH 




294WH 

[Nadine Dorries] 

the least, intimidating as lawyers played legal ping-pong 

with one another. Only the bravest of my constituents 

felt able to stand up and contribute. They had been told 

before the hearing took place the issues they were not 

allowed to discuss. One of those was noise, which is 

actually one of the biggest considerations for my 

constituents. 

John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab): The 

hon. Lady’s party and I opposed this whole process 

under the last Government. It is being played out 

exactly as we predicted—undemocratically; not taking 

into account local people’s views. Does she agree that 

whatever system is put in place, and whatever the policy 

statements or framework, it must take into account 

local views but must also be accountable to and amendable 

by Parliament? 

Nadine Dorries: I completely agree. I hope that when 

the IPC is abolished—the present Government have 

committed to abolishing it and bringing the functions 

in-house—the fact that the Secretary of State will have 

the final decision and that, hopefully, we will go back to 

the previous system of public engagement and inquiries 

means there will at least be a more democratic process. 

Of course, that will need to be discussed in Parliament, 

and I hope we will take a vote on it. 

To return to that cold Monday morning in Bedford, 

only the bravest of my constituents, as I said, stood up 

to speak at the meeting. All left it feeling that they had 

not really had an opportunity to express their concerns 

about the proposal. 

The application document my constituents had to 

plough through to submit objections was 7,400 pages 

long and was available online, so those who were not 

computer literate and did not have access to a computer 

were disadvantaged. There were a limited number of 

hard copies, people had to pay hundreds of pounds for 

them and they were available only at certain locations. 

How is that democratic? The people who wanted to 

respond to the documents could not even get hold of 

them. Furthermore, constituents’ initial representations 

were limited to 500 words, but the document they were 

responding to was 7,400 pages long. Why is that? How 

can that be democratic? 

Only a limited number of hard-copy registration 

forms were available to those who did not have access to 

a computer. People had to complete those forms to 

inform the IPC that they were going to object to or, 

indeed, support the proposals, although I imagine that 

most people wanted to object. Given the limited number 

of forms, however, those who wanted to let the IPC 

know that they were going to object could not even do 

that. 

Those who made a submission online met a barrage 

of problems. For example, the registration process had 

a cut-off date. Once that date had passed, some people 

received e-mails telling them that they had not ticked a 

particular box on the very detailed form and that they 

had to resubmit the form, but the submission date had 

passed. It seemed that lots of tricks were employed to 

minimise the number of objections so that the IPC and 

Covanta could say that there was not that much public 

opposition. 

The IPC timetable is very inflexible, short and tight. 

That is why people missed the registration point. If the 

timetable had not been so tight and inflexible, there 

might have been room for adjustments and amendments 

where people had, for example, made errors with e-mails, 

but there was absolutely none—everything was played 

according to the IPC’s rules, with absolutely no 

consideration given to the difficulties local people might 

have in engaging with this complicated and bureaucratic 

process. 

An unelected official in the IPC or the Department 

for Communities and Local Government should not 

take a decision to impose a major infrastructure project 

on a local community when almost every man, woman 

and child is against it. The only representation those 

people have is via their elected representatives. 

If, despite the objections of local people, the Government 

believe that it is vital in the national interest for an 

application to be approved, that judgment should be 

the responsibility of the Secretary of State in the relevant 

Department, and it should be reached only after a 

thorough examination of local people’s wishes. There 

should be a thorough examination of the application, 

and people should have the opportunity to attend meetings 

and make their feelings known. Of course, people in my 

constituency may absolutely support the current project, 

but I do not think that that is the case. The Secretary of 

State should halt the IPC process using the powers in 

the Planning Act, so that all participants can contribute 

to the process and so that a clear decision can be made. 

The process of finalising the national policy statements, 

on which the IPC would base a decision, will prejudice 

the application if it is carried out at the same time as the 

application is being considered. A legal process cannot 

be deemed reasonable and fair if the goalposts are 

moved while it is being carried out. If the national 

policy statements are designated during the IPC 

examination process, any changes in the final versions 

will not be reflected in the process that has taken place 

up to that time. 

At present, I and the residents of Mid Bedfordshire 

have no idea who will take the final decision or on what 

basis they will do so. If the national policy statements 

are not finalised before the Secretary of state makes a 

decision, any other matters taken into account in reaching 

the decision will not have been subject to examination. 

Any recommendation made by the IPC on the basis of 

the national policy statements should be disregarded 

because they lack democratic legitimacy. Furthermore, 

the IPC process relies on a limited number of rounds 

of written submissions, which does not allow detailed 

examination of the key issues that matter to local 

people. 

Is the Minister aware that Mid Bedfordshire is largely 

flat? In fact, Bedfordshire is known for being flat until 

one reaches the Dunstable downs. The incinerator is to 

be in the centre of Marston vale, so it can be viewed 

from almost every vantage point in the constituency 

and will absolutely blight the view from all of them—it 

can be seen from every raised point from Ampthill park 

to the Millennium park. 

Is the Minister also aware that the constituency proudly 

recycles more that 50% of its waste? Central Bedfordshire 

council has worked hard to educate and inform people 

about the importance of recycling. If the incinerator is

295WH 




296WH 

granted planning permission, all that recycling, education 

and work will go to waste because everything will be fed 

into this monstrous machine. 

As the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John 

McDonnell) said, the Conservative party predicted this 

problem with the IPC. However, I am running out of 

time, so I would like to have a clear answer from the 

Minister on a number of points. When will the national 

policy statements be designated? If they are designated 

during the process taking place in my constituency, and 

after my constituents have made their submissions, does 

the Minister agree that the process should be stopped? 

My constituents will have made their submissions on 

the basis of information that is no longer relevant and 

considerations into which they will have had no input. 

Will the Minister please understand that we are not 

talking about a group of nimbys in Mid Bedfordshire 

complaining about something that will affect just a few 

people? The geographical lay-out of my constituency 

means that everyone there is angry about this issue. 

Everybody is incensed about how dreadful this application 

is and about what a disaster it will be for Mid Bedfordshire 

if it goes through. 

11.16 am 

The Minister of State, Department for Communities 

and Local Government (Greg Clark): It is a pleasure to 

serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gale. I warmly 

congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid 

Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries) on securing the debate. 

She spoke with her characteristic passion in representing 

her constituents. They are fortunate to be represented 

by one of the most tenacious campaigners in the House. 

There is no cause that my hon. Friend takes up that she 

does not take up with verve, passion and the greatest 

tenacity. In recent months, she has worked hard to raise 

the profile of this issue in the House. She has organised 

rallies in Mid Bedfordshire; she has written to me; we 

have spoken in person; and she has raised her concerns 

at Prime Minister’s questions—she has taken the matter 

right to the top. Everyone should reflect on the vigour 

with which she pursues these matters. 

I was pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for 

Ilford North (Mr Scott) and the hon. Member for 

Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) in the Chamber. 

That shows that the process that the IPC was set up to 

operate under is a matter of cross-party concern. I hope 

that the Government will have the support of the whole 

House when it comes to abolishing the IPC in the 

Localism Bill, which is currently in Committee, but 

which will return to the Floor of the House on Report 

and Third Reading in a few weeks’ time. It is useful to 

know that the issue goes beyond my hon. Friend’s 

constituency. 

I have listened carefully to my hon. Friend. For the 

reasons she set out, she will appreciate that it is not 

possible for me to comment on the merits of the incinerator. 

If the national policy statements are not designated 

before the decision is made, it would fall to the Secretary 

of State—that is shorthand for the ministerial team 

at the Department for Communities and Local 

Government—to determine the application. Given that 

today’s proceedings have a bearing on that process, it is 

important that I do not prejudice my view of the 

application. However, I have heard what my hon. Friend 

has said, and I will comment on each of her points. Let 

me take in turn the three general points that she made. 

My hon. Friend argued that the decision on where a 

piece of infrastructure of national significance should 

be located should not be determined by an unelected 

body in defiance of local people’s wishes; I entirely 

agree. Projects such as major roads, reservoirs and 

power plants are essential to our health and well-being 

and to the nation’s economic future. They have a major 

influence on society’s impact on the environment, helping 

us reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and cut our 

carbon footprint. They form the legacy that we leave the 

next generation. It is right to have a regime to consider 

those major applications, which recognises their largerthan-local 

aspect. 

It is worth observing that all the existing municipal 

incinerators in England contribute less in annual emissions 

than bonfire night—a single night. It is worth putting 

the matter in perspective. However, I believe that when 

the relevant decisions are made there should be—as 

there are not with the decisions of the IPC—elected 

Members who are accountable. Unfortunately, we have 

inherited from the previous Government a system in 

which, ludicrously, the final decisions about when and 

where major developments should take place are made 

by the IPC, an unelected quango that is unaccountable 

to the public. I mean no disrespect to the people who 

work there, who have been given a remit in legislation. 

They discharge that remit, I am sure, to the best of their 

ability, but they have been caught in a situation that is 

fundamentally undemocratic. That is an astonishing 

deficit of democracy, and the arrangement must go. 

Nadine Dorries: The point about bonfire night has 

been raised several times, almost as a smokescreen—if 

hon. Members will excuse the pun. The emissions from 

an incinerator are constant and daily—they continue 

day and night. The incinerator will burn for 24 hours a 

day. Bonfire night is one night of the year. We took 

evidence from Professor Paul Connett from America, 

the world’s leading authority on energy from waste. The 

emissions from the incineration are constant. Companies 

such as Covanta frequently breach their licences—the 

company is in court in the States at the moment. They 

frequently release toxic emissions into the air. I grant 

the Minister that if they kept to their licences and 

operated as they are supposed to, there might be merit 

in the bonfire night argument, but history shows that 

such incinerators do not operate as they are supposed 

to, because they break the law almost daily and release 

into the atmosphere emissions that they should not. 

The comparison with bonfire night cannot be made. 

Greg Clark: It is important that any facility that is or 

will be licensed, wherever it is, should stick to any terms 

and conditions of the licence. I am sure that Department 

of Energy and Climate Change Ministers, who are in 

charge, along with our colleagues in the Department for 

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, of supervising 

those issues, will reflect on what my hon. Friend has 

said and try to ensure that there is the greatest possible 

confidence in the adherence to those conditions. 

We are determined to introduce reforms in the Localism 

Bill. I look forward, as I am sure my hon. Friend does, 

to the day when it is passed. However, provided that the 

national policy statements on energy are designated as 

we expect, we anticipate that the application in question 

will be decided by the IPC alone, without the possibility

297WH 




298WH 

[Greg Clark] 

of ministerial intervention. That is the system that we 

have been bequeathed. An observer might ask, as my 

hon. Friend does, why, if Ministers believe that there 

should be democratic accountability, they do not scrap 

the IPC and the regime under which the planning 

application was submitted. However strong the temptation 

may be, Ministers must obey the law. 

The law is at odds with Government policy, but we 

live in a parliamentary democracy and cannot rule by 

decree. There have been recent examples relevant to 

that. I think my hon. Friend is familiar with the case of 

CALA Homes, concerning the revocation of the regional 

spatial strategies, in which the courts determined that 

however clear the Government’s intention to abolish 

those strategies, we need to go through the parliamentary 

process to abolish them, rather than anticipate that 

abolition. The courts were clear on that. The fact that 

we took the decision that resulted in the court case 

shows the Government’s desire to do as much as possible 

to implement our policy as quickly as possible, which is 

important. However, for good reasons we are required 

to go through the House to pass legislation. When it 

comes to abolishing not only the IPC but the current 

procedures for considering major infrastructure applications, 

that is what we must do. We are constrained in that way. 

My hon. Friend raised concerns that the process of 

pre-consultation has been defective. I have listened to 

her carefully and will immediately take up with the IPC 

all the points that she made. It is crucial that consultation 

should be fair and open, so that people can give their 

views even in a system that we both agree is flawed. It 

should facilitate the meaningful involvement of all those 

who want to be involved in the process. It is important 

that local people should be able to be heard in person 

and demand an open hearing. The onus is also on any 

organisation that carries out a consultation to ensure 

that its electronic procedures are widely accessible and 

compatible with the systems that users are likely to 

have. Organisations should not have an inaccessible 

system, which they should design with users in mind. I 

shall immediately get in touch with the IPC on the 

points that my hon. Friend raised. 

The Planning Act 2008 specifies, as my hon. Friend 

knows, a narrow range of conditions in which Ministers 

can take decisions out of the IPC’s hands, which is our 

difficulty. Those conditions include questions of national 

security and defence. Even if we wanted to stop the 

process, I do not believe the law would allow us to do so. 

My hon. Friend raised an important point about the 

role of national policy statements and the likely timing 

of their designation. She knows, having served on the 

Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change, the 

reasons why it is crucial, when we face a prospective 

crisis in generating capacity, to get investment in that 

capacity. The nuclear programme is important to that. 

We have always said that we want to bring national 

planning policy statements to the House as quickly as 

possible. 

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for 

Energy and Climate Change has not yet responded to 

the Select Committee, and it is for him to respond to its 

concerns about process, but it is the Government’s view 

that we should get on as soon as possible and allow 

Parliament the chance to ratify those statements in the 

interest of energy security and, indeed, investment in 

that important area of national life. However, there is 

clearly a possibility that the statements might not be 

designated, and then the decision in question would 

come to the Secretary of State. I do not want to raise my 

hon. Friend’s hopes and create an expectation that that 

will happen, because the opposite is to be expected. My 

right hon. Friend will respond to the Committee in due 

course. 

We are in an unfortunate position. I commend my 

hon. Friend for the vigour with which she is pursuing 

the matter. She is right to make sure that her constituents’ 

voices are heard. Of course, even under the existing 

flawed system, the IPC has a duty to consider local 

people’s voices, and I shall, as I have said, pass on to it 

her comments about the process to date. It is worth 

pointing out that the IPC has not yet made a decision. I 

hope that the debate is an opportunity to explain to my 

hon. Friend’s constituents what I think she knows, 

being expert in the matter, about the constraints, and 

the requirements on the IPC for consultation and to 

share our frustration—we would rather not be in this 

world. I hope that the next time we discuss the issues, it 

will be after the passage of the Localism Bill, and that 

the IPC will be dead and buried and replaced by a 

system that my hon. Friend and I—and, I think, the 

hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington—want. That is 

a system in which major decisions of national importance 

are taken through a fast-track, streamlined procedure, 

with a Minister ultimately responsible to the House 

and, through the Government, to the nation, in charge 

of making the decisions. 

11.30 am 

Sitting suspended.

299WH 

16 FEBRUARY 2011 Pubs (Planning Policy) 

300WH 

Pubs (Planning Policy) 

[MRS ANNE MAIN in the Chair] 

2.30 pm 

Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD): I am 

pleased to have secured this important debate and to see 

once again some of my pub supporting and friendly 

colleagues, who come from both sides of the House. It 

is important to remember that the matter affects each 

and every one of us as constituency MPs. We are all 

doing our best to preserve and support the great British 

pub, a wonderful institution that is of considerable 

importance to our communities. 

I am delighted once again to have the opportunity to 

be debating the subject with my hon. Friend the Minister, 

who is responsible for community pubs in his role at the 

Department for Communities and Local Government. 

I hope that, like me, he sees the debate as being part of a 

conversation between us and the all-party save the pub 

group, one that will continue during this Parliament. 

That conversation may sometimes happen here in 

Westminster Hall and sometimes in parliamentary or 

ministerial offices, but due to our genuine interest I 

hope that it will continue sometimes to happen in the 

pub. 

We had a well-attended debate a few weeks ago, in 

which we heard that the British pub faces many problems. 

There is the problem of the pub codes of practice and 

their distortion of the beer tie; there is the problem of 

the supermarket ban, with unreasonably low prices and 

below-cost selling; and there is a problem with various 

aspects of regulation. All those factors cause real concern. 

What is sometimes lost in our debates, perhaps 

deliberately so, is the one thing could save the British 

pub, almost at the stroke of a pen but certainly at the 

stroke of the parliamentary printing press as many of 

these problems are covered by secondary legislation, 

and that is to strengthen planning law to recognise the 

importance that pubs play in our communities. At the 

moment, that is not happening. 

We are all aware of what successive Governments 

have done, and I make no criticism here. I pay tribute to 

the Minister’s predecessor, my right hon. Friend the 

Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), 

who also took a genuine interest in the subject. It is easy 

to say positive things about the importance of the pub, 

but until that is recognised in a meaningful way within 

the planning system, many of our efforts in trying to 

protect and save our local pubs will be wasted. 

At the moment, we have the extraordinary situation 

that a free-standing pub—one that is clearly not connected 

to another building—that is not listed or in a conservation 

area and that has no other protection under planning 

law, can be demolished overnight. That can be done 

without planning permission, never mind consulting 

the community, something that my hon. Friend the 

Member for Selby and Ainsty (Nigel Adams) highlighted 

in his Protection of Local Services (Planning) Bill, a 

private Member’s Bill that was supported by the all–party 

group. I shall speak a little more about that later, and I 

am sure that my hon. Friend will want to contribute to 

the debate. 

Similarly, it is perfectly legal under the planning 

system, overnight and without any consultation with 

the community, to turn the local pub into a Tesco, a 

betting shop, a restaurant or a café—businesses that do 

not have the same community function and that are not 

a community hub in the same way that a pub is. 

Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD): Does 

my hon. Friend agree that large supermarket chains are 

using pub buildings as a way of getting around the 

regulations that require them to have permission for an 

additional store. Often the pubs are quite large, bigger 

than something that a supermarket would otherwise 

require permission for. 

Greg Mulholland: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. 

I call it predatory purchasing. The supermarkets deliberately 

target pubs because they are a soft touch. The Government 

have said that they want to be a pro-pub Government, 

and I am proud of that, but they also want to be a 

decentralising Government that believes in localism. As 

part of that, they will have to show that such things are 

not acceptable without the community being consulted. 

That is happening because the planning system is weak, 

and Tesco and the other supermarkets know that and 

exploit it. 

The scandal goes on. Pubs are being closed every 

week that are not only viable in terms of making a 

profit, but are successful and profitable at the time of 

closure. Those closures often happen against the wishes 

of the small businessmen and women who run the pub 

and making a living from it. That is a scandal, and it 

must be stopped. 

John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op): 

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this 

debate and on his ongoing work on the matter. Does he 

agree that an examination of the planning regulations 

and their potential weakness should extend to those 

bowling greens that are connected to pubs? Many are 

being sold off without consultation, leaving many bowlers 

with no place to practise their prize sport. 

Greg Mulholland: I thank the hon. Gentleman for 

raising that point. The all-party save the pub group 

would be interested to talk to him, because such bowling 

greens are often part of our heritage, and another 

community facility that is associated with the pub. 

Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con): I congratulate my 

hon. Friend on securing this important debate. I give an 

example of the problem from my constituency. A successful 

pub was recently threatened with closure because a 

local housing charity had targeted it specifically for 

housing. Thankfully, the pub and the community won 

the day, and the pub was saved. The pub was targeted 

because the charity saw a loophole in the planning 

system. It must be closed. I thank my hon. Friend for 

raising the matter; it is an important point that we must 

press. 

Greg Mulholland: I thank my hon. Friend and near 

constituency neighbour. He is absolutely right. As with 

all successful pub closure campaigns, I congratulate 

him and his community on having the courage to fight 

that campaign. Sadly, given our weak planning laws, 

such campaigns are often not successful.

301WH 




302WH 

[Greg Mulholland] 

The Government have said that they will take action 

on restrictive covenants, which I warmly welcome. I 

am sure that the Minister will say a little more about 

the Government’s proposals, but I understand that a 

consultation will be held this year. I hope—I have no 

doubt—that it will lead to the abolition of this extraordinary 

practice, whereby the owner of a pub, whether it is a 

brewery or pub company, can slap on a covenant that 

says that it must never be a pub again, with the community 

having no say on the matter. It is absurd. It is anticompetitive 

and anti-community, and it must be outlawed. 

I bring to the Minister’s attention one of the other 

many tricks used. I call it the restrictive covenant by the 

back door. My hon. Friend the Member for York Outer 

(Julian Sturdy) was lucky in his campaign, but we often 

see pub companies or individuals deliberately choosing 

to sell the pub for non-pub use even though they have 

received viable market-value offers from those who wish 

to continue running the pub and serving the community. 

There is nothing to stop that, but the effect is the same. 

The community loses its pub even when someone wants 

to buy it. 

We have some wonderful small breweries, and some 

fabulous small pub companies are popping up, with real 

entrepreneurs taking on pubs throughout the country 

in small numbers. It would be a far greater number if 

the larger companies were not able to ignore offers from 

the community or other pub companies. That problem 

must be addressed. In Otley, in my constituency, there 

was a pub called The Woolpack, which had served the 

community for many years and had considerable historical 

merit. It was sold for non-pub use even though there 

were companies that wanted to buy it and run it as a 

pub. The decision to end that pub’s service to the 

community was entirely taken in the boardroom of a 

company, which must be wrong. Often, such decisions 

are made even when the company or individual who 

wants to continue to run the pub puts in a higher bid. 

That is because an organisation deliberately wants to 

shut that pub—in the same way as restrictive covenants—so 

as to lessen the competition for the other pubs that it 

may have in that area. 

Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con): My hon. 

Friend hits on a key point. Very often, profitable pubs 

run into such a situation. Does he not agree that there 

are many pubs that are not economically viable, and, in 

some cases, they probably need to shut. The real scandal, 

however, is the closure of pubs that are profitable and 

could have a long-term future. The key issue is that local 

communities should have a say as to whether such 

buildings are razed to the ground. 

Greg Mulholland: I thank my hon. Friend and look 

forward to continuing to work with him on this issue. I 

know that our hon. Friend the Minister is listening to 

us. Let me be clear that no one is suggesting that those 

genuinely failed pubs—those pubs that cannot make a 

living and no longer have a community that wants 

them—should not change. No one is even suggesting 

that there should be significant barriers stopping their 

conversion or redevelopment. I want to make that absolutely 

clear to the Minister, and I hope to convince him that 

there are ways in which we can do that by, for example, 

putting halts in the planning process. My hon. Friend is 

right. There is only one way in which we can determine 

whether a community wants a pub and that is to ask the 

people who live in that community. Very few councils 

do that. As I will discuss later, the issue of viability is 

very often not established, or it is simply established 

because the current owner claims that the pub is unviable. 

The Minister may say that pub campaigners can 

sometimes be a little over-sentimental. As a member of 

the save the pub group, I refute that charge. Why do we 

not say more about pubs also being small businesses 

that actually make an incredibly valuable contribution 

to the national economy, which is, of course, eroded 

every time a pub closes? The tax-take from those pubs is 

also eroded every time one closes. Pubs are small businesses, 

with an individual, a couple or a family earning a living 

and employing people in the local economy. The new 

economics foundation has suggested that twice as much 

as every pound spent in a pub goes directly to the local 

economy, compared with half of that for every pound 

spent in a supermarket. Often, as we have said before, 

supermarkets are replacing pubs. 

Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con): I congratulate 

my hon. Friend on securing this debate. He hits on a 

very good point there. My local pub, The Coach and 

Horses, in Honley village has just reopened having been 

closed for three months. My hon. Friend was right to 

talk about the employment opportunities. The pub 

employs bar staff, the manager, the entertainment that 

it is bringing in on Friday and Saturday night, the 

cleaning staff and the catering staff. Whenever we hear 

about a small supermarket moving into an area, people 

always talk about the employment opportunities. We 

need to emphasise the employment opportunities that 

pubs can bring to rural villages and remote areas. I 

should like to congratulate my hon. Friend on making 

that point. 

Greg Mulholland: I thank my hon. Friend and fellow 

Yorkshire MP for making that point. It is easy for 

people in planning applications—I have seen it as I am 

sure have other hon. Members—to present the pub as 

something that is of the past and that is no longer 

wanted by communities. They deliberately ignore points 

such as employment opportunities. They suggest that a 

business that has served a community for 50 years or 

even 100 years and contributed to the economy should 

be replaced by a set of flats that will make a one-off 

profit for a business, or a supermarket that will do 

things in a different way. It is so important that we 

do not lose sight of that point. 

Let me outline the framework for pubs in planning 

law and why, sadly, pubs have so little protection. Planning 

policy statement 4, which applies to villages and local 

centres—already it is rather ambiguous because there 

are pubs that are in areas that do not qualify—replaced 

planning policy statement 7. That was a change made 

by the previous Government in December 2009 and was 

a cause for concern. PPS 7 was stronger and made 

direct reference to supporting the retention of local 

facilities such as public houses. The new policy simply 

refers to planning applications affecting shops and leisure 

uses, including public houses or services in local centres. 

The Government are thinking of replacing that planning 

policy statement with a new framework. I urge the 

Minister, who is a genuine supporter of pubs, to ensure

303WH 




304WH 

that when that statement comes out it includes a direct 

reference to the importance of public houses so that 

councils can take that into account. Without such a 

reference, councils will not do that. 

Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con): My hon. Friend will 

be aware that in a former life, I was on the planning 

panel of Leeds city council. That was exactly the problem 

that the panel faced with a pub in his constituency that 

was closed down. Does he not agree that to give councillors 

that extra power, such a reference is exactly what is 

needed in legislation? 

Greg Mulholland: I thank my hon. Friend and neighbour 

for that point. I was coming on to that exact case. To 

some extent he is right, but the unfortunate reality is 

that councils can, as things stand, adopt pro-pub planning 

policies. The scandal of that case is that Leeds city 

council did not even seem to realise that it could and 

should have adopted such a policy. 

John Pugh (Southport) (LD): Is it not the case that 

under the sustainable communities legislation passed in 

the previous Parliament, there are opportunities and 

levers that are currently not being used? 

Greg Mulholland: That is the case, yes, but there is 

another issue that relates to The Summercross pub in 

my constituency. I had a phone call from a legal officer 

at Leeds city council who said to me, “What is this 

Sustainable Communities Act and what relevance does 

it have to pubs?” Clearly, there is a large job to do in 

communicating with councils. Some councils are good—I 

will mention them in a minute—but some do not appreciate 

what is already there at the moment that could make a 

difference. Existing legislation does not go far enough, 

but if the guidance were clearer, it could make a difference. 

Let me briefly relate the sad story of The Summercross 

pub, because it is a classic example of the problem here. 

The Summercross was one of my local pubs in Otley. It 

had been a pub since 1871 and it was the only pub of 

that name in the UK, so it represented a little bit of 

British history. It had gone through the usual story of 

changes of ownership and successive tenants. Every 

time the pub did well, the rent went up. Rather ominously, 

it was bought by a London-based developer, but the 

tenant who came in did a very good job of turning 

around the pub and making it successful and profitable 

again. It attracted the customers back by serving excellent 

local independent beer. However, a deal was struck over 

his head, initially without his and his wife’s knowledge, 

to sell the pub to a Leeds-based developer for a very 

large profit—something like £1 million for that one sale. 

The London-based developer, Phase 7 Properties, had 

bought the pub as a predatory purchase, seeing it as a 

potential development opportunity because of the weakness 

in planning law. Scandalously, the landlord and landlady 

were give a few weeks to clear out of The Summercross, 

which was their home as well as a small business, a 

community pub and a popular live music venue. 

A campaign was launched to try to save The 

Summercross. However, the London-based developers, 

who went off with £1 million in their pockets after 

owning the pub for just two years, said, “Sorry guv, 

nothing to do with us any more. You’ve got to speak to 

Chartford Homes in Leeds.” Then Chartford Homes 

said, “Well, it’s nothing to do with us, because we didn’t 

close the pub, but actually now we want to build houses 

on it.” 

Then a battle ensued. The community conducted a 

vigorous and well run campaign, and they managed to 

fight off the first planning application. They obtained 

figures to show that the pub was profitable and viable, 

and so the first application was kicked out. However 

Chartford Homes was cunning and, frankly, it had an 

awful lot of money—£1 million more than was clearly 

sensible—tied up in the pub. So it transferred the ownership, 

or at least proposed at that stage that the pub be taken 

over by a company called Westwood Care, its sister 

company with shared directors. Westwood Care then 

came back with the wonderful, cuddly proposal to turn 

this historic building into a care home. 

Sadly, that proposal went to the plans panel of Leeds 

city council. What happened next fits exactly with what 

my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) 

has talked about. The members of the plans panel in 

Leeds felt that they could not refuse that application in 

planning law. I am afraid that the main reason was that 

Leeds city council has no policies in place that recognise 

the importance of pubs, so it is Leeds city council’s fault 

that The Summercross closed. 

The actions of Leeds city council can be compared 

with those of Bradford city council. Just up the road 

from Otley is Ben Rhydding, a suburb of Ilkley. Bradford 

city council stood by the community there and was 

prepared to take on the owner of the Wheatley, the 

local pub—in that case, it was Punch Taverns. The 

council won and the Wheatley is now a popular and 

thriving pub again. But Leeds city council is frankly 

clueless when it comes to the protection of pubs and 

planning policy, and it needs to address that failing. 

It was incredibly frustrating during the planning process 

to hear the chair of that plans panel whispering to 

officers, “Pub viability is not a planning consideration, 

is it? We can’t consider that.” The chair also said, “The 

only planning protection policies that exist are to do 

with rural villages, aren’t they?” Both those statements 

are incorrect and both were made in what is supposed 

to be a quasi-legal setting. 

Pub campaigners and other members of the local 

community in Otley saw planning officers present the 

developers’own proposal. It was a PowerPoint presentation 

from the developers. The word that local people used 

when they saw that presentation was, “Corruption.” 

They said, “Surely this can’t be right? It’s corruption.” I 

said, “No, it isn’t corruption. There is no corruption 

there.” However, it is the farcical reality of the planning 

process, which means that a set of planning officers can 

present exactly what the developer wants to do and 

make some comments on it. And what does the community 

get? They get three minutes to make a few comments. I 

am afraid that the decision to close The Summercross 

ignored the reality that it was a profitable pub. The 

figures to that effect were presented. Instead, the members 

of the plans panel said, “There’s nothing we can do in 

planning law to stop that.” I am afraid that that sort of 

thing is happening up and down the country. 

I want to issue a challenge to my hon. Friend the 

Minister today. I appreciate that this is a difficult issue 

in planning law. However, we all agree that there is some 

moral ownership of a local pub by the local community. 

Surely, if we believe in everything that we say, there

305WH 




306WH 


must be such moral ownership. As my hon. Friend the 

Member for Selby and Ainsty has said, the community 

must have a right to have a say over the future of its 

local pub, especially when the pub is successful and, as 

in the case of The Summercross, other companies are 

knocking on the door and phoning me to say that they 

want to take on the pub but are unable to do so because 

of the grubby deals that have gone on between two 

developers behind the backs of the landlord and the 

local community. 

The London-based developers, Phase 7 Properties 

Ltd, owned The Summercross and allowed a tenant to 

run it for two years. I do not think that it ever visited the 

pub themselves, which it had an agent to run. Does it 

have the complete right, as the legal owner of the 

building, to do what it wants over the heads of the 

community that, as I have said, must have some moral 

ownership? I say that it does not have that right. That 

situation must be recognised, in a realistic way, in the 

planning process. 

Nigel Adams: Does my hon. Friend agree that such a 

small change in planning law would also put a very 

large tick in the box for the Government’s localism 

agenda? 

Greg Mulholland: It will not surprise my hon. Friend 

to know that I will discuss the Localism Bill very 

shortly. As my hon. Friend the Minister knows full well, 

because I have written to him about it already and will 

continue to do so, that Bill is a huge opportunity and 

the save the pub group must also see it in that way. It is a 

huge opportunity to address these issues that we and 

our local councillors face day by day. We find that our 

views, expressed as elected representatives and councillors, 

are rejected. Otley town council objected to the closure 

of The Summercross pub, but its objection was regarded 

by the plans panel as not being remotely of interest. So 

the Localism Bill is an opportunity, and I will go on to 

say that it is a positive thing but it needs to do an awful 

lot more. 

There are other issues. One that I want to touch on 

briefly is the issue of pub interiors. I was very lucky and 

privileged to have been asked to launch the new book 

by the Campaign for Real Ale, “Yorkshire’s Real Heritage 

Pubs”, at the stunning Garden Gate pub in Hunslet, 

which is in Leeds. Frankly, that pub is only there because 

of the campaigns by Leeds CAMRA and other people, 

and because the wonderful Leeds Brewery has now 

taken the incredibly courageous decision to buy it and 

make it its fourth pub as it expands its portfolio. The 

Garden Gate pub is not in my constituency. It is in the 

constituency of the right hon. Member for Leeds Central 

(Hilary Benn). However, I am sure that the right hon. 

Gentleman and I would be delighted to take my hon. 

Friend the Minister there at some stage, because it is a 

stunning example of pub interior design that has been 

preserved. 

The reality is that only 2% of pubs in Yorkshire and 

the Humber region retain their original interiors. Those 

pub interiors are part of our heritage. We would not see 

our castles or our stately homes being vandalised and 

demolished in that way. There has been some great 

work done by CAMRA and English Heritage, operating 

together, on this issue. However, there needs to be 

clearer advice from the Government, including from the 

Minister’s Department, about what councils can and 

should do in terms of listing pubs and about the criteria 

for listing pubs. Sometimes, even though something is 

clearly worth preserving, it does not actually tick the 

right boxes. I hope that that is another conversation 

that my hon. Friend the Minister and I can have, 

perhaps over a pint of Leeds Best in the Garden Gate or 

one of the many other pubs featured in CAMRA’s 

national and regional guides. 

I have said that I would discuss the good councils as 

well as the bad, and it is incredibly important that I do 

so. My hon. Friend the Minister rightly said that councils 

have a key role. Neither I nor the other members of the 

save the pub group are saying that the Government can 

or should solve all those problems. I also want to make 

it clear that we are not saying that the Government 

should impose everything. As is suggested in the private 

Member’s Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member 

for Selby and Ainsty, it is more a case of giving local 

councillors the powers, so that they do not feel that they 

simply have to give the nod to plans that they know, in 

their heart of hearts, are wrong. 

There are some very progressive councils. At the 

moment, 40% of councils make specific mention of 

retaining pubs in their local planning policies, which is 

impressive. In addition, 20% of councils do not specifically 

mention pubs but none the less have strong policies on 

protecting community facilities in general. However, 

40% of councils are bad in terms of providing protection 

for pubs. They have no policy whatsoever that would 

assist communities to retain pubs. I am ashamed, and I 

hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey is 

also ashamed, that Leeds city council is indeed one of 

the 40% of councils that do not have policies to protect 

pubs. There are many examples around Leeds and the 

surrounding area of how the council has simply let 

things happen, and we have lost important community 

facilities as a result. 

Merton borough council has a very positive policy on 

pubs: 

“The Council will not permit the redevelopment or change of 

use of established public houses to other uses except where: 

(i) The applicant can show that the public house is no longer 

economically viable 

(ii) The applicant can show that reasonable attempts have been 

made to market the site as a public house [and] 

(iii) There is alternative provision within the local area.” 

Mike Weatherley (Hove) (Con): The hon. Gentleman 

has mentioned on many occasions the lack of “viability” 

as being one of the criteria by which community pubs 

are allowed to close. Does he agree that there is a whole 

raft of legislation that should be enabled to ensure that, 

first, “viability” is enhanced and, secondly, that we do 

not hide behind “viability” as an excuse? For example, 

live music in pubs is known to increase takings by about 

40% on average, and I hope that my recent “Rock the 

House” project goes some way to increasing awareness 

of that. However, does he agree that the Minister must 

consider the whole raft of licensing issues that go along 

with planning issues, to ensure that the concept of 

“viability” does not become something to hide behind? 

Greg Mulholland: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for 

his work with “Rock the House”, which the all-party 

save the pub group formally backs. We look forward to 

working with him, and to getting as many MPs as

307WH 




308WH 

possible behind that initiative. He is absolutely right 

that licensing is another issue and, as the Minister has 

cross-departmental responsibilities, I know that he will 

be having conversations with Ministers in all Departments 

that deal with pub-related issues. The licensing regime 

has certainly become over-bureaucratic and too expensive, 

and he and I strongly agree that some of the changes 

that were made a few years ago have been detrimental 

to the encouragement of live music. The wonderful 

annual Otley folk festival, which largely takes place in 

Otley’s public houses, is a celebration not only of folk 

music but of the public house, and is a great example of 

the harmony that is there. 

Returning to the councils, Oxfordshire and Mid Sussex 

councils have positive policies, but it would help if the 

Government provided more guidance, perhaps on what 

the policies should say. At the end of my speech, I will 

challenge the Minister by saying that I hope that that 

can happen in the new national framework. 

Now it is time to talk about the Localism Bill, which I 

am sure we all support, and which sounds like the sort 

of thing for which many of us have been campaigning 

for many years. It is the kind of thing that can, and 

surely must, be used to stop this scandal of profitable, 

successful pubs being closed against the wishes of the 

local community. Will it, though? I know that the 

Minister will talk about the proposed community rightto-buy 

scheme, and let me make it clear that the all-party 

group warmly welcomes that proposal and looks forward 

to considering its details and to working, hopefully, 

with the Minister and his team to ensure that the 

scheme works. Unfortunately, although the proposal is 

positive, it will not have a substantial effect in preventing 

closures of profitable and wanted pubs, first and simply 

because unless the Government finally get rid of the 

absurd loopholes, whereby a pub can be demolished or 

turned into a café, restaurant, betting shop, payday 

loan shop or supermarket without planning permission, 

a huge number of pubs will still be at the whim of the 

companies making those decisions. I therefore urge 

the Minister to close those gaps not only on demolition 

but on change of use, because otherwise there will not 

be many pubs for communities to try to buy. 

Secondly, I think that the Minister has to accept that 

what is in the Bill is not a community right to buy; it is a 

right to try. I ask the Minister, again, to consider the 

model in Scotland, which contains a genuine right 

to buy. Here, there is a right to put together a bid, to 

trigger a delay—a moratorium—but there is not even 

genuine encouragement for the owners, let alone the 

obligation that I would like to see. Without that, how 

many communities will realistically be able to raise 

perhaps hundreds of thousands of pounds from share 

options, fundraising or local businesses, if at the end of 

that period—the length of which the Minister has not 

yet specified; CAMRA has suggested a very sensible six 

months—the owner might say, “Well, actually, I’m going 

to sell to Tesco anyway, for slightly more”? As we have 

already said, the pub company might want to get rid of 

the pub, because of competition between its pubs in the 

area. If the proposal is genuine, that issue has to be 

considered, because otherwise not many pubs will be 

saved and the closure of profitable pubs against the 

community’s wishes will not be prevented, which is 

surely something that the Minister and the Government 

want to prevent. 

What should be done? I want to continue, and I want 

the save the pub group to continue, to be part of an 

ongoing dialogue with the Minister. We seek to help, as 

we were invited to do by the previous pubs Minister, the 

right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John 

Healey). We were happy to meet with him and his civil 

servants. Some of our proposals clearly need to be 

looked at, and they might not necessarily do what we 

think they will, but we want to work through them and 

be part of that conversation to get to the end result that 

I think we all want, which is to give viable, profitable 

pubs some protection in planning law. 

So, what should be done? The Government have to 

commit to closing the loophole on demolition, and I 

have been encouraged by what the Minister has said. 

There have been positive conversations during the passage 

of the Protection of Local Services (Planning) Bill 

between him and my hon. Friend the Member for Selby 

and Ainsty, and also with me. I am encouraged that the 

Minister has suggested that he and the Government are 

minded to stop the scandal of pubs being demolished, 

but I have to use a phrase that has been used with 

me—do not be a half-a-job Harry. I know that the 

Minister would not want to be one, but if the demolition 

loophole is closed and nothing is done about people 

being able to continue to turn a pub into a Tesco, a 

betting shop or a restaurant overnight without planning 

permission, only a small gap will be plugged and the 

other scandal will not be stopped. 

Nigel Adams: Given that an estimated 39 pubs a week 

are closing, and that CAMRA estimates that about a 

third of those are demolished, we have an urgent problem. 

I appreciate my hon. Friend’s support for my private 

Member’s Bill, but does he agree that the best route for 

offering protection for pubs would be for the Government 

to adopt an element of that Bill in the Localism Bill? 

Greg Mulholland: I absolutely agree. That is essential 

if the right to buy is not to appear tokenistic. I stress, 

however, that the issue is not only about demolition, 

and I urge the Minister to stop it being okay to turn the 

Red Lion or the White Swan into a Tesco, just because a 

deal is cooked up between a distant unaccountable pub 

company and Tesco headquarters. That cannot be right, 

because the community, never mind the small business 

person, has no say over whether it wants the pub to 

continue. 

There is a separate use class order, A4, for pubs, bars 

and other licensed premises, but it is currently perfectly 

allowable to change that to one of various other use 

class orders—A1, A2 or A3, I think—and the Government 

could, very simply, stop those conversions without planning 

permission. I am not talking about when a pub is no 

longer viable or wanted and it might be a good idea to 

turn it into a solicitors office. All the Government have 

to do is to say that there are no conversions from A4 to 

anything without planning permission being obtained 

through the normal process. If the pub is no longer 

viable or wanted, it will change use within a reasonable 

and normal time period, as with all planning applications, 

but the community should at least have the right to 

comment. 

I briefly wish to mention the wonderful work of Pub 

is the Hub and the Plunkett Foundation. No one suggests 

that it is possible for the Government to provide huge

309WH 




310WH 


amounts of money to back up the community right-to-buy 

scheme, but there has to be better and clearer Government 

advice about the realities of setting up a community 

co-operative and putting a bid together. 

I would be interested if the Minister told us what 

progress the asset transfer unit has made on coming up 

with a genuine package of guidance and support for 

communities that wish to do that. 

My big idea, which I have shared with the Minister, is 

a moratorium. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, 

and I have taken the Government’s idea for a moratorium 

and extended it. It would be possible and desirable to 

have a moratorium before any permanent change of use 

or demolition. Six months would be a reasonable period 

and would allow us to see whether other companies or 

individuals wanted to buy the pub. It is a scandal that 

there are often companies knocking at the door that 

want to take on the pub, but they are simply not 

allowed to do so. 

As the save the pub group has consistently said since 

its formation, two things should happen in this six-month 

period. First, there needs to be a genuine, independent 

community consultation, which must be carried out by 

the local authority, as the planning authority. Some 

developers put surveys through people’s doors with 

leading questions—we are all politicians, so we know 

about leading questions—and the answers are presented 

as the community’s view. People are asked, “Do you 

think Otley needs more care homes?” or “Do you think 

old people should have a good quality of life?”, and 

when they say yes, the developer says, “There you go. 

Everyone wants a care home instead of a pub.” There 

must be genuine consultation to establish the will of the 

local community and the need for the pub. 

There should also be a proper, independent viability 

test of the pub. Some councils have the courage to carry 

out such tests, although it is mainly rural councils at the 

moment. In the case of The Summercross, the developers’ 

agents prepared a huge glossy document and presented 

it to the plans panel, saying that it proved that the pub 

was not viable. How can someone prove that a pub is 

not viable when it was trading profitably in the years 

before? That is absolutely absurd. There must be an 

independent viability study, which should, again, be 

carried out by the local authority, as the planning 

authority. There is also the CAMRA viability study, so 

a model exists, and I hope the Minister will consider 

suggesting it in guidance to local authorities when they 

put their policies in place. In that respect, I hope that 

Leeds city council and others will finally get round to 

doing that, so that 40% of councils are no longer 

without policies on pubs. 

My moratorium could work in two ways. The Minister 

and I have discussed this, and I realise that he has views 

about how the moratorium could work, but I want to 

give him two other suggestions. The six-month moratorium 

could be part of the forthcoming national planning 

policy strategy, which could suggest what should happen 

in the case of conversions from A3. It could also be 

covered in supplementary guidance to councils that are 

putting together supplementary planning policies. 

Another suggestion that I have already raised with 

the Minister, and which I know would take some work, 

would be to look at whether we need a separate definition 

of a community pub and whether such a definition is 

possible. We would need a proper study to see whether 

we could separate community pubs, which clearly have 

a community function, from a lot of bars and nightclubs, 

which do not. It would be exciting if that was possible, 

because it could lead to a different rateable value. As 

one of my colleagues said, community pubs sometimes, 

but often do not, get sufficient payback from their 

community work and the community role that they 

play. 

Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con): I am delighted 

to support that point. All too often, the community 

pubs my hon. Friend is referring to are the last standing 

community facility in the local area. All too often when 

I am in an area, I will see the former post office, the 

former dairy and the former school house. It is right to 

separate community pubs from the rest of the trade 

because they have an additional role to play in the 

market. 

Greg Mulholland: I thank my hon. Friend. I hope 

that he will help me, CAMRA and the Institute for 

Public Policy Research, which is looking at this issue, to 

see whether that would be possible. Such a step would 

make it easier in planning law to do some of the things 

that we want. I hope the Minister and his team will 

seriously consider that point and that it will be part of 

the dialogue we have. 

Even without such a change, it is possible, as I said, to 

require any change of use from A4 or any demolition to 

involve a moratorium that includes the three things I 

mentioned: allowing the pub to continue where there is 

a genuine business and making sure, if not requiring, 

that the genuine, independent market value be considered; 

holding community consultation; and carrying out a 

viability test. 

Finally on the suggestions from me and the save the 

pub group, let me return to pub listings. We still have a 

few wonderful pub interiors, and I am glad to say that 

there are a number in London, which it is worth going 

to see. They are important to tourists, who will walk 

into a pub such as The Mitre and realise that such 

things are unique to this country. We should be proud 

of that. 

Nigel Adams: I, too, received a copy of the wonderful 

book on Yorkshire’s heritage pubs, but was my hon. 

Friend, like me, not a little surprised that there were not 

more entries from Tadcaster, given that it is the most 

prominent brewing town in the country, as all Members 

present will agree? I hope that he will raise that with his 

friends at CAMRA the next time he sees them. 

Greg Mulholland: All I can say is that they have strict 

criteria. As my hon. Friend well knows, anyone travelling 

up the A1(M) will come to a sign pointing to Tadcaster 

one way and Otley the other. One is a famous pub town 

and the other is a hugely famous Yorkshire brewing and 

pub town. There are some synergies there, and it is 

probably appropriate for me to visit Tadcaster to see 

some of its pubs for myself. 

As the Minister will know, councils have the power to 

compile local lists of historically important buildings. 

At the moment, however, that power is toothless because 

it affords no extra protection. Will the Minister find a

311WH 




312WH 

way to ensure that buildings that are put on these local 

lists by the good councils that recognise the importance 

of pubs such as The Whitelocks in Leeds can be protected 

in the planning process? It is great to have them listed, 

but listing seems to achieve nothing in the planning 

process. 

Those are the main recommendations that the save 

the pub group is making for now as part of the conversation 

we are having. We will have a lively debate about the 

right way forward, but there is one thing the Minister 

and the Government must not fall into the trap of 

doing. I sit on the coalition Government Benches and I 

support what the Government are trying to do. Like the 

Minister, I do not want more regulation, and I certainly 

do not want more regulation on pubs in the licensing 

system—in fact, I want to see less. However, it is quite 

wrong to suggest that giving communities the right to 

have a say over their local pubs and the important local 

services they provide is regulation, because it is not; it is 

simply about ensuring that there is a proper process to 

enable communities to have a say. That will not prevent 

pubs from being converted to alternative and positive 

uses when their days as a pub are numbered because of 

the area they are in or the local population. 

I agree with the Minister that we want competition 

and a free market. As everyone in the pub trade and 

associated trades knows, however, there is no free market, 

because of the huge distorting impact of the fact that 

half the pubs in the country are owned by the largest 

pub companies, which tightly control prices and dictate 

rents. That is a separate issue, and the Government are 

looking at it. However, entrepreneurs—the up-and-coming 

small brewers and small pub companies—are delivering 

great pubs, but they are not getting access to the market 

because of the planning system. If the Minister wants 

genuine competition, as I do, he needs to make it much 

easier for not only communities but entrepreneurs to 

get their hands on pubs. At the moment the Government 

are not saying that. 

Of course, the Minister will hear from the pub companies, 

developers and supermarkets, who want carte blanche 

to do what they want with the community’s pubs. They 

will tell him, “You must not do this; it is not in the spirit 

of the free market. It is anti-competitive. It is regulation.” 

It is not. The Government have a clear ideological 

choice. Do they really want to empower communities to 

have a say over local pubs, or do they want to back the 

developers, the giant pub companies and the supermarkets, 

to let them do whatever they like with their pubs? It is as 

stark as that. I know what I believe in as a localist, a 

decentraliser and a real fan of pubs, and I hope the 

Government will choose the right way. 

The matter is linked, of course, to that of the big 

society, which is a huge issue. There has been a lot of 

coverage of the big society this week. People say it is a 

concept no one can disagree with: we want more power 

for communities, and local people doing things for 

themselves. The issue has been about the costs and 

whether it is affordable. However, much of the big 

society can happen without the Government spending a 

penny, and what I am talking about presents one 

opportunity for that. If the Government make the 

right, bold decisions they can stop the closure of profitable 

pubs happening against the wishes of communities. 

That surely is the big society at a local level. 

I have a few questions for the Minister and, because 

this is a dialogue, I do not ask him to reply now. 

Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con) rose— 

Greg Mulholland: Before I put my questions I shall 

give way to the hon. Gentleman, who represents Burton, 

another famous brewing town. 

Andrew Griffiths: I thank the hon. Gentleman for 

bringing this important debate to Westminster Hall, 

and for recognising the importance of Burton. As he 

says it is the home of beer and Britain’s No. 1 brewing 

town. He talks with some force—and I agree with what 

he says—about the need to protect our community 

pubs. Does he also recognise that many brewers and 

pub companies are trying to reverse the decline of pubs 

by opening new pubs every day of the week? Marstons 

in my constituency has just opened The Dapple Grey in 

Uttoxeter, which is thriving. I was in there a few days 

ago and it was heaving with people. We need to allow 

pubs to grow and flourish, and the hon. Gentleman’s 

viability test is the most important element of that. 

Greg Mulholland: I thank the hon. Gentleman. We 

work closely together, because the all-party save the pub 

group works closely with the all-party beer group, of 

which he is the vice-chairman, and we look forward to 

continuing with that. He is right to say that viability is a 

key issue. He is right to say that some pubs are opening; 

but sometimes that is used as an excuse to close other 

pubs that owners or pub companies want to dispose of 

because of their huge indebtedness, some of which they 

need to claw back to please their shareholders and 

foreign creditors. 

The issue that the hon. Gentleman raised is important, 

but there was a case in Otley where a brand new pub 

opened—a wonderful little free house called the Old 

Cock—because it was not possible for Lee and Linda, 

who run it, to get one of the pubs owned by the pub 

company. They had to set a pub up in what used to be a 

café, and now offer a wonderful range of independent 

beers that they could not afford to buy through the pub 

company. That is why I say to the Minister that there is 

no free market or way to do that. The tragedy is that 

The Woolpack, which I have already mentioned, is a 

mere 50 yards from the Old Cock. If the system worked, 

Lee and Linda would have bought it, and would be 

operating that free house from its wonderful historic 

building. Instead, it has closed and is being converted. 

The Old Cock is a brand new pub. All I am saying is 

that we need to assess viability and first ask communities 

whether pubs are still wanted. That would answer all 

the problems that we agree exist. 

As to my questions to the Minister, I want to nail him 

down—not today—on whether he agrees with, and 

whether he and the Government will commit to, the 

principle that no profitable and wanted pub should be 

permanently closed against the wish of the community, 

without that community having any chance of a say on 

its future. To me, that is the overriding fundamental 

principle that we must get to as a localist and decentralising 

Government—and, hopefully, a pro-pub Government. 

I also ask the Minister to provide an assurance today, if 

he can, that the Government are committed to extending 

planning control to cover the demolition of pubs, as he

313WH 




314WH 


has suggested he is minded to do. Will he also seriously 

consider doing the obvious thing and making an A4 use 

class order subject to planning permission for any change 

of use? That would make a big difference and stop 

conversions to Tescos, betting shops, restaurants and 

cafés with no community right to consult. 

Will the Minister consider that the forthcoming national 

policy framework should include not only the idea that 

retaining pubs is important—it must do that, and I am 

sure he will ensure that it does—but the idea of a 

six-month moratorium? That could say, as guidance 

rather than diktat, that there should be a six-month 

period to allow other people to buy the pub and allow 

for the viability test and the independent community 

consultation. Will he seriously consider strengthening 

the right to buy, at the very least to prevent an owner 

unreasonably refusing a bid from a community? Indeed, 

in my opinion that should also cover a bid from a small 

brewery such as Wharfebank brewery in my constituency, 

which has just taken on its first pub. Perhaps the Minister 

will consider that and work with us to try to strengthen 

it and make it meaningful, so that communities feel it is 

worth putting bids together. 

Justin Tomlinson: When new schools are built, local 

authorities must put competition arrangements in place 

to allow different organisations to bid. Those that bid 

are given huge amounts of advice and support, to turn 

enthusiasm into a practical and credible bid. I should be 

interested to see what support could be offered to those 

in the community who want to defend the community 

pub, to turn their enthusiasm towards finding the 

considerable amounts of money and huge commitment 

that can be needed to make that a realistic dream. 

Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair): Order. Before I ask Mr 

Mulholland to respond to that intervention, I remind 

the House that we should begin the winding-up speeches 

at about 3.30. Perhaps I may ask that the hon. Gentleman 

draw his remarks to a close. If no other hon. Member 

wants to speak—and no one has indicated a wish to do 

so—I want to call the shadow Minister at 3.30. 

Greg Mulholland: I am, Mrs Main, on my last question, 

as the Minister will be relieved to hear. I shall send him 

a copy of my questions, to be helpful. 

My hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon 

(Justin Tomlinson) must be a mind-reader, because my 

very last question to the Minister was to be on exactly 

the point he raised. Does the Minister accept that the 

Government’s asset transfer unit needs to examine, and 

considerably expand, the support it offers to communities 

on the possibility of community buy-outs? That is 

essential, and if the Localism Bill is to bring about 

decentralisation, localism and the big society, it must 

happen. It would not cost a huge amount of money—which 

we cannot provide—but it can empower communities. 

I appreciate your indulgence, Mrs Main, and that of 

the House. The subject is complicated and it needs to be 

considered as a whole. As I hope I have explained, there 

is often scant real protection—and there are many 

loopholes in it—for the great British pub that we all, 

including the Minister, purport to support and value. 

That must be changed. We must stop the scandal of 

profitable, wanted pubs being closed willy-nilly every 

week. I am delighted that the Minister, and the Prime 

Minister, have said that they want the Government to 

be pro-pub. I shall judge the Government on several 

issues: the reform of the beer tie, dealing with irresponsible 

pricing in supermarkets, licensing, regulation and a 

host of other things. Above all, if the Government are 

to be pro-pub and save pubs throughout the country, 

they must put the rhetoric into practice and say, “Yes; 

not only are pubs important but the planning system 

will say they are and will reflect that.” They must make 

sure that finally, communities will get a say when someone 

says that they want to close the local pub. 

3.29 pm 

Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab): It is a great 

pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main. 

I congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds North West 

(Greg Mulholland) on securing this debate on an issue 

that is important and unites the House. I will start with 

a confession that I hope hon. Members will not hold 

against me: I am a teetotaller and rarely frequent local 

pubs. However, I recognise their importance and the 

central place that they occupy in many communities 

around our country. It is a matter of great concern that 

we have lost so many pubs in recent times and continue 

to lose them at an alarming rate. Between 25 and 40 

pubs around the country close every week, which is a 

source of great concern. 

The hon. Gentleman discussed the need for an ongoing 

conversation about the issue. It is clearly important to 

return to that as the new Government develop their 

policy on this and a range of other matters. I thank him 

for his work on the issue. Hopefully, his questions to the 

Minister and the ongoing campaign with which he is 

involved will have some impact on the Government and 

enable them to make policies that address the concerns 

that he outlined. 

I share the hon. Gentleman’s concerns and was appalled 

by the scandalous examples that he gave of the sharp 

practice in which certain unscrupulous, well-heeled business 

people indulge, leading to the closure of all too many of 

our community pubs. He is right to say that a local pub 

is a small business that generates employment opportunities, 

particularly in the more remote communities in our 

country. Pubs are a valuable source of local employment. 

I hope that hon. Members will forgive me for making 

a political point. I am concerned about the implications 

of the massive cuts that the coalition Government have 

agreed to implement. In particular, the cuts of up to 

30% that local authorities face over the next four years, 

and cuts in other public services, will lead to the loss of 

almost 500,000 jobs in the public sector. According to 

research by PricewaterhouseCoopers, at least a further 

500,000 in the private sector will lose their jobs as well. 

Hon. Members are looking at me; they may be wondering 

what on earth that has to do with this debate. [HON. 

MEMBERS: “Hear, hear!”] I will enlighten them: it has 

absolutely everything to do with it. If people do not 

have money in their pockets, the hospitality trade will 

inevitably suffer as a direct consequence. Not only the 

hospitality trade but the leisure trade and many other 

service industries will be detrimentally affected by the 

cuts supported by Government Members in the Chamber 

during debates on the comprehensive spending review 

and other spending matters.

315WH 




316WH 

Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con): I 

apologise for missing the beginning of this debate; 

unfortunately, I was in a Bill Committee, but I came as 

soon as I could. The hon. Gentleman is making a point 

about people not having money in their pockets. Is it 

not therefore even more important that we deal with 

below-cost selling of alcohol in supermarkets— 

Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair): Order. That is not the 

subject of this debate. We are on winding-up speeches 

now. I request the shadow Minister to continue with his 

remarks, which I hope will also address the topic of the 

debate. 

Chris Williamson: Thank you, Mrs Main. They will 

and they are. It is central to the future viability of pubs 

around the country that we recognise the implications 

of other decisions taken by the Government and the 

Members who vote for them. 

Hon. Members have referred to the community right 

to buy. On the face of it, I have no difficulty with 

it—indeed, I think that it is probably a good thing and 

will be beneficial in certain circumstances—but when 

we scratch the surface, it is a little bit of a pig in a poke, 

is it not? No funding is attached to it. How will a 

deprived community where many are unemployed, have 

modest incomes from low-paid employment or are losing 

their jobs as a result of the cuts to which I referred be 

able to exercise the community right to buy if the 

people there do not have the wherewithal to do so? 

Before the election, the Conservative party gave a 

commitment on the community right to buy that the 

community would be given the right of first refusal. As 

I understand it, that commitment has now been withdrawn. 

I would be interested to hear the Minister’s comments 

on that point. 

The hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen 

Bradley) made a point about supermarkets. I take the 

Chair’s guidance that it was not directly related to the 

topic, but it is important to acknowledge that competition 

from supermarkets is having a detrimental impact on 

the viability of community pubs. Again, the Government 

have failed to take decisive action to tackle the minimum 

price. They should have gone somewhat further to 

address it. 

The hon. Gentleman discussed the need to strengthen 

planning legislation. I agree absolutely, but he slightly 

contradicted himself in the latter part of his speech. In 

his conclusion, he said that more regulation was not 

required; I think he said, “We don’t want more regulation.” 

He will correct me if I am wrong, but he said that 

stronger planning powers are needed. I agree with him, 

but what is that if not greater regulation? I accept that 

regulation can be a force for good in certain circumstances, 

but over-regulation of the sector can be problematic 

and a barrier, as can set-up costs, and those issues need 

to be addressed. I support his aims, but there is perhaps 

a weakness in his argument. He might consider that, 

because I know that he feels strongly about the issue 

and has done a lot of good work to lead the charge 

on it. 

I am also interested to hear the Minister’s comments 

about the regrettable decision to scrap the Labour 

Government’s proposed community-owned pubs support 

programme, which would have provided resources to 

enable communities to save community pubs from closure. 

Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con): Does the hon. 

Gentleman agree that planning law should be strengthened? 

You just mentioned that it should be. 

Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair): Order. I have not 

mentioned anything about planning laws, but I hope 

that Chris Williamson will respond to that. 

Chris Williamson: I was merely referring to the hon. 

Member for Leeds North West, who discussed the need 

to strengthen planning laws to give local authorities 

greater powers over the closure of community pubs. I 

support him on that. The point that I was making is 

that strengthening planning powers for local authorities 

amounts to greater regulation, so in certain circumstances, 

stronger regulation can be a force for good. It can be 

beneficial in helping promote the campaign that he is 

pursuing. 

The community-owned pubs programme has been 

scrapped. The Government had set aside £3.3 million—not 

a huge sum, but significant—which would have gone a 

long way towards assisting many community pubs to 

remain open. The chief executive of the Plunkett 

Foundation, which was charged with administering the 

fund, said about the decision to scrap the programme: 

“This is devastating news for each community that had hoped 

to save their local as a co-operative. The government has turned 

its back on communities that were looking to take more responsibility 

over their everyday lives.” 

It seems that the Government propose to replace a 

meaningful Government initiative, which would have 

provided resources for practical action to save a considerable 

number of community pubs, with a mere information 

leaflet, which will be distributed to local communities. 

That is no substitute for a properly funded initiative 

that would have gone a long way in saving community 

pubs. That was a mistake, and I would be interested to 

hear the Minister’s comments on it. He is quoted as 

saying: 

“″Pubs don’t want state handouts. The new government is to 

give local communities new powers to save local pubs.” 

However, as I have already pointed out, the Government’s 

proposed power will be meaningful only in those 

communities that are relatively well heeled and that 

therefore have the wherewithal to provide the resources 

necessary to exercise a community right to buy. 

Nigel Adams: Is it not the case that the previous 

Government had 13 years to do something positive 

about protecting pubs? People had money in their pockets 

then, but the previous Administration failed to do 

anything. 

Chris Williamson: I do not understand the hon. 

Gentleman’s intervention. I have already made the point 

that the previous Labour Government set up the 

community-owned pubs support programme, which his 

Government have scrapped. We did take positive action. 

I accept that too many pubs closed and that perhaps 

more could have been done. We can always do more, but 

we took appropriate steps and ensured that people in 

the public sector were in employment and that we kept 

unemployment lower than it would otherwise have been. 

As I have already said, unless people have unnecessary 

money in their pockets, the hospitality trade and community 

pubs will suffer as a direct consequence.

317WH 




318WH 

Nigel Adams: Will the hon. Gentleman enlighten 

Government Members on when that much-vaunted 

policy was announced? 

Chris Williamson: The hon. Gentleman is trying to 

make a cheap point, because he knows very well that it 

was towards the latter end of the previous Government. 

[Interruption.] 

Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair): Order. Will hon. 

Members please not make remarks from a sedentary 

position? I would like to hear what Chris Williamson 

has to say. 

Chris Williamson: Thank you, Mrs Main. The reality 

is that we took action. On another point, we took the 

necessary steps to stop the economy going into a complete 

tailspin. I repeat the point that I have already made and 

make no apologies for doing so: people need income in 

their pockets from employment, and the measures that 

we took to keep unemployment lower than it would 

otherwise have been helped ensure that more pubs did 

not close. I regret to say that this Government’s measures 

have taken away the direct support by scrapping the 

community-owned pubs support programme. They are 

also introducing new powers that only relatively affluent 

communities will be able to utilise, and are taking 

economic decisions that will have a much bigger impact 

on the future viability of community pubs, because 

unemployment will certainly increase and many more 

pubs will close as a direct consequence. 

I do not want to take up much more time, because 

that would eat into the time for the Minister’s wind-up 

speech. 

Jason McCartney: I would be interested if the hon. 

Gentleman could name a single pub in Yorkshire that 

was saved by that scheme. Dozens of pubs closed in my 

constituency during his Government’s last five years. 

Chris Williamson: I hope that the hon. Gentleman 

will forgive me for not knowing the names of pubs in 

Yorkshire. I am a Derby MP and, as I said at the outset 

of my contribution, I am teetotal and very rarely frequent 

pubs. Pub names are not one of my strong points. 

I could not even name too many pubs in Derby, but I 

recognise the central role that they play in the local 

community. 

I will finish by addressing the comments made about 

the big society. The notion that, somehow, the nebulous 

concept of the big society will be the saviour of community 

pubs and that Ministers on the white charger of the big 

society will ride to the rescue is, in reality, a fantasy. In 

my view, the big society is nothing more than a 21st-century 

version of the Poor Law. If hon. Members view that as 

the way to protect community pubs, I am sorry but they 

will be sadly disappointed. 

3.45 pm 


Communities and Local Government (Robert Neill): It is 

an absolute delight and pleasure to serve under you, 

Mrs Main. I also warmly welcome this debate and 

congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds 

North West (Greg Mulholland) on securing it, on the 

constructive way in which he made the case for assisting 

community pubs, and on the excellent work that he 

rightly does as part of the all-party save the pub group. 

I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for 

Burton (Andrew Griffiths) and the all-party beer group. 

All such groups and bodies are important players in the 

conversation that, as my hon. Friend the Member for 

Leeds North West has said, we are having, and I promise 

him that we will continue to have it. It is an important 

issue. I appreciated the seriousness with which a number 

of my hon. Friends intervened to raise examples to 

reinforce a number of my hon. Friend’s legitimate points. 

I will say this as gently as I can, but the shadow 

Minister, the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris 

Williamson), may not have quite caught the mood of 

the debate to a nicety. It was not a partisan debate. If 

people want to play it along partisan lines, I can point 

out that, in 13 years of the previous Government, the 

situation developed, got worse and not much was done—an 

initiative 12 weeks before the general election was scant 

and shoddy recompense. 

The hon. Gentleman did, however, remind me of a 

story about John Costello, the former Irish Prime Minister. 

He had lost a general election and was driving with his 

Attorney-General to the presidential palace to hand in 

his resignation. Their car had to stop at a crossroad, on 

to which a fight spilled out from a public house. Costello 

turned to his Attorney-General and said, “Do you 

know, I’ve never been in a pub in my life,” to which the 

Attorney-General replied, “Well, if you had, we might 

not be going to hand in our resignations now.” 

I do not have to confess—I think it is well known—that 

I occasionally use a public house. I have certainly assisted 

my hon. Friend the Member for Burton in adding to the 

heaving numbers in a public house in Uttoxeter. I am 

conscious, from my own constituency as well as from 

my visits around the country since my appointment, 

that public houses are a key part of the community. We 

have vibrant pubs in villages, in suburban areas such as 

mine, and in inner-city areas, some of which I see when 

wearing my hat as the Minister with responsibility for 

the Thames Gateway. 

Of course, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds 

North West has rightly said, changing circumstances 

mean that, because pubs are businesses as well as 

community assets, they will sometimes come under 

pressure and some will not be sustainable. I have mentioned 

the east end of London. I visited some old friends in 

Poplar, where demand for pubs has declined due to the 

change in the demographic of its population, so not all 

its pubs are likely to survive. It is important to recognise—I 

am grateful that my hon. Friend did—that we have to 

bring that balance into the equation. Equally, I think we 

have all come across the sort of cynical behaviour 

whereby viable public houses are sold, sometimes over 

the heads of the tenants, the landlords or the community. 

My hon. Friend has quoted a number of examples and, 

during a Localism Bill Committee sitting, I referred to 

one in my own constituency. The absentee landlord of 

The Broomwood pub, in Sevenoaks Way in Orpington, 

has deliberately run it down so that its value as an asset 

is diminished, in order then to seek planning permission 

to turn it into a McDonald’s. I am no more likely to 

frequent a McDonald’s than the shadow Minister is to 

frequent a pub. It would certainly not have been a good 

result for that community, and I think there is common 

ground between us on that point.

319WH 




320WH 

Justin Tomlinson: That can also be the case before a 

pub has even been built. In new developments—a lot of 

my constituency is new development—space is allocated 

in the master plan for a community pub. The developers 

deliberately do not sell it—as is the case with our local 

brewery, Arkell’s—and they then try to come back and 

say that the only demand is for additional housing. 

Robert Neill: My hon. Friend is right. I shall refer to 

some of the planning proposals we are seeking to make, 

which I hope will deal with some of those situations. 

The Government are seeking to approach the matter 

against the background of recognising that there must 

be a sensible balance and that, of course, it is sometimes 

legitimate to regulate to protect community interests. 

However, we are also dealing with businesses that need 

to be kept viable and remain attractive for investment, 

so as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West 

said, it is important that we deal with the matter in 

reasonable and proportionate way that does not build 

in inflexibilities that might discourage people from investing 

in the public house trades. We must get the balance 

right and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his 

contribution to helping us do that. I would rather deal 

with the matter in a considered way than engage in 

grandstanding, because there are opportunities that will 

come to us. 

Let me consider some of the points that were raised. 

It is worth saying that the current national policy—planning 

policy statement 4—is perhaps not used as fully as it 

could be. I accept that point, and outside this Chamber 

I will happily take up with my hon. Friend ways in 

which we can ensure that local authorities are made 

aware of their existing scope. For example, PPS4—planning 

for sustainable economic growth—asks local authorities 

proactively to plan and promote competitive town centre 

environments to support shop services and other things 

that have small-scale economic uses. That can be taken 

to include public houses. My hon. Friend indicated that 

some local authorities are doing that, and I applaud 

them for doing so. Some of the public houses we have 

referred to might be in conservation areas or might have 

a particular merit, such as listing and so on. There are 

other forms of protection. 

When determining applications affecting premises 

such as pubs, current policy also enables local planning 

authorities to take into account the importance of the 

facility to the local community or the economic base in 

the area. However, I acknowledge that that is not doing 

enough to slow down the attrition rate of pubs. Therefore, 

we are determined to simplify the system. My hon. 

Friend is right: the national planning policy framework 

is the appropriate vehicle for doing that. Since the Town 

and Country Planning Act 1947, most planning policy 

has been dictated by guidance rather than through 

primary legislation, which has tended to be enabling. 

That is the route we intend to adopt. 

We are committed to taking the existing protections 

that it is appropriate to continue with, simplifying them, 

amplifying them where appropriate and publishing a 

comprehensive, single, streamlined national planning 

policy framework. We are aiming to do that by April 

2012. We will start to consult on that later this year, and 

I very much hope that my hon. Friends and the 

organisations in their constituencies concerned about 

the issue of planning and public houses will contribute 

to the consultation. That will also include planning for 

community and other leisure facilities. The linkage about 

encouraging live music, for example, that my hon. Friend 

the Member for Hove (Mike Weatherley) referred to, is 

absolutely right. That is why, separately, the Government 

are proposing to reform the licensing law to make it 

easier for live entertainment to take place without some 

of the bureaucratic licensing requirements, particularly 

in smaller venues. I hope that that will add to viability, 

which is an important consideration here. 

Two matters are important in relation to the Localism 

Bill. First, we are introducing neighbourhood planning, 

which will give neighbourhood communities a greater 

chance to shape their area in planning terms. Communities 

will be able to set policies for the development of their 

area, subject to the constraint that what they say must 

be in general conformity with the overall strategic policies 

of the local authority’s development plan, and that it 

will be subject to the national policy set out in the 

NPPF I referred to. Within those constraints, communities 

will be able to say what sort of developments—within 

reason—are acceptable or not acceptable and where. 

That is an important tool, and I hope it will enable 

people to have greater protection. 

Such an approach will also give communities greater 

flexibility in expanding. Sometimes that is right because, 

for example, there might be a demand for additional 

housing in a village area. Incremental growth is not easy 

to achieve under the current planning system, so there is 

a greater pressure to convert the use of a public house 

to housing. Our proposals will make it easier for a 

neighbourhood to expand organically and therefore, I 

hope, to still keep the public house in existence. 

Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab): Will the Minister 

give way? 

Robert Neill: Yes, of course. I think I know what the 

right hon. Gentleman is going to ask about, although I 

have to say that he has not been present during the 

debate. 

Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair): I was just about to say 

that the Minister is winding up. This is an hour-and-a-half 

debate and the right hon. Gentleman has not been here 

for the entire debate. However, the Minister has given 

way. 

Robert Neill: I have given way, but I hope that the 

right hon. Gentleman will be brief. 

Mr Lammy: The Minister is aware that I have been 

concerned about these issues for some time. Will he say 

a little bit more about the legal status of the neighbourhood 

plan? He will be aware that The Oakdale Arms on 

Hermitage road, Tottenham is facing decimation in 

March, and there is real concern that the local community 

has not been involved. 

Robert Neill: We have already set out the proposals 

we are intending to make, and there should be a 

referendum—an independent check—to make sure that 

the neighbourhood plan, once it is in place, is in conformity 

with other policies and that there is support from the 

community. The details are available in a guide to 

neighbourhood planning, which is on the Department’s

321WH 



322WH 

[Robert Neill] 

website. When the right hon. Gentleman has looked at 

that, perhaps other hon. Members who are interested in 

the matter will have the chance to look at it. 

As well as neighbourhood planning, there is the 

community right to buy. That gives a fair chance for 

communities to bid to take over assets and facilities that 

are important to them. Community right to buy is 

triggered by assets being listed, so it is an important 

power for community groups to take the initiative to list 

them. I do not pooh-pooh the community right to buy, 

as the hon. Member for Derby North did. Potentially, it 

is a powerful tool, and there are good examples where it 

has already been taken on. We have published a consultation 

document setting out details of how that scheme works. 

It will be underpinned by regulations to deal with the 

process. That consultation ends on 3 May and as I said, 

I hope that hon. Members and interested groups will 

contribute to it. Some of the details that my hon. 

Friend the Member for Leeds North West fleshed out 

are exactly the sort of issues I promise him we want to 

take on board during the consultation. 

I understand my hon. Friend’s point about the 

moratorium, and I would like to consider the matter in 

that context. The only query is whether too rigid a 

moratorium could itself create injustice in certain 

circumstances—for example, where the legitimate collapse 

of a business through commercial misfortune, as sometimes 

happens, triggers the need to realise assets quickly. It is 

about getting the balance right. I would not want to 

discourage people from investing in pubs, which might 

happen if they thought they could not always get their 

assets out again. However, there is more work that we 

can and will do on that. 

On change of use, as was said, when used properly, 

there is already an ability to import viability into the 

test. Local authorities can remove committed development 

rights under the existing use classes order through what 

is called an article 4 direction. However, as part of our 

reform of planning policy, we intend to consult more 

generally on reform of the use classes order. Again, 

there is an opportunity for that conversation to continue. 

Similarly, as my hon. Friend says, we have announced a 

review into the use of covenants, which can be used to 

prevent a fair playing field for communities when public 

houses are sold on. 

On the question of demolition, I pay tribute to my 

hon. Friend the Member for Selby and Ainsty (Nigel 

Adams) for his private Member’s Bill. In the past, 

demolition has been excluded, but we are prepared to 

look carefully with my hon. Friend and other hon. 

Members at whether there is some means by which we 

can, perhaps in the context of the community right to 

buy, extend planning control to the demolition of 

community assets. That might be a means by which we 

can achieve a proportionate solution. I hope the door is 

open to my hon. Friend in that regard. 

I am sorry that there is no time for me to say more. 

However, I hope I have shown that we take the comments 

of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West in 

the spirit in which they were intended. I congratulate 

him on what he has done. We will continue to have a 

conversation on those specific points. 

Renewable Energy (The Humber) 

4pm 

Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con): It is a pleasure 

to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main. 

I would like to begin by thanking the Minister, who 

has already provided a huge amount of support to the 

Humber MPs in our campaign to make the Humber a 

renewable energy centre. He is already aware of much of 

what I will say today and we are grateful for the support 

that he has given. There are a couple of issues on which 

we would like to pin the Minister down, in the best 

sense of the phrase, as we try to move our campaign 

forward. 

The campaign has support across the Humber and I 

assure you, Mrs Main, that the absence of other Humber 

MPs is not due to lack of interest. My neighbour, the 

hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin), is at a Select 

Committee hearing outside of Westminster today. My 

hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness 

(Mr Stuart) is away on parliamentary business, as is, I 

believe, the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Austin 

Mitchell). However, this is a campaign that enjoys strong 

support across the banks of the Humber in north 

Lincolnshire and east Yorkshire. We are concerned primarily 

with doing what we can, as local MPs, with the support 

of our local councils and businesses, to ensure that we 

become a centre for offshore wind, and potentially a 

centre for wave and tidal power and other renewable 

energy opportunities, such as bioethanol. With your 

permission, Mrs Main—I have had contact with the 

Minister on this—my hon. Friend the Member for 

Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) will speak for five minutes 

of my time. 

Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair) indicated assent. 

Andrew Percy: Thank you, Mrs Main. I will focus 

most of my comments on wave and tidal technologies 

and the bioethanol industry. 

I think that we all agree, across the House, that we 

want to ensure that the UK plays its part in the renewable 

energy sector and that we are not left behind as we have 

been in the past, particularly with onshore wind. Our 

campaign on renewable energy, as broad as it is, does 

not extend quite as far as onshore wind. The Minister is 

aware of our particular issues with onshore wind locally, 

but I just place them on the record again. As a country, 

however, we have missed the boat on manufacturing for 

onshore wind and we do not want to fall behind with 

the new technologies. 

Why the Humber? Well, apart from the fact that 

everybody knows it is the best area in the UK in which 

to invest, has the best people and is potentially represented 

by some of the best people—I exclude myself from that; 

I talk of course of my neighbours—in the past 10 years 

the area has not made the progress it should have done, 

and as other parts of the country have. We lost private 

sector jobs in the past 10 years at a time when the 

economy was growing, and we remain one of the poorest 

parts of the UK. We have, however, a great deal going 

for us too: deep sea ports, plenty of land for development, 

an excellent motorway infrastructure that is not congested 

in the way that it is in other parts of the country, and a 

long history of manufacturing and manufacturing skills

323WH 




324WH 

on which to build. As I mentioned, we also have strong 

support for this campaign from across the local area, 

including from some of our key stakeholders, MPs and 

councillors, but also from local newspapers. The Scunthorpe 

Telegraph, the Grimsby Telegraph and the Hull Daily 

Mail have been running their own campaign to support 

bringing more renewable energy projects to our area. 

Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con): I congratulate 

my hon. Friend on securing the debate. On the matter of 

support, he also has plenty of support from Yorkshire 

MPs, myself included. Offshore wind is important for 

my inland constituency, so that we do not have to have 

onshore wind farms dotted all over the beautiful countryside 

of the Colne and Holme valleys. It is also important 

because David Brown Engineering in Lockwood, 

Huddersfield, has a major contract to make the gears 

for offshore wind turbines. Hopefully the Humber will 

also play an important part in cutting our carbon 

footprint, as part of the array of carbon capture and 

storage that may go into the North sea, and bring jobs. 

My hon. Friend has plenty of support not just in the 

Humber region, but across the whole of Yorkshire and 

the north of the country. Thank you for this debate. 

Andrew Percy: I thank my hon. Friend for that glowing 

pledge of support for the Humber, and that demonstrates 

a point I will go on to talk about. The supply chain for 

this industry will not be limited to the Humber—it will 

benefit UK plc. There will be jobs through the development 

of the renewable sector across the whole of the UK in 

manufacturing. I know that he will be at the forefront of 

campaigning for those jobs to go to his constituency of 

Colne Valley. 

What we seek from the Minister is continued support 

in selling the Humber—I know he has responsibilities 

for the whole of England—and England, internationally. 

We would also welcome support from the Government 

in terms of the pressure they can apply to ensure that 

once agreements have been made, as they have been 

with Siemens, there are no glitches in the system. I also 

seek clarity about the framework in which we are operating. 

I will turn to that point first, in relation to wave and 

tidal technologies. 

In terms of R and D, the UK is at the forefront of 

these technologies and there are huge opportunities, not 

only because we are an island, but because of the skills 

we have. There are massive opportunities along the 

Humber, which is served by several other tidal rivers 

including the river Aire, which I live next to, the Ouse, 

the Trent, and what we call the Dutch river, but which is 

the Don to everybody else. It is estimated that marine 

power has the potential to bring approximately 10,000 

jobs to the UK by 2020. 

There is a project on the Humber at the moment, the 

Pulse Tidal project, which is one of those great British 

entrepreneurial technologies. It started in someone’s 

garage. After 10 years of working in someone’s garage, 

that has now developed into a machine that is operating 

on the Humber, just off Immingham dock. It was 

funded 50% by the Government and 50% by private 

funds, and has been operating successfully since 2009. It 

cost £2 million to build, but the beauty of the project is 

that it used Corus steel and is maintained by another 

local company, Humber Work Boats. The next step of 

the development is a commercial scale machine, rated at 

1.2 MW, which will be installed by 2013. There the good 

news tails off a little. It is likely that the commercial 

scale machine will go to Scotland, because the renewable 

obligation certificate scheme is more generous there. In 

fact, Bob Smith the CEO of Pulse Tidal, tells me: 

“The single biggest funding issue for us today is the market 

pull—at present there is nothing to incentivise investors to support 

a tidal power project in favour of a wind power project—they 

both receive 2 ROCs. Given that tidal is early in its development, 

comparable to wind about 15yr ago, it is more expensive than 

wind, and higher risk. Hence no investor would put money into 

tidal projects. With 5 ROCs in place for tidal, there is sufficient 

incentive to bring investors to the sector.” 

I know that there is a review of that scheme, but will it 

consider the current disparity between England and 

Scotland? The scheme is currently in favour of Scotland 

and we are at a disadvantage, so will the review recognise 

that? 

I hope the Minister will consider the need for extra 

support for these emerging technologies, so that we 

remain at the forefront. We have had all that R and D. 

We have successful projects up and running, but we risk 

losing them overseas and missing out, just as we did 

with onshore wind technology. 

What are the Department’s plans for the longer-term 

capital support for this sector? The marine development 

fund is being phased out. Will that be replaced and 

what will be put in its place? There is a need for capital 

and revenue support to ensure that we do not miss out. I 

am sure that we will get that, because I know the 

Government are certainly committed, but we seek a 

clear commitment from the Government on the future 

of wave and tide. 

Mike Weatherley (Hove) (Con): On the point about 

losing industries overseas, does my hon. Friend agree 

that, given our heritage of petrochemical skills and a 

highly efficient agricultural base, it makes sense to have 

a bioethanol base here in the UK? 

Andrew Percy: I will be coming on to talk about that 

exact point. As with the wave and tidal technologies, 

where we have the skills base and the R and D, the same 

applies to bioethanol. I seek those commitments in 

relation to wave and tidal. My hon. Friend’s intervention 

moves me beautifully on to bioethanol. 

The question, of course, is why bioethanol and why 

the Humber? My hon. Friend made the comments that 

I would have made about the petrochemical skills heritage 

in this country, so I shall not repeat them. We also have 

mandated targets for biofuels, so whatever people’s 

individual views about biofuels are, the reality is that if 

we do not produce them locally in the UK, and specifically 

in the Humber, they will be produced elsewhere, and the 

jobs will be elsewhere. 

As with wind—and, potentially, wave and tide, if we 

are not careful—the UK has been lagging behind. In 

2008, France had 15 operational plants, Germany had 

nine and the UK had one large and one small plant. 

There is huge potential: as with wave and tidal technologies, 

the predictions for the industry are impressive. It could 

be worth as much as £3.25 billion to the UK by 2020, 

and could employ some 14,500 people. There is huge 

potential, in the Humber in particular, for the reasons 

that I have outlined in respect of infrastructure.

325WH 




326WH 

[Andrew Percy] 

Two plants are coming to the Humber: Vireol will be 

running an industrial-scale wheat-based production plant 

in Grimsby from 2013, which should produce about 44 

million gallons of bioethanol a year. I am told that that 

is the equivalent—my science was never very good— 

Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con): I congratulate my 

hon. Friend on securing this important debate. I add my 

support to his campaign for the Humber, especially as I 

am a big supporter of wave and tidal. He makes a key 

point about bioethanol: it will be a huge economic 

driver for our region if we get it right. However, I add a 

note of caution, and would like to know what he thinks 

about it. Commodity prices are growing rapidly at 

present— 

Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair): Order. Interventions 

should be brief. The hon. Member for Brigg and Goole 

wants to hear the Minister’s response. 

Julian Sturdy: The intervention is about commodity 

prices and the impact on food security. 

Andrew Percy: It is an important point, and I will 

come to it. It is one of the criticisms—a misunderstanding, 

in my view—of what is actually happening. I shall first 

finish with the plants that are coming to the Humber. 

The effects of Vireol’s production of bioethanol will be 

the equivalent of taking 60,000 cars off the road, and 

Vivergo will produce at a plant in Saltend. 

My hon. Friend knows that we have not only in the 

Humber region but across North Yorkshire—on his 

patch—some of the most productive agricultural land 

in the country, so there is huge potential locally to 

benefit from bioethanol production. The concern he 

raises is one that many people raise, which is that we are 

taking land that could be used to produce food to feed 

our cars instead. However, the process that will be used 

at the Vireol plant will produce as a by-product a 

high-quality animal feed, and there is a difference between 

biodiesel and bioethanol. 

The global annual production of the big four oil 

seeds that are used for biodiesel is about 120 million 

tonnes. To meet our 2020 target, 24 million tonnes 

would have to be used for biodiesel. For bioethanol, it is 

1.7 billion tonnes of the big three grains, of which only 

60 million are needed to produce bioethanol. There is a 

prediction that the UK could increase its production 

volumes up to about 20 million tonnes. That could be 

done while ensuring food security, and, as I said, the 

wheat-based process that will be coming to the Humber 

produces a high-quality animal feed by-product, so it is 

a win-win situation. We already export wheat for animal 

feed or bioethanol production overseas. 

I have two quick questions for the Minister on 

bioethanol—I am conscious of the time. What in particular 

will he do to continue to support this important sector, 

which has the potential to bring many jobs to our 

region? And when, specifically, will the Government 

renew the 2020 targets, which are for 10% of our fuel 

production, so that the bioethanol industry can continue 

to secure investment? 

I have cut down as best I can. With that, and with 

your permission, Mrs Main, I would like to hand over 

to my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes. 

4.13 pm 

Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con): I congratulate 

my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole 

(Andrew Percy) on securing this timely debate. It has 

come at a time when north Lincolnshire, in particular, 

stands ready to take full advantage of the opportunities 

for jobs and growth. Many local companies, some of 

which were previously involved in similar activities such 

as supporting our offshore oil rigs, are well positioned 

to take full advantage of the development of offshore 

turbines. New training opportunities are being developed 

by local colleges, training providers and businesses, and 

there is massive public support following a particularly 

successful focus on the industry, which my hon. Friend 

mentioned, by local newspapers the Grimsby Telegraph 

and the Scunthorpe Telegraph. 

My hon. Friend has articulated successfully the role 

that tidal and biofuels— 

4.14 pm 

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House. 

4.29 pm 

On resuming— 

Martin Vickers: I was praising the Grimsby Telegraph 

and the Scunthorpe Telegraph, which is always a wise 

thing to do, especially as their reporter is present. 

My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole has 

articulated the future impact of tidal, wave and biofuel 

energy, but I want to highlight the region’s potential for 

placing the Humber at the centre of the offshore wind 

sector, not only in the UK, but in Europe and globally. 

The area is ideally located. The Immingham and 

Grimsby dock complex is the largest in the UK, measured 

by tonnage. Since the decline of the fishing industry, 

Grimsby dock has been seeking a new role, and offshore 

wind could be the vital opportunity. Only a few miles 

away, Scunthorpe has steel production, and everything 

possible must be done to ensure that the various contracts 

filter down to small businesses, many of which have 

been struggling in recent months. 

The region has several examples of where short-term 

investment could result in long-term growth and 

regeneration. For example, the regional growth fund is 

currently reviewing proposals, made in association with 

North East Lincolnshire council, to modernise, improve 

and update port infrastructure, which would provide 

for the construction of tailor-made facilities for the 

offshore wind sector. Such improvements, requiring 

investment of £1.8 million, would lead to real improvements 

within a planned 12-month time frame and to several 

potentially major contracts being finalised, possibly 

resulting in the creation of hundreds of long-term, 

sustainable jobs. Such contracts would directly affect 

investment and job creation, arising from the emphasis 

and support given to the Humber region. 

One of the most exciting developments is proposed 

by Able UK on a 300 hectares site close to East Halton 

and North Killingholme. It could make northern 

Lincolnshire the capital of the offshore wind industry

327WH 




328WH 

and provide the potential for thousands of jobs over the 

next decade or so. Many of those jobs will come fairly 

soon with construction projects, and when linked to this 

country’s commitments to increase dramatically our 

environmentally friendly energy supplies, green technology 

has the potential to create many new opportunities. 

The production of renewable electricity in the UK 

has been growing by 11% per year since 2000, and the 

offshore renewables industry has been gearing up for 

growth. The Crown Estate has announced the successful 

bidders for each of the nine round 3 offshore wind 

zones within UK waters, and that will occupy the 

industry for at least the next 10 years. It has been 

brought to my attention that there may be some delay 

to round 3, but I hope the Minister will allay those 

concerns in his reply. Opportunities for growth opened 

up to the area with the supply chain for the Humber 

gateway site—the Able UK development—and also 

with the massive round 3 Hornsea site that is within 12 

miles of Hull. When finished, it could generate up to 

14% of the UK’s total energy needs. 

I urge the Minister to give a cast-iron guarantee that 

northern Lincolnshire and the Humber will receive 

Government support equal to that for other areas. 

Private enterprise stands ready to invest, but it cannot 

do it alone. We welcome the opportunities offered by 

port development grants, but the earlier we receive 

confirmation that the A160 into Immingham docks will 

be upgraded, the better. I appreciate that that is not 

within the Minister’s brief, but it is yet another opportunity 

for me to mention the issue. 

There is also the seemingly never-ending debate about 

Humber bridge tolls. The Treasury review into the tolls 

is a major step forward, and we look forward to its 

conclusion later this year. If the labour market is to 

function freely in the renewables industry—and other 

industries—and allow local workers to take all opportunities 

available, we must consign the debate on tolls to history. 

Potential investors and current stakeholders remain 

concerned about long-term financial commitments and 

the speed at which planning applications are implemented. 

In a report on the potential of the UK’s renewables 

sector, the offshore valuation group stated the requirement 

for new financing structures that complement the 

fundamental features of renewable energy infrastructure 

and are able to support the scale and speed of industrial 

growth. That is necessary to secure the UK as a centre 

for the global renewables industry. 

So far, the Government have done a lot, which is 

greatly appreciated by local councils and other 

representatives from the industry. Nevertheless, we cannot 

do it alone. There is the possibility to create a great 

number of job opportunities in an area that has been in 

recession for too many years, and I urge the Minister to 

do everything in his power to help the area. 

4.34 pm 

The Minister of State, Department of Energy and 

Climate Change (Charles Hendry): It is a privilege to 

serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main, particularly 

on a subject that I know is dear to your heart. I 

congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and 

Goole (Andrew Percy) on securing this debate and on 

returning to a theme that he has become accomplished 

in discussing in this House. He and my hon. Friend the 

Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) make a powerful 

duo, and they are eloquent and dedicated advocates for 

the interests of their constituencies. They have worked 

hard to create a broad coalition on both sides of the 

House and of the Humber, and to bring together the 

interests of the local authority, the business community 

and the political representation in the Greater Humber 

area. That will ensure that we take maximum advantage 

of the benefits that undoubtedly exist. Contributions 

from other hon. Friends concerning how such opportunities 

can benefit their constituencies have also been encouraging, 

and we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member 

for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney), and about the 

interest in bioethanol from my hon. Friends the Members 

for Hove (Mike Weatherley) and for York Outer (Julian 

Sturdy). 

This is a timely debate because we are looking at the 

potential for a huge regeneration in parts of the country 

that have been badly affected by economic decline over 

many years. One of the most exciting aspects of the 

renewable sector is the potential that it brings for economic 

prosperity in areas that have suffered badly. We must 

put this debate in the national context. The Government 

are committed to a major roll-out of renewables, because 

we believe that it will help to secure our long-term 

energy interests, help tackle climate change and meet 

our renewable energy targets for 2020 and beyond. It 

will also deliver many green jobs across the United 

Kingdom, revitalising our manufacturing sector. 

The 15% target for renewable energy by 2020 is 

challenging, but we are sure it is achievable. We are on 

track for the first interim target of 4% renewable energy 

by 2011-12, and we have 25 GW in the renewable 

electricity pipeline. We should look at the resources 

around us—we have heard about how such resources 

play out for the Humber. Around these islands we have 

40% of Europe’s wind and some of the highest tidal 

reaches in the world. We are already global leaders in 

the offshore wind sector, with 1.3 GW of installed 

capacity. 

This debate takes place against the background of 

the Government’s commitment to localism, and we 

expect communities that accept renewable energy 

developments to receive distinct and specific benefits. 

We have mentioned the localisation of business rates, 

and we are looking at other ways in which communities 

can benefit from hosting facilities on behalf of the 

wider national interest. 

My hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes discussed 

offshore wind. The Carbon Trust has estimated that the 

offshore wind sector could create 70,000 jobs by 2020. 

Last week, I was delighted to announce the grant of 

consent for the Humber gateway offshore wind farm, 

which will generate enough clean electricity for 150,000 

homes. We put in place the offshore wind developers 

forum specifically to identify barriers. We are determined 

to drive that process forward as fast as possible, identify 

potential barriers to investment and do what we can to 

ensure that they are dealt with and do not become 

insuperable. We still need an acceleration in deployment 

and technical advances to realise the potential of offshore 

wind. 

UK manufacturing activity will be key to realising 

the economic potential offered by offshore wind across 

the whole supply chain, and I am confident that the 

offshore wind sector will grow substantially in the coming

329WH 




330WH 

[Charles Hendry] 

years. We are determined to avoid mistakes that we have 

seen in the past, where although our waters contain 

some of the largest offshore wind farms in the world, 

the jobs and contracts go to mainland Europe or the far 

east. In taking forward the next stage of offshore wind 

development, we must ensure that those jobs come to 

the United Kingdom. 

We are the world’s leading market, and any company 

that is keen to invest in the offshore wind manufacturing 

chain should be looking at Britain. The contribution 

made by Siemens, and its determination to build in the 

UK, and the interest we are seeing from Gamesa, GE, 

Mitsubishi and other companies shows the extent to 

which Britain will be a global leader in this technology. 

We are looking at making larger turbines than have 

been developed before. They need to be more reliable 

than those used for onshore wind, and to have deep 

foundations and undersea cabling. That means that 

they will be harder to transport than some of the 

turbines used for onshore wind, and there is a strong 

case for that manufacturing to be done locally to market. 

I support the work that has been done on both sides 

of the Humber and, indeed, in other parts of the 

country to showcase the benefits of this technology for 

potential investors. It is also interesting to see the work 

that well-established local companies are doing to give 

themselves a new direction. For example, Cosalt, which 

was originally known as the Great Grimsby Coal, Salt 

and Tanning Company when it was founded back in 

1873, now provides engineering, safety and inspection 

services to the wind energy sector. That typifies the 

economic development thinking in the area. There is no 

doubt that such activity should provide a major boost 

to the British economy, and there is every reason for us 

to hope that the ports along the Humber will be able to 

develop from that. 

Of course, this issue is not just about wind power. 

One of the most exciting aspects is how the renewables 

sector brings together in specific locations a raft of 

different technologies and the contributions that they 

can make. Biomass is part of that. In 2009, biomass 

electricity provided 87% of total renewable generation 

in the Yorkshire and the Humber region. There is no 

doubt about the significance of the contribution that it 

can make. 

My hon. Friends spoke about the importance of 

bioethanol and the leadership that Britain ought to be 

looking to establish in this sector. Bioethanol offers one 

of the few options in the short term for tackling greenhouse 

gas emissions and for meeting our renewable energy 

targets in the transport sector. We are considering the 

opportunities that can be provided through eligibility to 

benefit from the renewable transport fuel obligation 

and the renewables obligation. As my hon. Friend the 

Member for Brigg and Goole set out in opening the 

debate, we are looking at the renewables obligation, and 

this issue can be part of that process, although as he will 

understand, it is my colleagues in the Department for 

Transport who lead on those issues. 

We are also committed to harnessing the benefits that 

a successful marine renewables sector can bring to the 

UK generally and, within that, to the Humber area. 

The schemes to which my hon. Friend referred show 

some of the thinking that is going on. This is a fast-moving 

sector. As he has said, the struggle is in getting things to 

a commercial scale. What we have seen in looking at the 

schemes that were in place already—the marine 

development fund and particularly the deployment fund—is 

that the bar was set too high to be relevant to the stage 

that the industry is currently at. 

We have examined how we take the technology further 

and faster. Its development is an explicit written element 

in the coalition agreement, which is at the core of what 

we are trying to do in the Department of Energy and 

Climate Change. The benefits go well beyond providing 

us with secure, clean electricity, because there is an 

opportunity to build a new manufacturing sector in the 

UK, which will create new jobs and grow economic 

opportunities both at home and globally. 

That will happen only if we ensure that we capitalise 

on the hard work that the sector is doing already and 

ensure that the right foundation is in place on which to 

build success. We have established a marine energy 

programme, and we now want to ensure that small, 

dynamic companies have every reason to stay in Britain 

by putting in place a network of marine energy parks 

around the UK. That will enable us to take forward the 

technology and ensure that those emerging companies 

want to develop in the UK, rather than, as we have seen 

too often in the past, taking their technologies elsewhere 

in the world. 

We have brought forward the banding review for 

renewables obligation certificates by a full year, so that 

we can provide much greater certainty to investors. The 

difference between different parts of Britain—the difference 

between ROCs support in England and in Scotland—will 

feature in that, although of course the level at which 

support is set in Scotland is a matter for the Scottish 

Government and the same applies in Northern Ireland. 

We can offer a real opportunity to take forward these 

technologies in this country. Our objective must be to 

remove barriers, to encourage investment and to ensure 

that we identify where the challenges are, so that the 

potential throughout this country can be achieved. This 

has been a short but important debate. The Humber has 

a very important contribution to make to the renewable 

energy future of this country, and I again pay tribute to 

the Members of Parliament who are representing the 

area for the determination and assiduity that they have 

brought to its cause.

331WH 

16 FEBRUARY 2011 Financial Mutuals 

332WH 

Financial Mutuals 

4.44 pm 

Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op): I 

am grateful to Mr Speaker for offering me the opportunity 

to have this debate. At the outset, I need to declare that 

I have a mortgage with Northern Rock. I am privileged 

to be chair of the Co-operative party and one of the 

party’s 28 Labour/Co-op MPs. It is in that spirit and 

with their support, but from the Back Benches, that I 

have sought the debate. 

Yesterday, as the Minister will recognise, was business 

as usual for banking. Barclays bank was carrying on as 

if Ministers had never been worried about its bonuses 

or its profits. This is also the week for yet another 

re-launch of the big society. It is a concept in crisis, 

unloved by many of the Minister’s colleagues and viewed 

with profound scepticism by many people in the charity 

world. What better time, then, for the Minister to offer 

up a vision—and, crucially, the action to back it up—of 

the big society that is not an excuse for an attack on 

public bodies and hard-working public servants, but 

that instead leads to real change in an area of the 

corporate world, financial services, where the whole 

country has wanted a change in culture and behaviour? 

Despite a coalition commitment to help mutuals, 

thus far in financial services there has been little of 

note. Mutuals and financial mutuals in particular are 

proof that there is another way—that, important as the 

public and shareholder-led private sectors both are, 

there is a way to combine the best of both traditions, to 

drive enterprise, to foster ambition and to cherish 

community throughout our country. Financial mutuals, 

building societies, friendly societies and credit unions 

were not responsible for the global financial crisis. They 

do not have a culture of large dividends or excessive 

bonuses, and they have much more, surely, to offer, but 

astute Government regulation will be required to foster 

and encourage the sector. 

Both my parties—the Co-operative party and our 

sister party, the Labour party—were right to call for the 

remutualisation of Northern Rock at the last election, 

and I urge the Minister now to set out clearly the 

Government’s position on that issue. The Banking (Special 

Provisions) Act 2008 allows state-owned banks to be 

converted into mutuals. That could be by sale, merger 

with an existing mutual or the creation of a new entity. 

The long-term ownership solution for Northern Rock 

should take into account some key principles. Taxpayers 

should not be out of pocket as a result of the change. 

Hard-working families and small businesses should be 

protected. The institution that emerges should be secure 

and responsible and add to the financial stability of the 

UK economy. The new organisation should act in the 

long-term interests of its customers. 

Jonathan Evans (Cardiff North) (Con): The hon. 

Gentleman knows that I share his interest in the promotion 

of mutuality. I am therefore a little disappointed by this 

being couched in Labour terms. Does he not think it 

would be helpful if the proposition put to the Minister 

were that there should be a proper review and examination 

of the opportunity of mutuality in relation to Northern 

Rock, rather than it being asserted to him that that is 

the only option? We should be examining it as fully as 

we examine any other option. 

Mr Thomas: I end up at the same point as the hon. 

Gentleman, although I took a different journey to get 

to that point. I will come back, if I may, to the excellent 

work he has been doing in chairing the all-party inquiry 

into financial mutuals. 

An expert think-tank based in the university of Oxford 

set out in September 2009 how and why Northern Rock 

could and should be remutualised, ensuring that its 

debt to the taxpayer was paid down, creating a stable 

financial services provider and constraining it from 

making the previous mistakes, while helping to secure a 

more competitive retail financial services market. 

The next step, which the hon. Member for Cardiff 

North (Jonathan Evans) hinted at, would be a full 

feasibility study examining in detail the financial, governance 

and leadership issues in respect of a remutualisation. 

Will the Minister encourage such a feasibility study to 

be undertaken, either as a Green Paper examining the 

issues in all their complexity or, if the Treasury wants to 

maintain some distance, requiring UK Financial 

Instruments to do that instead? In short, will he now 

actively investigate the feasibility of the case for 

remutualisation? 

In 2003, PA Consulting Group—not a body that one 

would naturally think of as being on the left—published 

an interesting analysis of the relationship between the 

profits of commercial banks and the market share of 

mutuals. In short, as mutuals gain market share—in 

other words, as competition between the various private 

banks and their mutual competitors increases—bank 

profits from the retail banking market come down. 

Potentially, that gives the Minister a significant opportunity 

to deal with the criticism that, under a Tory-led Treasury, 

it is business as usual for the banks; he can promote 

greater competition through the growing mutual sector. 

The biggest advantage that mutuals can offer is their 

long-term view. They are not faced with the short-term 

need to secure profits. Indeed, Nationwide estimates 

that the mutual pricing benefit that it enjoyed between 

1997 and 2007 because it did not have to put shareholders 

ahead of members totalled some £3.7 billion. New 

research, using the published accounts of six shareholderowned 

insurers, shows that more than £2.2 billion was 

paid to shareholders in dividends. That is the dividend 

drag—the loss incurred by all who seek insurance as a 

result of buying from a business owned by shareholders. 

That helps to explain why mutuals, which do not suffer 

that drag, typically pay higher investment returns, provide 

better standards of service and pay more claims. 

Treasury and Financial Services Authority orthodoxy 

appears to be that corporate form does not matter, but 

that what counts is what those various corporate bodies 

do for their consumers. Such a view is simplistic and not 

sufficiently considered to warrant the hands-off approach 

to corporate diversity that often appears to characterise 

the approach of the FSA and the Treasury. Let me be 

clear: I do not advocate a mutual-only way, but robust 

diversity is important in ensuring real competition and 

giving consumers a real series of options in the market. 

New capital rules being introduced in the wake of the 

global financial crisis may give rise to insufficient care 

being given to protecting and increasing the remaining 

strength of the building society movement. The FSA’s 

new interpretation of the rules on capital may, over a 

number of years, bring about the end of friendly societies. 

Both sets of draft capital requirements could profoundly

333WH 




334WH 

[Mr Thomas] 

damage the competitiveness of financial mutuals, and 

they do not reflect the fundamental difference between 

financial mutuals that are run for members, and the 

basic banks or private insurers, which are run for 

shareholder gain. 

The European capital requirements directive is designed 

to enable financial services businesses better to absorb 

losses following the introduction of the new Basel standards. 

I accept that that is an important part of the response 

to the global financial crisis; it focuses on improving the 

quantity and quality of capital, particularly what is 

called core tier 1 capital. Over the last 20 years, building 

societies’ capital reserves have been supplemented by 

permanent interest-bearing shares. However, they will 

not meet more demanding definitions for core tier 1 

capital. 

I recognise that building societies need to have access 

to new ways of securing capital that are permanent and 

that fully absorb losses. At the moment, the rules are 

being framed with only one type of corporate form in 

mind—the private bank. They do not recognise the fact 

that mutuals are structured and function differently, 

providing value to their customers over the medium and 

longer term. If building societies are forced to adopt 

plc-like capital, they will have to adopt plc-like behaviour. 

Building societies are trusted, safe and responsible precisely 

because they are not part of what “St Vince” calls the 

casino economy. Surely it would be a mistake to force 

upon them a new type of equity capital that would 

import excessive risk-taking. 

I realise that there has been movement in the discussions 

between building societies and the Government on this 

matter, but I ask the Minister what progress has been 

made—and, just as important, what has he done personally 

to move things forward with his European counterparts? 

There has been less progress in discussions with friendly 

societies. The FSA, revisiting its own rule book, seems 

hellbent on clinging to a piece of legal advice that has 

not been shared with the industry and which is at odds 

with every legal opinion that the industry has received. 

It seems to be based on a ministerial view from the 

mid-1990s that the then Minister publicly acknowledged 

was not intended for mutuals. Why cannot the FSA 

share its legal advice with the industry? If its motivation 

is that it does not want to damage friendly societies, why 

cannot a joint solution be found? If a solution cannot 

be found, mutual insurers would have to pay out a 

significant proportion of the capital held in their 

organisations; the consequence of that could be that 

they had little or no working capital and would have to 

shut up shop or demutualise. 

I am grateful that Hector Sants attended the inquiry 

of the all-party group on building societies and financial 

mutuals, but frankly I doubt whether he has yet grasped 

the seriousness of the situation that friendly societies 

face as a result of his organisation’s proposal. Even 

now, I hope he will agree to an urgent review of the 

FSA’s legal advice and step up efforts to find a solution. 

If he does not, and if the Minister does not intervene, 

consumers will have less choice, plcs will take greater 

profits and customers will face higher charges. I would 

welcome the Minister’s response. 

The Minister is responsible for ushering in changes to 

financial services regulations. They offer the opportunity 

to lock in a new requirement to champion corporate 

diversity and, crucially, new structures to ensure that we 

have people of sufficient calibre and status in the regulatory 

landscape to deal with building societies and friendly 

societies. Will the Minister support a requirement to 

promote corporate diversity in financial services when 

bringing forward the Bills to set out new arrangements 

for the City? What action is he taking to ensure that 

mutuals will be the responsibility of those high enough 

in the pecking order to make a difference when needed? 

I turn to credit unions. The Minister will recognise 

that there is widespread concern about high interest 

rates for consumer credit and the activities of illegal 

loan sharks. I hope he realises the opportunity that 

properly managed credit unions can provide in meeting 

the needs of those wanting relatively small sums of 

money at affordable rates. Access to credit unions in the 

UK has been growing. For example, I understand that 

Wales has a credit union in every part of the country. 

That is not the case in England, although things have 

been slowly improving in recent years. 

Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/ 

Co-op): My hon. Friend may be aware that access to 

credit unions in Scotland has improved of late. I hope 

he will join me in paying tribute to Hamilton credit 

union, which is developing financial services for children 

and young people to help get them into the culture of 

saving, so that in future they will be more financially 

responsible. 

Mr Thomas: I welcome the progress that has been 

made in Scotland, and particularly the work of the 

Hamilton credit union outlined by my hon. Friend. 

What action will the Minister take to champion the 

further growth of credit unions across the UK? 

Mutuals make a vital difference by generating more 

competition in financial services, and they help to create 

more value for the consumer, as opposed to the shareholder. 

I look forward to the Minister’s response to my questions. 

4.58 pm 

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Mark 

Hoban): It is a pleasure, Mrs Main, to serve under your 

chairmanship for the first time. 

I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrow West 

(Mr Thomas) on securing this debate. He roots his 

support for financial mutuals in the co-operative movement, 

which he represents in the House. Many on the Government 

Benches would see financial mutuals as a coming together 

of communities to meet the needs of their members, 

which may be an early articulation of the big society. 

We should not forget the role that mutuals play in 

providing financial services. They hold about 20% of 

UK retail deposits, and provide financing for 17% of 

outstanding UK mortgages—including mine. They employ 

70,000 people and half of the UK’s population are 

members of mutuals. The one member, one vote ownership 

model sets mutuals apart from their plc peers, as it 

enables them to focus solely on the needs of their 

members. It is unsurprising that mutuals frequently 

rank highly in surveys of customer satisfaction. As we 

know, many mutuals operate in areas of economic and 

social deprivation throughout the UK. They provide 

services that would be seen as sub-scale for big banks,

335WH 




336WH 

including as the small loans offered by credit unions 

whose customers might otherwise turn to doorstep 

lenders. 

The hon. Gentleman made an important point about 

access to credit unions. When I read the transcript of a 

recent debate on high-cost credit, I was struck by the 

fact that one of the challenges is to increase access to 

credit unions as an alternative to doorstep lenders. In a 

moment, I shall discuss some of the measures that we 

will take. It is the importance of mutuals and the choice 

and diversity that they provide that drives our commitment 

to see them thrive and prosper. 

The causes of the financial crisis have been stated 

many times, and I do not intend to rehearse them here. 

None the less, it is important that we learn from the 

crisis and take steps to ensure that the same mistakes 

are not repeated in the future. The Government want to 

create a financial services sector that works differently 

and is driven by different values, which is why we are 

committed to implementing measures that will foster 

diversity in financial services, promote mutuals and 

create a more competitive banking industry. 

The Government have established an Independent 

Commission on Banking to make recommendations on 

both structural and non-structural measures to change 

the banking system and promote stability and competition 

for the benefit of both consumers and businesses. A 

strong sustainable mutual sector, which has the ethos of 

working in the interests of members, can support that. 

We must be realistic and recognise that the financial 

crisis and the subsequent economic climate have posed 

many challenges for mutuals. Those challenges include 

greater competition for retail deposits, more intensive 

supervision and tougher capital requirements. I do not 

apologise for the tougher regulatory environment that 

we are now in. Adapting to this new world has been, 

and remains, a key challenge for financial mutuals as 

well as for the whole financial services sector. The 

Government are keen to ensure that the legislative 

framework is in place to enable mutuals to fulfil their 

role. 

There are number of changes to which we are committed 

to help create a more equal playing field in financial 

services. Let me turn now to the point about capital that 

the hon. Gentleman rightly raised. We are committed to 

achieving high capital standards across the financial 

sector, including for mutuals. At the same time, it is 

right that we have capital requirements that are appropriate 

for mutuals. The Government seek to address that issue 

in negotiations on the capital requirements directive. 

This is a matter that the Treasury and I take very 

seriously, and we are leading the debate on this in 

Europe to ensure that the specific nature of mutuals is 

taken into account while, at the same time, not 

compromising the quality of capital in the banking 

system. We expect a proposal from the Commission on 

that later in the year. 

I say to the hon. Gentleman that one of the driving 

forces behind our reforms on capital is that we want to 

ensure that financial institutions never again turn cap in 

hand to the taxpayer for financial support in a financial 

crisis. That is why it is important that all deposit-taking 

institutions, regardless of their form of ownership, have 

access to loss-absorbing capital. 

Capital is a key issue for mutual insurers, too, which 

is why the FSA is considering the use of with-profits 

funds. It will be publishing a consultation paper on that 

shortly. I do not want to pre-empt the proposals that 

have been made today, but having extolled the virtues of 

the mutual model, it is reasonable to expect that mutual 

with-profits policyholders should expect at least as 

favourable an outcome, if not a better outcome, than 

proprietary with-profits policyholders. It is important 

that mutual insurers ensure that they treat their with-profits 

policyholders fairly, too. 

Jonathan Evans (Cardiff North) (Con): The hon. 

Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) alluded to the 

previous ministerial statement. He knows that it was a 

statement that I made, but it related to the position of 

stock-owned companies. It deliberately excluded the 

position of mutuals, because it was an assessment of 

what policyholders’ reasonable expectations were and it 

was based on previous experience. Those factors have 

been erased from the way in which the FSA has taken 

the matter forward, so will my hon. Friend agree to 

revisit that area? 

Mr Hoban: My hon. Friend makes an important 

point and it is one that he and I discussed before this 

debate. His argument, which he has expressed publicly, 

is that his statement was not intended to be applied to 

all forms of with-profits funds. The FSA is aware of 

that view. None the less, it is important that this issue is 

treated very carefully. I am well aware that for many 

mutual insurers, their capital comes from with-profits 

funds. Without that with-profits fund, they would not 

be able to function in the way in which they do now. It is 

also fair to say that for a proprietary-owned business, 

the with-profits fund belongs to its policyholders. We 

have seen a number of firms go through a reattribution 

process in recognition of the fact that those funds 

belong to the members of that fund. There is a challenge 

there that we need to address and we need to be very 

careful about the impact of decisions on the ecology of 

the mutual insurer sector. 

Mr Thomas: As I suggested in my remarks, the FSA’s 

position appears to be based on a particular legal 

opinion that it has secured. Will the Minister ask the 

FSA to revisit that legal opinion, bearing in mind that 

all the other legal opinions that the industry has received 

are at odds with that opinion? Will he also specifically 

ask the FSA to share that legal advice with the industry, 

as part of the process of trying to facilitate a solution? 

Mr Hoban: The best route for resolving this is through 

the response to the consultation paper, which the FSA 

will publish later this year. It is for the FSA to decide 

whether or not it should disclose legal opinions, because 

it is an independent regulator. The consultation paper is 

an important way in which to resolve these issues. 

I was talking about the need to create a modernised 

legislative framework for mutuals, and capital is part of 

that. The Government are also implementing legislation 

to allow mutuals to modernise the way in which they 

communicate with their members and to enable them to 

prosper. The Legislative Reform (Industrial and Provident 

Societies and Credit Unions) Order 2010 has been a 

long time coming. It will be re-laid before Parliament

337WH 




338WH 

[Mr Hoban] 

next month and will introduce many quite basic, yet 

far-reaching reforms that will enable credit unions to 

modernise and grow. 

Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con): Will the 

Minister give way? 

Mr Hoban: I know that my hon. Friend, as chairman 

of the all-party parliamentary group on credit unions, 

will have a great deal to say on this matter, but may I 

just finish my point? I may even be able to answer his 

intervention before he makes it. 

One of the biggest changes will be to allow credit 

unions to admit corporate bodies to their membership. 

Those new members will be able to deposit in and 

borrow from their local credit union, which provides 

opportunities for investment and growth in communities. 

Alongside that, various deregulatory measures relax the 

rules on age limits for memberships, year-end dates and 

the ability to offer interest on deposits. These proposals 

should increase the appeal of local credit unions to the 

local community and increase their steadily expanding 

membership still further. 

Damian Hinds: Many of us are waiting with excited 

anticipation for the legislative reform order. What expanded 

role does the Minister see credit unions potentially 

playing as a result of the changes in the legislative 

reform order both in a big society context and in 

encouraging enterprise because of being able to work 

with corporate bodies as well as individuals? 

Mr Hoban: It would be a way for credit unions to 

make the greatest opportunity of this. We are trying to 

open up more possibilities for the financial and mutual 

sector through a number of our measures. I go back to 

the debate about capital. One of the challenges that I 

put to the building society sector and others is that if it 

had the opportunity to raise more capital, what would 

it do with it. How would it benefit more people as a 

consequence of having that flexibility? I say to my hon. 

Friend that corporate members could include charities 

and voluntary groups, and their deposits could help 

credit unions to expand their base, so that they can lend 

more to local communities. There is an opportunity 

there for the voluntary service to help expand that base. 

That will also help to create a much more viable credit 

union sector. Like me, my hon. Friend will have had 

conversations with Mark Lyonette, who wants to make 

sure that we move the credit union sector on to a much 

more stable and viable footing, enabling it to take 

deposits from others and pay interest on them. 

Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op): The Minister may 

be aware that in Wales everybody has access to a credit 

union. Has his Department made any study of the 

policy of the Welsh Assembly in that regard? 

Mr Hoban: That point about access to credit unions 

in Wales was made before the hon. Gentleman came 

into Westminster Hall for the debate. We need to learn 

the lessons. The Treasury is very open to new ideas and 

any thoughts that he has about why Wales has that 

degree of access to credit unions would be much 

appreciated. 

We will also implement the Co-operative and Community 

Benefit Societies and Credit Unions Act 2010 once the 

legislative reform order comes into force. That will 

modernise the industrial and provident society name 

and the powers available to update the legislation in the 

future. Other reforms include a consultation on the use 

of electronic communications in the mutual sector. 

That consultation closed at the end of January, and we 

will lay an order shortly to enable mutual societies to 

have the option of using electronic communications to 

engage with their members, which would reduce their 

costs. 

Before I go on to talk about the regulatory framework, 

let me address the issue of Northern Rock. That issue 

was raised in the Treasury Committee, and I am aware 

of the work that has been done on it by Kellogg college. 

There is a degree of elegant circularity about remutualising 

Northern Rock, given its antecedence. But of course the 

responsibility for managing the Government’s investment 

in Northern Rock rests with United Kingdom Financial 

Investments Ltd. UKFI gave evidence to the Select 

Committee, and if the hon. Member for Harrow West 

reads the transcript of that sitting, he will see that it is 

open to ideas about the remutualisation of Northern 

Rock. The principal objective of UKFI is to promote 

and create value for taxpayers from its management of 

our stakes in banks, but it also has to pay due regard to 

financial stability and act in a way that promotes 

competition. Clearly a remutualised Northern Rock 

might help it to do those things. 

Mr Thomas rose— 

Mr Hoban: Before I give way to the hon. Gentleman, 

I will just say that the taxpayer has a £1.4 billion stake 

in Northern Rock, so any solution in terms of 

remutualisation would need to identify a clear way in 

which the taxpayer would receive a return on that 

investment. Furthermore, it is not clear how a large 

Government shareholding in a mutual would affect 

mutual status. 

Mr Thomas: As I said in my opening remarks, I 

absolutely acknowledge the point about the taxpayers’ 

interest in Northern Rock. However, rather than just 

allowing the people at UKFI to sit there waiting for 

ideas, will he write to them and specifically ask them to 

conduct a feasibility study into the remutualisation of 

Northern Rock, addressing the taxpayer issue that he 

quite rightly mentioned as well as other wider issues? 

Will he take proactive action on this issue? 

Mr Hoban: If the hon. Gentleman reads the transcript 

of the evidence given by UKFI to the Treasury Committee, 

he will know that remutualisation is very much on its 

agenda. In conjunction with Northern Rock, it is about 

to appoint advisers to advise it on the disposal process. I 

know that UKFI is looking at remutualisation. However, 

I have yet to see a proposal that demonstrates why 

remutualisation is in the interests of taxpayers. Nevertheless, 

we are open-minded on this issue, and we will wait to 

see a viable proposal emerge. 

Regarding the regulatory framework for mutuals, we 

will bring Northern Ireland credit unions within the 

regulatory structure that is in place in the rest of Great 

Britain. That will enhance consumer protection and

339WH 




340WH 

ensure that those credit unions become part of the 

Financial Services Compensation Scheme, which will 

enable their members to appeal to the Financial 

Ombudsman Service. It will also enable those credit 

unions to seek approval to enter new markets and 

therefore help them to grow. In addition, we are looking 

at the registration and regulation of industrial and 

provident societies as part of our review of the regulatory 

architecture. I know that that is a concern of the co-operative 

movement and we will seek views on it shortly. 

The hon. Member for Harrow West raised the issue 

of an objective on diversity for the new regulatory 

structure. Again, that point has been raised with me 

before. My concern is to ensure that the new regulators, 

learning from the mistakes of the past, focus on what 

matters—confidence in financial services, and the stability 

and soundness of institutions. That should be their 

driving force and I do not think that an objective on 

diversity would fit within the new framework. 

We want to see mutuals grow and thrive. We are 

introducing measures on legislative reform and new 

capital levels, and we are offering greater support to the 

mutual sector. Mutuals have a big role to play in the 

future development of financial services, and this 

Government are keen to do all we can to ensure that 

they continue to provide an important service to 

communities across the UK. 


5.14 pm 

Sitting adjourned.

77WS 

Written Ministerial Statements 



78WS 

Written Ministerial 

Statements 


CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT 

50th Horserace Betting Levy 

The Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media 

and Sport (Mr Jeremy Hunt): On 1 November 2010 the 

Chairman of the Horserace Betting Levy Board (“the 

HBLB”) informed me that the HBLB had been unable 

to approve a recommendation from the Bookmakers’ 

Committee as to the terms of the 50th levy scheme. 

Under section 1(2) of the Horserace Betting Levy Act 

1969, therefore, it falls to me to determine those terms. 

I have considered the parties’ submissions, taking 

into account their representations on what target amount 

would reflect the capacity of bookmakers to pay, what 

it is reasonable to expect bookmakers to pay and what 

the reasonable needs of horseracing are in all the 

circumstances. 

Under section l(3)(a) of the Act, I have decided to 

determine a new levy scheme for the 50th levy period 

(running from April 2011 to March 2012), under which 

the following terms will apply: 

The headline rate of levy will increase by 7.5% from 10% to 

10.75% for licensed betting offices (“LBOs”) as well as for 

telephone and internet betting operators (including betting 

exchanges). 

The “threshold” level beneath which LBOs pay an abated 

rate of levy will be reduced to £50,000. 

The levy will continue to be payable only in respect of profits 

arising on bets placed in relation to British horseracing. 

The rate of levy for bookmakers who derive their gross 

profit from spread betting businesses will increase by 7.5% 

from 2% to 2.15% 

The flat fee for on-course bookmakers will increase (in line 

with RPI) to £210, whereas those bookmakers standing 

solely at point-to-point events, harness racing and/or trotting 

the flat fee will increase (in line with RPI) to £166. 

The amount payable in advance by LBOs, telephone and 

internet betting operators will continue to be calculated on 

the basis of their liability under previous schemes—subject 

to an uplift of 7.5%. 

I estimate that this will produce levy proceeds of 

between £73.7 million—£80.8 million (with a mid-range 

figure of £77.25 million), and believe that terms outlined 

above represent a fair deal for bookmakers and horseracing. 

I am today writing to the Bookmakers’ Committee, 

British horseracing and the Government-appointed 

Members of the HBLB to thank them for their submissions 

and explain my decision in more detail. I will also ask 

that the HBLB finalise the operational details of the 

scheme as a matter of urgency. 

With the determination concluded, I would like to 

re-state my disappointment that the relevant parties 

were not themselves able to come to terms and I would 

strongly encourage them to develop a less adversarial 

relationship going forward. I have tried to be fair by 

listening to the advice of the independent members of 

the levy board and I will continue to be guided by their 

advice in future years until what should be a straightforward 

commercial negotiation can be taken permanently out 

of the hands of Ministers. 

DEFENCE 

Chemical Weapons Convention 

(Protective Programmes) 

The Minister for the Armed Forces (Nick Harvey): 

The UK’s chemical protection programme is designed 

to protect against the use of chemical weapons. Such a 

programme is permitted by the chemical weapons 

convention, with which the United Kingdom is fully 

compliant. Under the terms of the convention, we 

are required to provide information annually to the 

Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons 

(OPCW). In accordance with the Government’s 

commitment to openness, I am placing in the Library of 

the House, a copy of the summary that has been provided 

to the organisation outlining the UK’s chemical protection 

programme in 2010. 

Defence Infrastructure Organisation 

The Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Liam Fox): I 

am announcing today that I intend to set up a new 

defence infrastructure organisation (DIO) on 1 April 

this year. We will now launch a consultation process 

with the MOD trade unions. 

The new organisation will bring together some 7,000 staff 

currently working on construction, maintenance and 

utilities management and the disposal of land and 

buildings across the Department. 

By making these changes we expect to save about 

2,500 posts by 2014 and some £1.2 billion over the first 

four years alone, without reducing the effectiveness or 

reliability of the service we deliver. This measure will 

make a significant contribution to the civilian staff 

reductions and efficiency measures set out last October 

in the strategic defence and security review. 

This is the first such change emerging from the work 

of the defence reform unit under Lord Levene designed 

to overhaul the structure of the Department. It is a 

significant change, and demonstrates the radical approach 

to reorganisation and resourcing which we are taking to 

ensure that we maximise the amount of the defence 

budget made available for the front line. I hope to 

announce further such changes in the near future. 

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE 

General Affairs Council/Foreign Affairs Council 

The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington): The 

Foreign Affairs Council and General Affairs Council 

will meet in Brussels on 21 February. My right hon. 

Friend the Foreign Secretary will attend the Foreign 

Affairs Council. I will attend the General Affairs Council. 

GENERAL AFFAIRS COUNCIL (GAC) 

February and March European Councils 

Ministers will discuss follow-up to the February European 

Council, which covered energy, innovation and Egypt. 

Following the Council, the Prime Minister reported the

79WS 




80WS 

outcomes to the House in his statement on the “EU 

Council and North Africa”. The statement can be found 

at the following link: 

http://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2011/february/ 

statement-on-eu-council-and-north-africa. 

The conclusions of the February European Council 

meeting can be found at: 

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/ 

pressdata/en/ec/l 19175.pdf. 

They will also discuss preparation for the March 

European Council. The formal agenda has not yet been 

published. However, we expect discussions at the Council 

to focus on: 

legislative proposals for economic governance in the eurozone; 

European Council decision amending article 136 of the 

treaty on the functioning of the European Union and 

intergovernmental arrangements setting up the European 

stability mechanism. 

These were agreed at the December European Council, 

see link: 

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms data/docs/pressdata/ 

en/ec/118578.pdf. 

Cohesion 

Ministers will review the fifth cohesion report and the 

ongoing public consultation. The report and details of 

the public consultation can be found at: 

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docoffic/official/ 

reports/cohesion5/index_en.cfm. 

The Government are in the process of forming a 

response, which will be presented to Parliament in due 

course. 

FOREIGN AFFAIRS COUNCIL (FAC) 

EU-UN 

Ministers will be briefed on informal consultations 

held in New York on 14 February between EU member 

states and the wider UN membership on the draft EU 

resolution on the “participation of the EU in the work 

of the UN”. 

EU human rights 

Baroness Ashton will brief Ministers on the EU’s 

priorities for the forthcoming session of the UN Human 

Rights Council. These are likely to include securing 

Council adoption of strong resolutions expressing concern 

at the human rights situation in Burma and the DPRK, 

and resolutions promoting children’s rights and freedom 

of religion. 

EU Southern Neighbourhood (Egypt/Tunisia) 

This is an opportunity for Ministers to follow-up the 

February European Council debate on Egypt and Tunisia 

and take stock of the recent momentous events. Baroness 

Ashton is visiting the region this week and will set out 

her thoughts on the way ahead for the EU. A number of 

options for EU support to the region are being considered, 

including election monitoring and a re-evaluation of 

the European neighbourhood partnership (the EU’s 

main vehicle for promoting reform in the region). We 

want to see an ambitious package of support to the 

region, but would also like to see more conditionality 

attached to this assistance; as the Prime Minister emphasised 

to Parliament on 8 February when he reported back on 

the February European Council. 

Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) 

We expect Baroness Ashton and Commissioner Fule 

to follow-up the discussion in last July’s FAC (which I 

reported in my written ministerial statement) of a reinforced 

EU presence in BiH, by providing more information 

about EU planning in this regard. The Government 

agree that there should be a reinforced EU presence in 

BiH, able to deploy deterrents as well as the incentives 

inherent in the EU accession process. We will therefore 

support proposals for the development of an “EU 

toolbox” of positive and negative measures. We believe 

that in parallel, the civilian executive (“Bonn”) powers 

need to be retained, that the conditionality for eventual 

closure of the Office of the High Representative continue 

to apply, and that the executive mandate of the EU 

military force, EUFOR Operation Althea, should be 

upheld. We will continue to insist on these points in EU 

and wider international negotiation. 

Sahel 

We expect Ministers to be presented with a draft 

security and development strategy for the Sahel region, 

which they requested at the last October’s FAC. The 

murder of two French nationals in Niger in January 

and the kidnap of an Italian in Algeria this month 

underscore the severity of the terrorist threat in the 

region. Baroness Ashton reacted to the first event in the 

following statement on 19 January: 

http://www.europa-eu-un.org/articles/en/article_10584_en.htm. 

Somalia 

Baroness Ashton is expected to give an oral presentation 

of the outline of the EEAS’s Horn of Africa strategy. 

The strategy is expected to focus on regional and crosscutting 

issues, looking in particular at the main causes 

of conflict and poverty. There will be a more substantive 

discussion at the March FAC, where we expect the 

adoption of formal conclusions. 

Freedom of Religion 

Following discussion at the 31 January FAC, we 

expect conclusions to be adopted on the issue of 

“Intolerance, discrimination and violence on the basis 

of religion or belief”. We believe these conclusions 

should send a strong statement of the Council’s concern 

at instances of persecution or discrimination based on 

religion and its commitment to upholding the right to 

freedom of religion or belief. 

Iran: human rights 

EU member states will discuss the deteriorating human 

rights situation in Iran, particularly following the 

unacceptable execution of dual Dutch/Iranian national 

Baahrami. Baroness Ashton released a statement on 

behalf of the EU on 27 January: 

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms Data/docs/pressdata/ 

en/cfsp/118966.pdf. 

Middle East Peace Process 

Baroness Ashton is likely to provide an update on 

preparations for the March Quartet meeting and report 

on her recent visit to the middle east. There is also likely 

to be a discussion of the implications of wider developments 

in the region for the MEPP. 

The Foreign Secretary will also brief his counterparts 

on his visit to Tunisia, Jordan, Yemen, UAE and Bahrain. 

Related press releases can be found on the Foreign and 

Commonwealth Office’s website: www.fco.gov.uk.

81WS 




82WS 

Zimbabwe 

There is a possibility of a short discussion of Zimbabwe, 

following the adoption of renewed EU targeted measures. 

A full written ministerial statement on this will be laid 

before the House shortly. 

Hungarian Presidency (Priorities) 

The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington): Iam 

keen to keep hon. Members fully informed on the 

European Union. I would therefore like to draw hon. 

Members’ attention to a letter to the Chair of the 

European Scrutiny Committee and note on the priorities 

of the Hungarian presidency of the European Union, 

which have been placed in the Library of the House. 

I have deposited a copy of the Hungarian presidency 

strategic framework, and a calendar of forthcoming 

events from the presidency. 

Legalisation Office 

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth 

Office (Mr Jeremy Browne): From 1 April 2011 the 

Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) legalisation 

office in Milton Keynes will only accept applications 

received by post and will process all straightforward 

applications within 24 hours (excluding postal times). 

Updated guidance on how to submit applications will 

be on the legalisation office website from 1 March. 

A majority of customers already send their applications 

by post—they will see the turnaround time halved from 

48 to 24 hours. A third of customers come to the office 

in person—they will now need to submit their applications 

by post. 

Ten per cent. of customers are businesses who currently 

have their applications processed within 24 hours. Business 

customers who submit large volumes of documents on 

a daily basis can pre-register to have access to a drop-off 

and pick-up facility at Milton Keynes with the same 

24 hours turnaround. There will be no charge to customers 

for this service. There will be no change to the service 

offered at the legalisation office at Centre Point in 

central London which serves business customers only. 

This change is driven by a desire to ensure that we 

can provide the most efficient service possible. At present 

these three different service levels are offered all for the 

same price. This change moves to a single service level 

for a single price. Over time the changes may also 

deliver efficiency savings by removing the costs associated 

with maintaining a public area. 

Legalisation is the official confirmation that the signature, 

stamp or seal on a UK document is genuine. The 

legalisation does not certify the authenticity of a document 

or give Foreign and Commonwealth Office approval of 

its content. Legalisation is usually required by foreign 

authorities before they will allow a UK document to be 

used for official purposes in their country. The legalisation 

office is the only competent authority in the UK to 

issue legalisation or apostille certificates in the UK. 

Pope’s Visit (Costs) 

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign 

and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Henry Bellingham): 

I wish to inform the House that the Foreign and 

Commonwealth Office (FCO) is today publishing a 

report of the non-policing costs handled by the FCO on 

behalf of Her Majesty’s Government and the Catholic 

Church during the Visit of His Holiness Pope Benedict 

XVI to the United Kingdom which took place from 16 

to 19 September 2010. 

This was an historic visit, as the first ever official visit 

by a Pope to the UK, and an important milestone in the 

relationship between the UK and the Holy See. It was 

on a far bigger scale than a normal state visit: police 

estimates suggest that 500,000 people saw the Pope 

either during events or along the Pope mobile routes. 

Approximately 3,000 media representatives were accredited 

to cover the visit. The combination of official events, 

pastoral events, through which the Pope engaged with 

Britain’s Roman Catholics, and meetings with the Church 

of England and with people of other faiths, made this a 

visit that was out of the ordinary in every way. 

The visit programme included both state and pastoral 

elements. HM Government agreed with the Catholic 

Church that costs would be shared accordingly, with all 

the costs of the pastoral elements of the programme 

met by the church. HM Government met the costs of 

events which were entirely part of the state visit programme 

and contributed to the costs of other events in relation 

to measures necessary to meet HM Government’s 

responsibility for the safety and security of the public 

and of the Pope. The Scottish Government also contributed 

in relation to these measures for the Scottish part of the 

programme. 

The report consists of: 

An exchange of letters and an agreement on division of 

costs for public events signed by Lord Patten of Barnes and 

Archbishop Nichols prior to the visit. The second appendix 

is not attached as it is a draft budget which is superseded by 

the summary of expenditure attached to this statement 

(referenced below) 

A summary of expenditure made by the FCO on behalf of 

HM Government and the Catholic Church. To date, all these 

costs have been met by the FCO. The bishops’ conferences of 

England and Wales and Scotland on behalf of the Catholic 

Church have undertaken to refund its share of these costs by 

the end of February. 

This report does not include the estimated £3,800,000 for 

costs paid direct by the Catholic Church. Neither does it 

cover any expenditure met by local authorities nor staffing 

costs incurred by other Government Departments. 

In addition to the costs outlined in the report the 

Scottish Government also contributed towards the cost 

of the Scottish part of the programme. 

I am placing the report in the Library of the House. 

It will also be published on the Foreign and Commonwealth 

Office website (www.fco.gov.uk). 

The visit paved the way for further co-operation 

between the UK and the Holy See on a number of 

international issues where we share a common goal, 

including addressing the challenge of climate change, 

promoting multi-faith dialogue, as a means of working 

for peace in the world, and fighting poverty and disease. 

These were among the issues discussed both in bilateral 

meetings during the visit and at the working dinner with 

the papal delegation hosted by my right hon. Friend the 

Foreign Secretary. 

The success of the visit was a testament to the close 

co-operation and effective joint working by the Catholic 

Church, HM Government and many other organisations

83WS 




84WS 

and individuals throughout the UK. I wish to place on 

record HM Government’s gratitude to all those who 

worked together to achieve that success. 

Zimbabwe 

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth 

Affairs (Mr William Hague): The EU has announced 

today its decision to roll over the Zimbabwe restrictive 

and appropriate measures. Following an in-depth assessment 

the UK and its EU partners have unanimously agreed 

to the renewal of the measures for a further 12 months, 

while removing 35 people from the list of those subject 

to an EU visa ban and asset freeze on the grounds that 

they are no longer involved in human rights abuses or 

undermining democracy or the rule of law. 

Although this amendment reflects the progress made 

by the Government of Zimbabwe on economic issues 

and in delivering public services it also reflects our 

strong concern that this has not been matched by equivalent 

political and democratic reform. Essential reforms to 

promote the rule of law, human rights and democracy, 

as agreed under the global political agreement, have not 

yet been implemented. We are particularly concerned at 

the upsurge in political violence and intimidation in 

recent weeks. We have, therefore, extended the travel 

restrictions and asset freeze applicable to the remaining 

163 people and 31 economic entities for a further 12 

months. The arms’ embargo remains in place and EU 

and UK bilateral development aid will continue to be 

channelled directly to the people of Zimbabwe through 

the UN and non-state actors, rather than through the 

Government of Zimbabwe. 

The UK and our EU partners emphasise our willingness 

to revisit the measures at any time should there be 

further concrete developments on the ground in Zimbabwe. 

In this context, we fully support the Southern African 

Development Community and its member states in 

their effort to facilitate agreement amongst the parties 

in Zimbabwe on creating an environment conducive to 

the holding of free and fair elections. 

Britain remains a committed friend to the people of 

Zimbabwe. We gave our largest ever aid package to 

Zimbabwe last year and the DFID Secretary of State 

recently signalled that the UK would significantly increase 

its development effort in Zimbabwe over the next four 

years if there are free and fair elections and a reforming 

Government in place. 

HEALTH 

Acupuncture, Herbal Medicine and Traditional 

Chinese Medicine 

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley): 

The issue of whether or not practitioners of acupuncture, 

herbal medicine and traditional Chinese medicine should 

be statutorily regulated has been debated since the 

House of Lords’ Select Committee on Science and 

Technology’s report in 2000 recommended statutory 

regulation for the first two of these groups. 

We have today published an analysis of the 2009 

consultation by the four United Kingdom Health 

Departments which sought views on the possible regulation 

of practitioners of acupuncture, herbal medicine and 

traditional Chinese medicine. This factual report has 

been placed in the Library and can be found on the 

Department of Health’s website at: 

www.dh.gov.uk/en/Consultations/ 

Responsestoconsultations/DH_124337 

Copies are available to hon. Members from the Vote 

Office and to noble Lords from the Printed Paper Office. 

I can now set out how we intend to take forward the 

regulation of herbal medicine practitioners and traditional 

Chinese medicines practitioners, specifically with regard 

to the use of unlicensed herbal medicines within their 

practice. As this matter is a devolved matter in Scotland 

and Northern Ireland we have had discussions with 

Health Departments in the three devolved Administrations 

which have been constructive and we are committed to 

a unified UK-wide approach to the regulation of these 

practitioners. 

When the European Directive 2004/24/EC takes full 

effect in April 2011 it will no longer be legal for herbal 

practitioners in the UK to source unlicensed manufactured 

herbal medicines for their patients. This Government 

wish to ensure that the public can continue to have 

access to these products. 

In order to achieve this, while at the same time 

complying with EU law, some form of statutory regulation 

will be necessary and I have therefore decided to ask the 

Health Professions Council to establish a statutory 

register for practitioners supplying unlicensed herbal 

medicines. This will ensure that practitioners meet specified 

registration standards. Practitioner regulation will be 

underpinned by a strengthened system for regulating 

medicinal products. This approach will give practitioners 

and consumers continuing access to herbal medicines. 

It will do this by allowing us to use a derogation in the 

European legislation to set up a UK scheme to permit 

and regulate the supply, via practitioners, of unlicensed 

manufactured herbal medicines to meet individual patient 

needs. 

The Health Professions Council is an established and 

experienced statutory regulatory body which has the 

necessary experience to be able to successfully establish 

and maintain a statutory register for practitioners wishing 

to supply unlicensed herbal medicines. Subject to 

parliamentary approval, such practitioners who wish to 

supply unlicensed herbal products will be required by 

law to register with the HPC. 

The four UK Health Departments will consult jointly 

on the draft legislation once it is prepared. This will give 

practitioners and the public the opportunity to comment. 

Subject to parliamentary procedures we will aim to 

have the legislation in place in 2012. 

Until the new arrangements are in place the Medicines 

and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) 

will continue to take appropriate compliance and 

enforcement action where products are in breach of the 

regulatory requirements. In line with the MHRA’s normal 

approach, the action taken will be proportionate and 

will target products which pose a public health risk. 

Guidance issued by the MHRA makes clear their view 

that, where practitioners hold stocks of unlicensed products 

on 30 April 2011 that legally benefited from transitional

85WS 




86WS 

arrangements under the European directive, the practitioner 

can continue to sell those existing supplies to their 

patients. 

The 2009 consultation also looked at practitioners of 

acupuncture. The practice of acupuncture is not affected 

by the EU directive and, therefore, compliance is not 

required. I am confident that acupuncturists have their 

own voluntary regulatory measures in place which are 

sufficiently robust. Additionally, local authorities in 

England have powers to regulate the hygiene of the 

practice of acupuncture to protect against the risk of 

transmission of certain infectious diseases. Similar measures 

are also in place in Scotland, Wales and Northern 

Ireland. 

I am pleased to say that this decision resolves a 

long-standing issue, to the benefit of both practitioners 

and the public who use herbal medicines. 

JUSTICE 

Health Care Workers, Social Workers and 

Social Care Workers 

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley): 

Safe, respectful and effective care is essential and should 

be what all users of health and social care services 

experience. 

The vast majority of those who work in health and 

social care are committed individuals with a strong 

sense of professionalism who aspire to deliver the highest 

standards. However, where there is poor practice or 

behaviour that presents a risk to the public, it is vital 

that swift action is taken, whether by employers, or by 

national regulatory bodies. 

Ensuring a strong and effective system for regulating 

health and social care professionals is one of the 

cornerstones of our strategy for delivering improved 

outcomes for people who use health and social care 

services. The current system of professional regulation 

helps to ensure this by setting high standards of education, 

training, conduct and ethics and by taking action to 

remove unsuitable workers in the rare cases when things 

go wrong. Regulation of health care workers and social 

workers therefore makes an important contribution to 

safeguarding the public, including vulnerable children 

and adults. 

However, the regulatory framework is also complex, 

expensive and requires continuous Government intervention 

to keep it up to date. More generally, reducing regulation 

is a key priority for the coalition Government. By 

freeing society from unnecessary laws, the Government 

aim to create a better balance of responsibilities between 

the state, business, civil society and individuals, and to 

encourage people to take greater personal responsibility 

for their actions. 

While regulation of some professionals is vital to 

ensure high standards of care, it is only one component 

of a wider system of safeguards, controls and clinical 

governance and ultimate responsibility for the provision 

of high quality services must rest with employers and 

those contracting with health and social care workers. 

We believe that the approach to professional regulation 

must be proportionate and effective, imposing the least 

cost and complexity consistent with securing safety and 

confidence for patients, service users, carers and the 

wider public. 

I have today laid before Parliament a Command 

Paper,“EnablingExcellence—AutonomyandAccountability 

for Healthcare Workers, Social Workers and Social Care 

Workers”(Cm 8008) setting out the Government’s proposals 

for how the system for regulating health care workers 

across the United Kingdom and social workers in England 

should be reformed, to sustain and develop the high 

professional standards of those practitioners and to 

continue to assure the safety of those using services and 

the rest of the public. 

The reforms, many of which are being progressed 

through the Health and Social Care Bill, will give 

greater independence to those who work in health care 

across the UK and social care in England, to their 

employers, and to the professional regulatory bodies; 

balanced by more effective accountability in how they 

exercise that freedom. 

We will seek to drive up standards for some groups of 

unregulated health and social care workers to improve 

service users’ experience through a system of assured 

voluntary registration. Employers and commissioners 

will be able to give preference to workers on voluntary 

registers to ensure that they contract with suitably skilled 

and qualified workers. In line with the Government’s 

overall social work reform programme, the proposals 

will also strengthen social work as a profession in 

England. 

“Enabling Excellence—Autonomy and Accountability 

for Healthcare Workers, Social Workers and Social 

Care Workers” is available to hon. Members from the 

Vote Office and to noble Lords from the Printed Paper 

Office. 

HOME DEPARTMENT 

Access to Elected Office Consultation 

The Secretary of State for the Home Department 

(Mrs Theresa May): Today the Government are publishing 

a consultation paper, co-produced with Equality 2025 1 

and disability organisations, which seeks views on the 

additional support which can be offered to disabled 

people who wish to become elected representatives. 

We want to ensure that our democracy is diverse and 

that we have a political system which better reflects the 

people it serves. To this end, the coalition programme 

contained an important commitment to introduce 

additional support for disabled people “who want to 

become MPs, councillors or other elected officials”. 

This commitment was borne from the recognition that 

the 10 million and more disabled people in the UK are 

under-represented in public life. It also follows the 

recommendations made by the cross-party Speaker’s 

conference in January 2010 on how to improve the 

representation of women, disabled people and minority 

ethnic people in the House of Commons. 

In order to produce an effective strategy, we need to 

establish the practical support needed by disabled candidates 

to encourage greater participation in public and political 

life. This consultation is an opportunity for us to seek a

87WS 




88WS 

diverse range of views, from disabled people themselves 

and others, on the measures which would make a real 

difference. 

The consultation paper sets out a range of proposals 

including the establishment of a fund to support disabilityrelated 

costs. This will not, however, replace existing 

obligations for parties under the Equality Act 2010/ 

Disability Discrimination Act 1995. In addition to helping 

break down financial barriers, the proposals are intended 

to address some of the wider obstacles faced by disabled 

people who seek elected office, for example introducing 

measures to raise awareness and tackle attitudes which 

might discourage disabled people from putting themselves 

forward for election. 

The proposals will apply to: English local elections, 

Greater London authority (GLA) elections, English 

mayoral elections, police and crime commissioners and 

all candidates from all parts of the UK who are seeking 

elected positions at UK Westminster elections. We would 

continue to work with colleagues in the devolved legislatures 

to help best practice from this strategy to be embedded 

in the electoral practices for their elections. 

The consultation will run for a period of 12 weeks, 

until 11 May. A consultation document and instructions 

for responding can be found on the Government Equalities 

Office website at www.equalities.gov.uk and a copy has 

been placed in the Library of the House. 

A summary of the results of this consultation will be 

published on the Government Equalities Office website 

within three months of the end of the consultation 

period. 

1 

Government’s advisory body on disability issues 

JUSTICE 

Appointment of the next Information Commissioner 

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice 

(Mr Jonathan Djanogly): My right hon. Friend the 

Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, Lord McNally, 

has made the following written ministerial statement: 

“On 7 January 2011, the Government announced their intention 

to enhance the independence of the Information Commissioner 

as part of a wider package of measures to extend the Freedom of 

Information Act. Additionally, I wish to announce to the House 

today that the Government will strengthen the role of Parliament 

in the appointment of the next Commissioner in 2014. For this 

appointment, the Government will offer the Justice Select Committee 

a pre-appointment hearing with the preferred candidate and will 

accept the Committee’s conclusion on whether or not the candidate 

should be appointed. This will make the appointment process 

more open and transparent and enhance the independence of the 

office. 

The Information Commissioner plays a vital role in promoting 

transparency and protecting the rights of individuals in relation 

to their personal data. The Government are fully committed to an 

independent Commissioner and the critical role he plays as a 

champion and protector of information rights. 

The Commissioner is already entirely independent in the decisions 

he takes to enforce the legislation he regulates. However, the 

provisions to be included in the (Protection of Freedoms) Bill will 

further enhance his day-to-day corporate and administrative 

independence. The Commissioner will no longer need to seek the 

consent of the Justice Secretary on issues relating to staff appointments, 

charging for certain services, or before issuing certain statutory 

codes of practice under the Data Protection Act. Changes will 

also be made to the terms of the Commissioner’s appointment 

and tenure to increase transparency and protect against any 

potential undue influence. 

Taken together, these steps—to be underpinned by a revised 

framework document outlining the day-to-day relationship between 

Government and the Information Commissioner—will result in a 

real and tangible enhancement to his independence”. 

TRANSPORT 

Crossrail (Woolwich Station) 

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Philip 

Hammond): I am pleased to inform the House today of 

a positive conclusion to discussions with Berkeley Homes 

on the funding of Woolwich station box. 

In 2007, an initial agreement was reached between 

Crossrail Ltd, the Department for Transport, Transport 

for London and Berkeley Homes. This agreement stated 

that Berkeley Homes would build the basic box structure 

of a station at Woolwich and subsequently construct 

their own extensive mixed-use development above it. 

This would be done at Berkeley Homes’ cost and risk, 

to the specification laid down by Crossrail Ltd, in a way 

that ensured that the Woolwich station box did not add 

to the current cost of Crossrail. This agreement was 

outlined to Parliament by the then Secretary of State 

for Transport in March 2007. 

The Department for Transport, Crossrail Limited, 

Transport for London, and Berkeley Homes, have in 

recent months been working urgently to turn this initial 

agreement into a final, legally binding, agreement. 

I am therefore pleased to inform the House today 

that a final agreement has now been reached by all 

parties. This means that engineering work on Woolwich 

station box can now proceed and the benefit of Crossrail 

investment can be secured for the residents of Woolwich. 

In due course, fit-out of the Woolwich station box 

would be required to bring it to operational status. 

Government are clear that, in line with the 2007 agreement, 

no additional public sector contribution can be made 

available to fund the fit-out of the station box. Instead, 

the fit-out is conditional on receiving sufficient funding 

contributions from developers and businesses operating 

in the area. Berkeley Homes has an obligation to enter 

into discussions with Department for Transport, Transport 

for London, Crossrail Ltd and Greenwich council, in 

order to provide for the subsequent fitting-out of the 

station box. All parties, including Berkeley Homes, have 

made clear that they understand and support this position. 

I shall update the House as and when progress is 

made in relation to the private sector funding of the 

station fit-out. 

Informal EU Transport Council 

The Minister of State, Department for Transport 

(Mrs Theresa Villiers): I attended the Informal Meeting 

of EU Transport Ministers, organised by the Hungarian 

presidency in Budapest and Gödöllo on 7 and 8 February. 

The theme was: “TEN-T revision: towards a long-term, 

well-balanced European transport network”.

89WS 




90WS 

In the plenary debates, I put forward the UK view 

that the future TEN-T budget should take account of 

the aftermath of the financial crisis and the need to put 

recovery on a strong footing. EU funding will be limited 

and should be focused on projects that deliver real 

benefits to the network. Cost benefit analysis should 

inform funding decisions. Member states should aim to 

do more with less, concentrating on projects that deliver 

the best value for money. We think that the current 

model should be followed, focusing funding on the core 

network, with some funding also available for the 

comprehensive network. 

In the debate on the role of PPPs, I pointed out that 

PPP is only appropriate in selected circumstances, 

implementation can present challenges and requires a 

high level of commercial skills, and particular attention 

needs to be paid to the long-term budgetary consequences 

of its use. I cited the M6 toll road and River Severn 

crossings as good examples of private investment enabling 

major pieces of infrastructure to be constructed and the 

cost returned through tolling. I said that the UK 

Government are open to tolling as an option for brand 

new alignments, with potential private sector investment, 

but noted that we have ruled out the introduction of a 

national road-user charging scheme (except in relation 

to heavy goods vehicles). 

In the margins of the event I was pleased to be able to 

have a meeting with the vice president of the European 

Commission responsible for transport, Mr Siim Kallas, 

to discuss a range of current issues. 

During my discussion of airport security scanners 

with Mr Kallas, I welcomed the Commission’s general 

approach to the deployment of scanners. We now need 

to move quickly to amend existing European legislation 

to give airports the flexibility to deploy scanners effectively 

and efficiently. The decision on whether to deploy security 

scanners should be for member states. We acknowledge 

health, data protection and privacy concerns and believe 

that these can be addressed through existing European 

and national laws. 

I also discussed the transport aspects of transposition 

of the air quality directive with Mr Kallas. I pointed out 

that, although we are fully committed to improving air 

quality, and we recognise the part that transport has to 

play, we are keen to ensure that the air quality targets 

are properly targeted at improvements in health, and 

are consistent with our ambitious goals to reduce carbon 

and to create growth. 

Basic Carbon Tool (Local Authorities) 

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport 

(Norman Baker): To complement the local transport 

White Paper “Creating Growth, Cutting Carbon”, my 

Department has been working on a basic carbon tool 

for local authorities to assist them in demonstrating the 

carbon benefits of transport interventions in their areas. 

Today, I am pleased to announce the publication of 

the draft basic carbon tool for local authorities on my 

Department’s website 1 . 

The tool fully supports local authorities in making 

their own decisions about the carbon benefits of small-scale 

interventions and enables them to input their own 

assumptions and data from best estimates of take-up 

and effects for their areas. The tool also brings together 

in one place central research on local transport and 

carbon, improves access to national transport data which 

can impact on emissions and simplifies carbon appraisal 

guidance. 

The tool can assist authorities in demonstrating the 

carbon benefits of bids to the local sustainable transport 

fund, but it is for local authorities to decide what tools 

and evidence best meet the criteria and objectives of the 

fund in the context of their overall bids. 

My Department plans to publish the final tool in the 

summer. 

My officials have sent a letter to all local authority 

chief executives inviting views on the tool. A copy of 

this letter has been placed in the House Library. 

1 

The web address is: http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/regional/policy/ 

carbon-tool/xls1/tool.xls

773W 

Written Answers 



774W 

Written Answers to 

Questions 


TRANSPORT 

Airports: Security 

Mr Ellwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport 

what advice his Department issues to security staff at 

airports on the x-raying of shoes. [40916] 

Mrs Villiers [holding answer 14 February 2011]: 

Department for Transport sets the screening requirements 

and the standards that must be applied to ensure that 

those entering airside areas of airports are not carrying 

or concealing a prohibited article. Requirements include 

the screening of shoes, in certain circumstances. 

For reasons of national security it is not possible to 

provide information on the detail of the guidance provided 

on shoe screening either in terms of how and when 

shoes should be selected for x-ray screening, or in terms 

of the screening process itself. 

British Chamber of Shipping: Secondment 

John McDonnell: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Transport how many secondments to his Department 

from the British Chamber of Shipping there have been 

in each year since 1997; for what (a) periods and (b) 

jobs such secondments took place; what secondments 

of staff from his Department have been made to the 

British Chamber of Shipping; and for what (i) periods 

and (ii) jobs such secondments have been made in each 

year since 1997. [40815] 

Mike Penning: There have been no secondments to or 

from the central Department for Transport to or from 

the Chamber of Shipping since 1997. 

From June to September 2006 and April to July 2007, 

two Maritime and Coastguard Agency personnel were 

seconded to the Chamber of Shipping’s Technical and 

Labour Departments. 

Departmental Security 

Jon Trickett: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport 

which persons not employed by Government Departments 

or agencies hold passes entitling them to enter his 

Department’s premises. [39260] 

Norman Baker: Passes may be issued to those who are 

required to make frequent visits to specific Government 

sites, subject to the usual security checks. For security 

reasons, it would not be appropriate to provide details 

of individuals who hold such passes. 

Electric Vehicles 

Huw Irranca-Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Transport what estimate he has made of the emissions 

arising from charging an electric vehicle through traditional 

power sources. [37842] 

Norman Baker: Government research has estimated 

that, when calculated on a well to wheel basis, emissions 

arising from recharging an electric vehicle are up to 40% 

lower than those associated with a petrol equivalent; 

and up to 30% lower than a diesel equivalent. This 

calculation assumes that the recharging is based on a 

standard UK grid mix. 

These reduction figures will automatically improve in 

line with improvements to the environmental performance 

of the national grid. 

Northern Rail: Standards 

Mr Iain Wright: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Transport pursuant to the answer of 8 February 2011, 

Official Report, column 146W, on Northern Rail: standards, 

what information his Department holds on (a) punctuality 

and (b) cancellation of services on the (i) Seaton Carew 

and (ii) Hartlepool Heworth lines; and what data his 

Department uses to monitor quality and timeliness of 

passenger rail services. [40675] 

Mrs Villiers: The Department for Transport does not 

hold punctuality and cancellation information at the 

level of detail requested. 

Network Rail provides a public performance measure 

(PPM) of train punctuality for each train operator 

covering all of an operator’s services. Northern Rail 

provide PPM, cancellation and other train performance 

information at regional service group level to the 

Department for Transport. Seaton Carew and Hartlepool 

stations are in the Tyne, Tees and Wear service group. 

Each of the five passenger transport executives (PTEs) 

assess the quality of delivery of stations and services 

within their area at least every two months. Independent 

auditors undertake service quality audits of Northern’s 

stations and trains at least once per year. All results are 

shared between Northern Rail, the passenger transport 

executives and the Department. 

Railway Stations: Repairs and Maintenance 

Anne Marie Morris: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Transport how many railway stations in Devon have 

been renovated as part of the National Station Improvement 

programme. [39255] 

Mrs Villiers: Five stations in Devon have been identified 

by the industry for improvement under the National 

Stations Improvement programme. Improvements at 

Honiton station are currently underway and improvements 

at Newton Abbott, Exeter St David’s, Exeter Central 

and Plymouth are planned in the future as part of the 

programme. 

Rolling Stock: Expenditure 

Mr Betts: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport 

how much the (a) East Midlands Trains, (b) Northern 

Rail, (c) Cross Country, (d) First TransPennine Express

775W 




776W 

and (e) East Coast rail franchises have paid to rolling 

stock companies since the start of each franchise; and 

how much of that money each rolling stock company 

has spent on rolling stock to be operated by each 

franchise. [41095] 

Mrs Villiers: The rolling stock companies own the 

rolling stock which is then leased to the operators 

during the term of the franchise agreement. The details 

of these agreements are commercially confidential between 

the parties. 

Shipping: Suffolk 

Dr Thérèse Coffey: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Transport what assessment he has made of the (a) 

causes and (b) safety implications of the recent collision 

between a recreational fishing vessel and a tanker off 

the coastline in the Sole Bay area. [41053] 

Mike Penning: On 9 February the 10 million charter 

boat “Chloe-Paige”with two crew was struck off Lowestoft 

by the 200,000-tonne “Zaliv Vostok”tanker while “Chloe- 

Paige” was anchored. 

The Maritime and Coastguard Agency and the Marine 

Accident Investigation Branch are aware of the collision 

and are in the process of gathering information from 

the owner/manager of “Zaliv Vostok”and “Chloe-Paige”. 

South Eastern Trains 

Mr Gale: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport 

if he will publish the performance data for each 

relevant reporting period submitted to his Department 

by Southeastern Trains in respect of the review of the 

continuation of the franchise before any decision is 

taken on its renewal. [41214] 

Mrs Villiers: As part of the work relating to the 

Southeastern continuation review I am considering what 

information will be published. An announcement will 

be made on the results of the continuation review in due 

course. 

INDEPENDENT PARLIAMENTARY 

STANDARDS AUTHORITY COMMITTEE 

Information Officers 

Bob Russell: To ask the hon. Member for Broxbourne, 

representing the Speaker’s Committee for the Independent 

Parliamentary Standards Authority, if he will request 

from the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority 

the career history of those people employed as 

communications officers. [39159] 

Mr Charles Walker: The information requested falls 

within the responsibility of the Independent Parliamentary 

Standards Authority. I have asked IPSA to reply. 

Letter from Scott Woolveridge, dated 11 February 

2011: 

As acting Chief Executive of the Independent Parliamentary 

Standards Authority, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary 

Question asking for publication of the career history of those 

people employed as communications officers for the Independent 

Parliamentary Standards Authority. 

Details of the career history of our Director of Communications 

are available on IPSA’s website. I will not, however, be releasing 

details of the career history of the other two members of the 

communications team as these members of staff do not form part 

of IPSA’s senior management and I consider this to constitute 

personal information which should be treated in accordance with 

the Data Protection Act 1998. 



Parliamentary Standards Authority, how many 

communications officers the Independent Parliamentary 

Standards Authority employs. [39160] 





2011: 

As acting Chief Executive of the Independent Parliamentary 


Question asking, how many communications officers are employed 

by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. 

Our communications team consists of three people. 

Members: Allowances 



Parliamentary Standards Authority, how many apologies 

the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority 

has issued to hon. Members for wrongly rejecting claims 

for expenditure incurred. [39154] 





2011: 

As Acting Chief Executive of the Independent Parliamentary 


Question asking how many apologies the Independent Parliamentary 

Standards Authority has issued to hon. Members for wrongly 

rejecting claims for expenditure incurred. 

IPSA does not keep a record of apologies it has issued for 

wrongly rejecting claims. We do, of course, apologise whenever 

we have acted in error. 



Parliamentary Standards Authority, if the Independent 

Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) will take 

steps to ensure all communications between IPSA and 

hon. Members for the purposes of clarification of a 

submitted claim are required to take place on the telephone. 

[39158] 





2011: 

As Acting Chief Executive of the Independent Parliamentary 


Question asking if the Independent Parliamentary Standards 

Authority (IPSA) will take steps to ensure all communication 

between IPSA and hon. Members for the purposes of clarification 

of a submitted claim is required to take place on the telephone.

777W 




778W 

We have no plans to take such steps. Whilst we do provide 

support and advice to MPs by telephone, we do not believe that it 

is appropriate or beneficial to make this the sole method of 

communication for the purposes suggested. 

HOME DEPARTMENT 

Crime: Drugs 

Clive Efford: To ask the Secretary of State for the 

Home Department (1) what steps she is taking to 

reduce the manufacture of illicit synthetic drugs in the 

UK; and if she will make a statement; [40584] 

(2) what steps she is taking to reduce the number of 

illicit drug factories in local communities; and if she 

will make a statement; [40585] 

(3) what assessment she has made of the effects of 

spending reductions for Safer Neighbourhood Teams 

on steps to reduce the number of illicit drug factories; 

and if she will make a statement. [40586] 

James Brokenshire: The Government take the issue of 

synthetic drugs, including new psychoactive substances 

(so called ‘legal highs’) very seriously. The manufacture 

and trafficking in controlled drugs of all classes need to 

be tackled robustly in order to reduce the harm drugs 

cause to communities and the organised criminality 

associated with their supply. 

On 30 November 2010, we introduced to this House 

legislative proposals, in the Police Reform and Social 

Responsibility Bill, to amend the Misuse of Drugs Act 

1971 with provisions for temporary banning powers on 

new ‘legal highs’. This will give the police and other law 

enforcement agencies the power to act, enabling them to 

seize these drugs and prosecute those who are selling 

them. 

Those caught supplying or trafficking a temporary 

ban drug will be committing a serious offence and 

subject to a maximum of 14 years in prison and an 

unlimited fine. Where an individual is found in possession 

of a temporary ban drug for personal use, police will 

have powers to seize and destroy it. 

Evidence indicates that these synthetic drugs and new 

psychoactive substances are manufactured outside the 

UK and that is why we need to concentrate the full force 

of the law at our borders to stop these drugs from 

getting into the UK. The UK Border Agency are 

undertaking effective enforcement action against those 

criminal gangs who traffic these drugs across our borders, 

by seizing and destroying shipments of illegal drugs and 

those ‘legal highs’ that are subject to an import ban 

under the Open General Import Licence. 

On 1 January 2011, the Home Office launched a 

three-month pilot to explore improvements to the current 

forensic early warning system for identifying new and 

emerging drugs. As part of this pilot, we are introducing 

new forensic technology at the borders to support UK 

Border Agency with the identification of any new drug 

being imported into the UK. 

Investigations into allegations of illegal synthetic drug 

manufacture within the UK is a matter for the police, 

who must prioritise resources towards tackling crime, 

including drug-related crime, with a focus on those 

offences which cause the most harm. Where drug factories 

pose a threat within a community, these will become a 

focus of police activity. 

No formal assessment has been made of the effects of 

spending reductions for safer neighbourhood teams in 

relation to drug enforcement. We have sustained the 

investment in neighbourhood policing funding for the 

next two financial years to ensure police crime 

commissioners (PCCs) inherit strong neighbourhood 

policing infrastructure. 

The exception to this is in London, where the 

Metropolitan police authority will have full autonomy 

over this funding from 2011-12, in recognition of the 

role the Mayor of London and the Deputy Mayor 

already play in policing. There is no need for visible and 

available policing to diminish because of the spending 

settlement, provided that forces focus on driving out 

wasteful spending and increasing efficiency in the back 

office that they can make. 

Driving Under Influence: Drugs 

Mr Offord: To ask the Secretary of State for the 

Home Department what plans her Department has to 

introduce equipment to test motorists suspected of 

driving under the influence of drugs. [41213] 

James Brokenshire: Devices used for this purpose 

must be of a type approved by the Secretary of State. 

We recently issued a specification for a device that could 

be type approved for use at police stations and have 

invited manufacturers to submit devices to the type 

approval process by the end of February. How soon 

devices might gain approval will depend on the response 

of manufacturers and how well their devices perform in 

the rigorous testing regime. It will then be a matter for 

individual chief officers of police to decide on purchase. 

Revenue and Customs: X-rays 

Dr Wollaston: To ask the Secretary of State for the 

Home Department what expenditure HM Revenue and 

Customs incurred in operating X-ray scanners in 

2009-10. [41051] 

Damian Green: The United Kingdom Border Force 

recorded an operating cost for ‘Scientific Aids’ of 

£3.4 million in the financial year 2009-10. 

SCOTLAND 

Petrochemicals 

Michael Connarty: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Scotland what discussions he has had with INEOS 

Grangemouth and PetrocChina on their agreement for 

technology sharing in the field of petro-chemicals. 

[41116] 

David Mundell: The arrangement, including the 

technology sharing agreement, was a commercial matter 

between the two companies. The Government fully 

support an open, market-based approach to the 

development of the downstream oil sector, and welcome 

inward investment that benefits UK companies, providing 

a platform for growth in the wider economy.

779W 




780W 

JUSTICE 

Children: Maintenance 

Mr Evennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice 

how many cases at Bexley magistrates court have 

involved child maintenance issues in the most recent 

period for which figures are available. [40555] 

Mr Djanogly: There were fewer than five financial 

applications made under schedule 1(2) of the Children’s 

Act 1989 (financial provision for children) at Bexley 

Family Proceedings Court during the period January 

2010 to September 2010, which is the latest period for 

which data are available. 

Departmental Carbon Emissions 

Philip Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice 

how much his Department spent on carbon offsetting in 

each of the last three years; and to which companies 

payments for carbon offsetting were made in each such 

year. [40518] 

Mr Djanogly: The Ministry of Justice (MOJ) offsets 

carbon emissions caused by official air travel. Not only 

does this mitigate environmental damage caused by 

aeroplane exhaust emissions, it helps focus the MOJ on 

alternate methods of travel and communication e.g. 

video conferencing. 

The Department of Energy and Climate Change 

handles the tender process for all central Government 

carbon offsetting schemes as part of the UK Sustainable 

Development Strategy. More information on this can 

be found at: 

http://www.defra.gov.uk/sustainable/government/publications/ 

uk-strategy/index.htm 

Phase I of the Government Carbon Offsetting Facility 

covers April 2006 to March 2009. The tender was won 

by Trading Emissions plc and its investment adviser 

EEA Fund Management. In those years, the MOJ 

spent: 

2006-07 607 

2007-08 14,825 

2008-09 14,956 

Phase II of the Government Carbon Offsetting Facility 

covers April 2009 to March 2012. The tender applicable 

to the MOJ was won by EDF Trading for spot purchases 

and Essent Trading International SA for forward purchases. 

The MOJ has so far paid £14,248 for spot purchases 

and £15,574.68 for forward purchases. 

Departmental Public Expenditure 

Sadiq Khan: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice 

what assessment his Department has made of its 

requirements for annually managed expenditure in each 

financial year from 2010-11 to 2014-15. [41334] 

Mr Kenneth Clarke: The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) 

has now received a spending review 2010 funding settlement 

with HM Treasury, covering both resource and capital 

departmental expenditure limits (DEL). This did not 

£ 

include the annually managed expenditure (AME). 

Departmental AME spending is voted on through the 

supply estimates process. 

The MoJ is currently reviewing the AME requirement 

and will be working with HM Treasury to agree suitable 

non cash funding to be voted on through the main 

estimate. 

Drugs: Sentencing 

Clive Efford: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice 

if he will assess the comparative length of sentences 

given to people convicted of (a) possession and (b) 

possession with intent to supply of (i) cocaine, (ii) 

heroin and (iii) ecstasy; and if he will make a statement. 

[40552] 

Mr Blunt: The Sentencing Council is currently developing 

a sentencing guideline on drug offences. An important 

part of that work is an assessment of current sentencing 

practice to inform the guideline, which will be subject to 

public consultation before it is finalised. 

Clive Efford: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice 

what the average length of a sentence given to people 

convicted of (a) possession and (b) possession with 

intent to supply of (i) cocaine, (ii) heroin and (iii) 

ecstasy was in the latest period for which figures are 

available; and if he will make a statement. [40553] 

Mr Blunt: The number of persons found guilty, sentenced 

and the average custodial length of sentence at all 

courts for ‘possession of’, and ‘possession with intent to 

supply’, cocaine, heroin, and ecstasy, England and Wales 

2009 (latest available) is shown in the following table. 

Court proceedings data for 2010 are planned for 

publication in the spring, 2011. 

Number of persons found guilty, sentenced and the average custodial 

sentence length at all courts for offences relating to ‘possession of’ or 

‘possession with intent to supply’ Cocaine, Heroin, Ecstasy, in England 

1, 2, 3 

and Wales, 2009 

Offence description Cocaine Heroin Ecstasy 

Having possession of a 

controlled drug: 

Found guilty 5,606 4,919 631 

Sentenced 4 5,572 4,883 639 

Of which: 

Immediate Custody 240 323 26 

Other sentences 5 5,332 4,560 613 

Average custodial sentence 

length (months) 

8.5 3.8 4.1 

Having possession of a 

controlled drug with intent 

to supply 

Found guilty 1,640 1,190 197 

Sentenced 4 1,670 1,205 203 

Of which: 

Immediate Custody 1,303 953 125 

Other sentences 5 367 252 78 

Average custodial sentence 

length (months) 

36.6 37.6 25.8

781W 




782W 

1 

The following statutes were used for the corresponding offences: 

Having possession of a controlled drug—Cocaine 

Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 S 5.(2) as amended by Criminal Justice 

and Public Order Act 1994 

Having possession of a controlled drug—Heroin 


and Public Order Act 1994 S.157 Sch.8 

Having possession of a controlled drug—MDMA (Ecstasy) 


and Public Order Act 1994 

Having possession of a controlled drug with intent to supply— 

Cocaine 

Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, S.5(3) 


Heroin 

Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. S.5(3) 


MDMA 

Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, S.5(3) 

2 

The figures given in the table on court proceedings relate to persons 

for whom these offences were the principal offences for which they 

were dealt with. When a defendant has been found guilty of two or 

more offences it is the offence for which the heaviest penalty is 

imposed. Where the same disposal is imposed for two or more 

offences, the offence selected is the offence for which the statutory 

maximum penalty is the most severe. 

3 

Every effort is made to ensure that the figures presented are 

accurate and complete. However, it is important to note that these 

data have been extracted from large administrative data systems 

generated by the courts and police forces. As a consequence, care 

should be taken to ensure data collection processes and their 

inevitable limitations are taken into account when those data are 

used. 

4 

The sentenced column may exceed those found guilty as it may be 

the case that a defendant found guilty, and committed for sentence 

at the Crown court, may be sentenced in the following year. 

5 

Absolute and conditional discharge, fine, community sentence, 

suspended sentence and otherwise dealt with. 

Source: 

Justice Statistics Analytical Services, Ministry of Justice. 

Paul Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice 

what assessment he has made of the effects on the 

prison population of implementation of the provisions 

of the Drugs Act 2005. [41033] 

Mr Blunt: An assessment of the Drugs Act 2005 was 

published in September 2010. It was not possible to 

measure the Act’s overall impact on the prison population 

as part of this assessment. However, we do know that 

provisions in the Act have increased the number of 

those drug tested and referred into treatment through 

the Criminal Justice System. 

Building on this, the Government’s sentencing and 

rehabilitation Green Paper and its Drug Strategy both 

include commitments to encourage drug-misusing offenders 

into recovery based treatment. 

In prisons we will: work with health services to reshape 

existing drug treatment; establish drug recovery wings 

focusing on recovery and abstinence; and connect offenders 

with community drug recovery services on release. 

In the community, we want sentencing reforms to 

encourage offenders to engage with recovery based 

treatment and tough community sentences. 

Employment Tribunals Service 

Julian Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice 

how many employment tribunals were cancelled less 

than 24 hours before the scheduled sitting in the latest 


Mr Djanogly: Listing of hearings in cases (including 

the cancellation, postponement or adjournment of cases) 

is a judicial matter. Once listed, ‘cancellations’ can 

occur, for example, where the claim is resolved, settled 

or withdrawn before the hearing is scheduled to take 

place; where a postponement request is made by one or 

both of the parties and accepted by the tribunal; or 

where the employment tribunal itself postpones the 

hearing on its own volition. 

The following table shows all such cancellations over 

the course of the financial year 2009-10 that were 

effected within 24 hours of the scheduled sitting. The 

data provided are broken down to show cases that were 

cancelled (including postponed) on the actual day of 

the hearing, and on the previous day. 

Settlements ,withdrawals and postponements notified prior to or on day of hearing 

Settlements/ 

withdrawals 

Postponement by 

tribunal 


claimant 


respondent 

Total cancellations 

Notified day of hearing 1,240 239 1,458 19 2,956 

Notified day prior to 

4,072 1,649 8,028 271 14,020 

hearing 

Source: 

Employment Tribunal Central database February 2011 

Legal Aid 

Caroline Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice 

(1) whether he has discussed with ministerial colleagues 

the findings in paragraph 27 of the impact assessment 

of his cumulative proposals for reform of legal aid in 

respect of the potential effects on (a) resource costs for 

and (b) transfer payments to other departments of any 

significant reduction in fairness of dispute resolution 

arising from implementation of his proposals; [40632] 

(2) whether he has discussed with (a) the Chancellor 

of the Exchequer and (b) the Secretary of State for 

Business, Innovation and Skills the findings in paragraph 

27 of the impact assessment of his cumulative proposals 

for reform of legal aid in respect of the potential effects 

on levels of (i) economic efficiency and (ii) business 

efficiency of any significant reduction in fairness of 

dispute resolution arising from implementation of his 

proposals; [40633] 

(3) whether he has discussed with the Secretary of 

State for (a) the Home Department and (b) Communities 

and Local Government the findings in paragraph 27 of 

the impact assessment of his cumulative proposals for 

reform of legal aid in respect of the potential effect on 

levels of (i) social inclusion and (ii) criminality of any 

significant reduction in fairness of dispute resolution 

arising from implementation of his proposals. [40634] 

Mr Djanogly: Extensive discussions, at both ministerial 

and official levels, have been conducted with other 

Government Departments on a range of issues. These 

discussions will continue as we finalise proposals.

783W 




784W 

Caroline Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Justice what discussions he has had with not-for-profit 

advice organisations on the likely effects on them of 

loss of funding streams from legal aid budgets; and if 


Mr Djanogly: I have met with a number of representatives 

from the not-for-profit organisations recently to discuss 

the proposals for the reform of legal aid in England and 

Wales. 

Not-for-profit providers receive funding from a variety 

of sources including legal aid. However income from 

legal aid represents a minority of the funding of the not 

for profit advice sector. 

We are working closely with colleagues in other 

Departments who fund not-for-profit advice providers 

to identify how best to take a cross-Government approach 

to this issue. I recently met with the Minister for Civil 

Society, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for 

Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (Mr Hurd) to discuss 

how this can best be achieved. 

Julian Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice 

what estimate he has made of the cost to the public 

purse of claims brought against Government Departments 

and other public bodies by employees under no-win, 

no-fee contracts with their legal representatives. [40731] 

The Attorney-General: I have been asked to reply. 

No estimate has been made of the cost to the public 

purse of such claims. Insufficient data are available to 

support the making of a meaningful estimate. 

Most employment, and employment-related, claims 

against Government are taken in the Employment Tribunals. 

Under existing procedural rules governing claims made 

by employees before the Employment Tribunals, there is 

no requirement to notify a respondent employer that a 

conditional fee (no-win, no-fee) agreement (CFA) is in 

place, unlike in the civil Courts. Legal representatives 

will not divulge such an arrangement unless they are 

required to as, first, they have an obligation of 

confidentiality to their clients;, secondly, knowledge of 

such will give negotiating advantage to their opponents; 

and, thirdly, Employment Tribunals are generally a no 

costs jurisdiction, where awards of costs are not made 

unless the claim or defence has been “frivolous, vexatious 

or otherwise unreasonable”. In the circumstances, it 

would not be possible to keep any sort of accurate 

record of the incidence of such agreements in these 

cases, or to make an assessment of their impact upon 

the outcomes of claims. 

Legal Aid: Mental Health 


Justice if he will discuss with the Secretary of State for 

Health the potential effects of the proposed removal 

of legal aid funding for face-to-face assistance with 

financial entitlement matters on the incidence of 

mental ill-health arising from such matters. [40672] 

Mr Djanogly: We have recently had discussions with 

a number of ministerial colleagues regarding a range of 

matters affecting our respective Departments, including 

the potential impact of the proposals for reform of 

legal aid. 

An impact on the incidence of mental health issues, 

as a result of the proposals for reform of legal aid, has 

not been identified at this time. However, our consultation 

“Proposals for the Reform of Legal Aid in England and 

Wales” closed on 14 February 2011 and we are in the 

process of considering the responses. If appropriate, it 

will be addressed in our response paper and the associated 

Impact Assessments and Equality Impact Assessments, 

which is planned to be published in the spring. 

Legal Aid: Personal Injury and Negligence 

Mr Laurence Robertson: To ask the Secretary of 

State for Justice what plans he has for future provision 

of legal aid to people in respect of (a) personal injury 

and (b) clinical negligence cases; and if he will make a 


Mr Djanogly: On 15 November the Secretary of State 

for Justice announced the publication of a consultation 

on a package of proposals for the reform of legal aid. 

The consultation proposes that legal aid ceases to be 

available for clinical negligence matters. 

Most personal injury cases were removed from the 

scope of the civil legal aid scheme by the Access to 

Justice Act 1999. Legal aid funding is still available for 

claims, including personal injury claims, against public 

authorities alleging serious wrong-doing, abuse of position 

of power or significant breach of human rights. We 

have proposed replacing the existing “serious wrong-doing” 

ground for funding, and replacing it with “negligent 

acts or omissions falling very far below the required 

standard of care” as a ground for funding these claims. 

Funding is currently available for any claim, including 

a personal injury claim, which has a significant wider 

public interest. The current consultation proposes to 

abolish the rule which brings back into the scope of 

civil legal aid any case which has a significant wider 

public interest. While the Government recognises that 

public interest is an important factor, which should 

continue to be reflected in the Funding Code merits 

criteria for granting civil legal aid, we do not consider 

that it should be either a solely determinative factor in 

deciding whether legal aid should be granted, or a basis 

for bringing back into scope otherwise excluded cases. 

Funding is available for claims, including personal 

injury claims, arising from allegations of abuse of a 

child or vulnerable adult, or sexual assault. 

We have proposed that these cases remain within the 

scope of civil legal aid. Funding is available for housing 

cases, as defined by the civil legal aid Funding Code, 

including for housing personal injury claims. We have 

proposed that housing personal injury claims are removed 

from the scope of civil legal aid. 

Legal aid is also available for advice on applications 

to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. We 

have proposed that this advice ceases to be in scope for 

legal aid because the application is a straight-forward 

one and assistance is available from the authority. 

The consultation paper: “Proposals for the Reform 

of Legal Aid in England and Wales” is available at the 

Ministry of Justice website at: 

http://www.justice.gov.uk/consultations/legal-aid-reform- 

151110.htm

785W 




786W 

Legal Aid: Rochdale 

Simon Danczuk: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Justice how much his Department spent on the provision 

of legal aid in Rochdale constituency in each of the last 

five years. [40635] 

Mr Djanogly: The information requested is not readily 

available as for example payments to criminal barristers 

cannot easily be broken down by the location of the 

barrister or client. The information therefore could be 

provided only at disproportionate cost. 

Simon Danczuk: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Justice how many people in Rochdale constituency 

received legal aid in each of the last five years. [40636] 

Mr Djanogly: The Legal Services Commission (LSC) 

is responsible for administering the legal aid scheme in 

England and Wales. 

The LSC does not record the number of people who 

receive legal aid, but instead records the number of ‘acts 

of assistance’. One individual may receive a number of 

separate acts of assistance, and one act of assistance 

can help more than one person. 

The following table show the numbers of acts of 

assistance delivered by legal aid providers with postcodes 

falling within the Rochdale constituency. 

Rochdale constituency—legal aid acts of assistance 1 

Financial year 

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 

Civil Representation 377 363 305 303 364 

certificates issued 

Legal Help New 2,454 2,134 2,046 2,099 2,070 

Matter Starts in 

Civil and 

Immigration 

Crime Higher case 354 358 412 472 487 

volumes 

Crime Lower claim 5,132 4,762 4,923 5039 4,953 

volumes 

Total 8,317 7,617 7,686 7,913 7,874 

1 

The figures do not include legal aid received via telephone advice, 

the Housing Possession Court Duty Scheme, telephone triage, or 

family mediation. 

Legal Aid: Social Security Benefits 

Mrs Moon: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if 

he will estimate the savings that would accrue to the 

Exchequer from ceasing to provide legal aid for advice 

in relation to decisions about welfare benefits in terms 

of (a) total managed expenditure and (b) annually 

managed expenditure in respect of each department; 


Mr Djanogly: There is no intention to make such an 

estimate; nor would it be possible to do so to any degree 

of accuracy. 

Legal Aid: Third Sector 

Caroline Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice 

whether he has made an estimate of (a) the number of 

not-for-profit organisations who rely on funding from 

legal aid streams and (b) the number of such organisations 

that would cease to operate without legal aid funding; 


Mr Djanogly: The LSC hold legal aid contracts with 

a number of not-for-profit organisations. However, this 

information is being collated and I will write to the hon. 

Member as soon as it is available. Many not-for-profit 

providers receive funding from a variety of sources 

including legal aid. However income from legal aid 

represents a minority of the funding of the not-for-profit 

advice sector. It is therefore not possible to determine 

with any certainty which organisations would cease to 

operate without legal aid. 

We are working closely with colleagues in other 

Departments who fund advice providers, to identify 

how best to take a cross-Government approach to this 

issue. I recently met with the Minister for Civil Society, 

Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, 

Northwood and Pinner (Mr Hurd) to discuss how this 

can best be achieved. 

We published initial impact assessments and equality 

impact assessments along with our reform proposals, 

which considered the effect on the not for profit sector. 

We sought the views of not for profit organisations 

during the consultation which ended on 14 February. 

The consultation response which is due to be published 

in the spring will feature accompanying full impact 

assessments and equality impact assessments. 

Legal Profession 

Chris Ruane: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice 

what estimate he has made of the number of lawyers 

per 10,000 head of population. [40840] 

Mr Djanogly: The number of authorised persons, 

who are often referred to as lawyers, providing reserved 

legal activities in England and Wales at 1 April 2009, as 

collated by the Legal Services Board, totals 140,124. Of 

those approximately 113,000 were solicitors. The Office 

for National Statistics estimates that the mid-year 

population of England and Wales for 2009 totalled 

54,809,100. This equates to approximately 26 ‘lawyers’ 

per 10,000 head of population in England and Wales. 

National Offender Management Service: Qualifications 

Gordon Henderson: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Justice what proportion of all those employed at the 

(a) head office and (b) regional offices of the National 

Offender Management Service have (i) a probation 

qualification, (ii) a prison service qualification, (iii) 

experience in probation work and (iv) experience in 

prison service work. [41070] 

Mr Blunt: Information about the qualifications and 

experience of individual members of staff is not held 

centrally. To obtain the information requested would 

involve identifying and contacting sources of information 

in many different locations and would thus incur 

disproportionate cost. 

Offensive Weapons: Prison Sentences 


(1) how many people were (a) convicted, (b) cautioned 

and (c) given custodial sentences for possession of a

787W 




788W 

blade or an instrument in each year between 1991 and 

2010; [40862] 


and (c) given custodial sentences for possession of an 

article with a blade or point in each year between 1991 

and 2010; [40863] 


and (c) given custodial sentences for possession of a 

knife in each year between 1991 and 2010. [40864] 

Mr Blunt: The number of persons cautioned and the 

number of persons proceeded against at magistrates 

courts and found guilty and sentenced at all courts for 

offences relating to possession of an article with a blade 

or point, England and Wales 1991 to 2009 (latest available) 

are shown in the tables. 

Data for 2010 are planned for publication in the 

spring of 2011. 

Persons cautioned, and the number of persons proceeded against at magistrates courts and found guilty and sentenced at all courts for offences 

relating to possession of an article with a blade or point 1 , England and Wales 1991 to 2009 2,3,4,5 

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 6 1997 1998 1999 2000 

Cautioned 704 1,055 1,282 1,292 1,512 1,302 1,629 1,976 1,663 1,758 

Proceeded against 2,397 2,640 2,553 3,366 3,474 3,605 4,489 4,888 4,566 4,673 

Found guilty 1,737 1,848 1,852 2,502 2,559 2,665 3,360 3,805 3,548 3,555 

Sentenced 8 1,729 1,847 1,853 2,501 2,558 2,666 3,360 3,804 3,564 3,562 

Of which: 

Immediate custody 5 1 1 4 5 62 375 550 536 506 

Other sentences 9 1,724 1,846 1,852 2,497 2,553 2,604 2,985 3,254 3,028 3,056 

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 7 2009 

Cautioned 1,652 1,805 1,746 2,374 3,154 3,503 3,460 2,589 1,641 

Proceeded against 5,823 6,963 6,928 7,352 7,319 7,699 7,404 7,547 9,235 

Found guilty 4,361 5,338 5,396 5,890 6,005 6,369 6,169 6,368 7,646 

Sentenced 8 4,364 5,326 5,399 5,908 6,002 6,334 6,166 6,453 7,678 

Of which: 

Immediate custody 592 773 761 815 970 1,075 1,065 1,377 1,675 

Other sentences 9 3,772 4,553 4,638 5,093 5,032 5,259 5,101 5,076 6,003 

1 

Offences used: 

Criminal Justice Act 1988 S.139 as amended by Offensive Weapons Act 1996 S.3—Having an article with blade or point in public place 

Criminal Justice Act 1988 S.139A (1) & (5)(a) added by Offensive Weapons Act 1996 S.4(1)—Having an article with blade or point on school 

premises 

2 

The cautions statistics relate to persons for whom these offences were the principal offences for which they were dealt with. When a defendant 

has been cautioned for two or more offences at the same time the principal offence is the more serious offence. 

3 

From 1 June 2000 the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 came into force nationally and removed the use of cautions for persons under 18 and 

replaced them with reprimands and warnings. These are included in the totals. 

4 

The figures given in the table on court proceedings relate to persons for whom these offences were the principal offences for which they were 

dealt with. When a defendant has been found guilty of two or more offences it is the offence for which the heaviest penalty is imposed. Where the 

same disposal is imposed for two or more offences, the offence selected is the offence for which the statutory maximum penalty is the most severe. 

5 

Every effort is made to ensure that the figures presented are accurate and complete. However, it is important to note that these data have been 

extracted from large administrative data systems generated by the courts and police forces. As a consequence, care should be taken to ensure data 

collection processes and their inevitable limitations are taken into account when those data are used. 

6 

In July 2006 this offence changed from being a summary to a triable either-way offence. 

7 

Excludes data for Cardiff magistrates court for April, July, and August 2008. 

8 

The sentenced column may exceed those found guilty as it may be the case that a defendant found guilty, and committed for sentence at the 

Crown court, may be sentenced in the following year. 

9 

Includes: Absolute/conditional discharge, Community Sentence, Suspended Sentence and Otherwise dealt with. 

Source: 

Justice Statistics Analytical Services in the Ministry of Justice 

Offensive Weapons: Prison Sentences 


how many offences involving the possession of a knife 

or offensive weapon resulted in a (a) caution, (b) 

absolute or conditional discharge, (c) fine, (d) community 

sentence, (e) suspended sentence, (f) immediate custody 

and (g) other disposal in each year from 1991 to 2011. 

[40780] 

Mr Blunt: Information collated centrally by the Ministry 

of Justice does not include the circumstances of each 

case other than where specified in a statute. It is not 

possible therefore to separately identify from this 

information those offences proceeded against which 

also included the possession of a knife or offensive 

weapon. 

Prison Sentences 


(1) how many people were convicted of burglary and 

received a custodial sentence of less than (a) four 

years, (b) three years, (c) two years, (d) one year, (e) 

six months and (f) four months in the latest period for 

which figures are available; [40741] 

(2) how many people were convicted of sexual 

assault and received a custodial sentence of less than

789W 




790W 

(a) four years, (b) three years, (c) two years, (d) one 

year, (e) six months and (f) four months in the latest 

period for which figures are available; [40742] 

(3) how many people were convicted of grievous 

bodily harm and received a custodial sentence of less 

than (a) four years, (b) three years, (c) two years, (d) 

one year, (e) six months and (f) four months in the 

latest period for which figures are available; [40743] 

(4) how many people were convicted of rape and 





(5) how many people were convicted of 

manslaughter and received a custodial sentence of less 




(6) how many people were convicted of attempted 

murder and received a custodial sentence of less than 




(7) how many people were convicted of forgery and 





(8) how many people were convicted of fraud and 





(9) how many people were convicted of theft of a 

motor vehicle and received a custodial sentence of less 




(10) how many people were convicted of theft from a 

person and received a custodial sentence of less than 




(11) how many people were convicted of robbery and 






activity with a child under 16 and received a custodial 

sentence of less than (a) four years, (b) three years, 

(c) two years, (d) one year, (e) six months and (f) 

four months in the latest period for which figures are 

available; [40752] 


activity with a child under 13 and received a custodial 






assault of a female and received a custodial sentence of 

less than (a) four years, (b) three years, (c) two years, 

(d) one year, (e) six months and (f) four months in 

the latest period for which figures are available; [40754] 

(15) how many people were convicted of rape of a 

male and received a custodial sentence of less than (a) 

four years, (b) three years, (c) two years, (d) one year, 

(e) six months and (f) four months in the latest period 

for which figures are available; [40755] 

(16) how many people were convicted of rape of a 

female and received a custodial sentence of less than 





assault on a male and received a custodial sentence of 




(18) how many people were convicted of child 

abduction and received a custodial sentence of less 




(19) how many people were convicted of abandoning 

children aged under two years and received a custodial 





(20) how many people were convicted of cruelty or 

neglect of children and received a custodial sentence of 




(21) how many people were convicted of wounding 

or other acts endangering life and received a custodial 





(22) how many people were convicted of causing 

death by aggravated vehicle-taking and received a 

custodial sentence of less than (a) four years, (b) three 

years, (c) two years, (d) one year, (e) six months and 

(f) four months in the latest period for which figures 

are available; [40762] 


death by driving while unlicensed or uninsured and 






death of a child or vulnerable person and received a 

custodial sentence of less than (a) four years, (b) three 

years, (c) two years, (d) one year, (e) six months and 

(f) four months in the latest period for which figures 

are available; [40764] 


death by careless driving when under the influence of 

drink or drugs and received a custodial sentence of less 



latest period for which figures are available; [40765]

791W 




792W 

(26) how many people were convicted of 

manslaughter due to diminished responsibility and 






death by reckless driving and received a custodial 





(28) how many people were convicted of threat or 

conspiracy to murder and received a custodial sentence 

of less than (a) four years, (b) three years, (c) two 

years, (d) one year, (e) six months and (f) four 

months in the latest period for which figures are 


(29) how many people were convicted of perverting 

the course of justice and received a custodial sentence 





(30) how many people were convicted of violent 

disorder and received a custodial sentence of less than 




(31) how many people were convicted of kidnapping 

and received a custodial sentence of less than (a) four 




(32) how many people were convicted of blackmail 

and received a custodial sentence of less than (a) four 




(33) how many people were convicted of intent to 

supply a controlled drug and received a custodial 





(34) how many people were convicted of possession 

of a controlled drug and received a custodial sentence 





(35) how many people were convicted of criminal 

damage and received a custodial sentence of less than 




(36) how many people were convicted of arson and 





(37) how many people were convicted of common 

assault and received a custodial sentence of less than 




(38) how many people were convicted of dangerous 

driving and received a custodial sentence of less than 




(39) how many people were convicted of a firearms 

offence and received a custodial sentence of less than 




Mr Blunt: The number of persons found guilty at all 

courts for selected offences, by sentence breakdown and 

sentence length, England and Wales 2009 (latest available) 

is shown in the following table. 

Data for 2010 are planned for publication in the 

spring of 2011. 

Offences 

Number of persons found guilty at all courts for selected offences, by sentence breakdown and sentence length, England and Wales, 2009 1, 2 

Found 

Immediate 

guilty Sentenced 3 custody 

Less 

than 

4 months 

Over 

4 months 

and up to 

6 months 

Over 

6 months 

and up to 

1 year 

Length of sentence 

Over 

1 year 

and up 

to 

2 years 

Over 

2 years 

and up 

to 

3 years 

Over 

3 years 

and up 

to 

4 years 

Over 

4 years 

Other 

disposals 4 

Burglary 22,973 22,758 10,026 2,153 961 1,890 2,259 1,685 653 425 12,732 

Sexual 

2,070 2,060 1,053 88 44 154 259 177 110 221 1,007 

assault 

Grievous 

6,463 6,440 4,147 56 113 808 1,320 627 409 814 2,293 

bodily harm 5 

Rape 997 999 941 1 1 3 18 31 62 825 58 

Manslaughter 219 219 202 — — 4 17 35 18 128 17 

Attempted 

91 92 84 — — — — — — 84 8 

murder 

Forgery 4,290 4,294 2,609 359 804 1,206 197 22 13 8 1,685 

Fraud 16,732 16,638 2,778 970 364 681 475 159 63 66 13,860 

Theft of a 

852 851 236 140 41 25 24 4 2 — 615 

motor vehicle 

Theft from a 5,899 6,122 1,959 974 305 346 226 69 29 10 4,163 

person 

Robbery 

offences 

8,644 8,663 5,155 121 147 739 1,313 1,040 773 1,022 3,508

793W 




794W 

Offences 


Found 

Immediate 


Less 

than 

4 months 

Over 

4 months 

and up to 

6 months 

Over 

6 months 

and up to 

1 year 


Over 

1 year 

and up 

to 

2 years 

Over 

2 years 

and up 

to 

3 years 

Over 

3 years 

and up 

to 

4 years 

Over 

4 years 

Other 

disposals 4 

Sexual 

activity with 

a child under 

16 

Sexual 

activity with 

a child under 

13 

Sexual 

assault of a 

female 

Rape of a 

male 

Rape of a 

female 

Sexual 

assault on a 

male 

Child 

abduction 

Abandoning 

children 

Cruelty or 

neglect of 

children 

Wounding or 

other acts 

endangering 

life 

Causing 

death by 

aggravated 

vehicle taking 

offences 

Causing 

death by 

driving 

unlicensed, 

disqualified 

or uninsured 

drivers 

Causing 

death of a 

child or 

vulnerable 

person 

Causing 

death by 

careless 

driving under 

the influence 

of drink and 

drugs 

Manslaughter 

due to 

diminished 

responsibility 

Causing 

death by 

reckless 

driving 

Threat or 

conspiracy to 

murder 

Perverting 

the course of 

justice 

762 751 472 7 9 50 138 109 78 81 279 

207 201 86 3 3 13 22 10 13 22 115 

1,867 1,851 935 83 41 137 225 156 97 196 916 

65 66 56 — — — 5 2 5 44 10 

932 933 885 1 1 3 13 29 57 781 48 

203 209 118 5 3 17 34 21 13 25 91 

55 56 16 — 1 4 6 3 — 2 40 

2 2 1 — 1 — — — — — 1 

720 714 158 25 19 42 38 17 7 10 556 

1,886 1,884 1,626 12 8 29 131 291 341 814 258 

10 9 7 — 1 2 — 1 3 — 2 

11 10 1 — 1 — — — — — 9 

13 13 11 — — 3 2 1 — 5 2 

35 35 33 — 1 2 1 6 7 16 2 

8 8 4 — — — — — 1 3 4 

225 233 218 3 5 14 51 41 29 75 15 

417 397 182 20 28 33 50 21 6 24 215 

1,797 1,790 748 245 154 224 94 16 14 1 1,042 

Violent 

466 461 268 8 9 84 133 28 5 1 193 

disorder 

Kidnapping 427 426 310 — 8 31 70 58 41 102 116 

Blackmail 176 177 132 1 4 11 33 24 24 35 45

795W 




796W 

Offences 


Found 

Immediate 


Less 

than 

4 months 

Over 

4 months 

and up to 

6 months 

Over 

6 months 

and up to 

1 year 


Over 

1 year 

and up 

to 

2 years 

Over 

2 years 

and up 

to 

3 years 

Over 

3 years 

and up 

to 

4 years 

Over 

4 years 

Other 

disposals 4 

Intent to 

supply a 

controlled 

drug 

Possession of 

a controlled 

drug 

6,349 6,394 3,701 102 114 478 1,031 879 591 506 2,693 

41,306 41,071 1,286 1,078 70 45 44 15 11 23 39,785 

Criminal 39,550 39,497 1,800 1,636 50 44 41 14 9 6 37,697 

damage 

Arson 1,461 1,449 549 43 24 48 128 101 90 115 900 

Common 52,738 52,849 6,787 5,676 1,101 8 2 — — — 46,062 

assault 

Dangerous 3,386 3,483 1,309 224 250 615 220 — — — 2,174 

driving 

Firearms 6 1,850 1,852 827 52 31 98 123 122 44 357 1,025 

Total 226,154 225,957 51,716 14,086 4,717 7,891 8,743 5,814 3,618 6,847 174,241 

1 

The figures given in the table on court proceedings relate to persons for whom these offences were the principal offences for which they were dealt with. When a 

defendant has been found guilty of two or more offences it is the offence for which the heaviest penalty is imposed. Where the same disposal is imposed for twoor 

more offences, the offence selected is the offence for which the statutory maximum penalty is the most severe. 

2 

Every effort is made to ensure that the figures presented are accurate and complete. However, it is important to note that these data have been extracted from 

large administrative data systems generated by the courts and police forces. As a consequence, care should be taken to ensure data collection processes and their 

inevitable limitations are taken into account when those data are used. 

3 

The sentenced column may exceed those found guilty as it may be the case that a defendant found guilty, and committed for sentence at the Crown court, may be 

sentenced in the following year. 

4 

Includes: Absolute/conditional discharge, Community Sentence, Suspended Sentence and Otherwise dealt with. 

5 

Grievous Bodily Harm offences form part of the offence group of malicious wounding offences. 

6 

Includes possession, certificate related and miscellaneous firearms offences. 

Source: 

Justice Statistics Analytical Services—Ministry of Justice. 

Prison Service: ICT 


who in his Department signed off the contract for 

central procurement of IT equipment in prisons. [40954] 

Mr Blunt: The Quantum contract between the Secretary 

of State for the Home Department and Electronic Data 

Systems Ltd for the provision of ICT to HM Prison 

Services was signed by Claire Pelham, Director of Corporate 

Affairs of HM Prison Service on 29 February 2000. 

Prisoners: Ex-servicemen 

Mr Llwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice 

whether it is the policy of prison establishments to ask 

inmates at reception whether they have served in the 

armed forces. [41020] 

Mr Blunt: Prison reception staff are not required to 

ask newly arrived prisoners whether they have served in 

the armed forces. However, prisoners have the opportunity 

to discuss aspects of their background with staff during 

the induction and assessment processes. Governors of 

more than 100 prison establishments have made resources 

available to support the Veterans in Custody Support 

scheme, which encourages veteran prisoners to disclose 

their status, if they chose to do so. 

Prisons: Asbestos 


Justice (1) what steps he has taken to identify the 

presence of asbestos in the fabric of prisons; and if he 

will make a statement; [41195] 

(2) in which prisons it is known that asbestos is 

present in the fabric of the buildings; and when the 

asbestos was detected in each case; [41196] 

(3) whether asbestos was known to be present in the 

fabric of Ford Open Prison on 31 December 2010; and 

whether the asbestos was damaged or disturbed as a 

result of the recent disturbance; [41197] 

(4) in which prisons work has taken place to remove 

asbestos from the fabric of the building in each of the 

last 10 years; what the cost of such work was in each 

case; what work to remove asbestos from each 

previously identified prison with an identified asbestos 

presence is planned in each of the next three years; and 

if he will make a statement; [41198] 

(5) what recent steps have been taken at each prison 

establishment to (a) identify, (b) manage and (c) 

remove asbestos from the fabric of the buildings; and if 


Mr Blunt: A comprehensive survey of the estate for 

asbestos took place in 2002-03, and a programme to 

remove high risk asbestos was implemented following 

this review. 

Prisons: Visits 


how much of the money paid to friends and relatives to 

assist them in visiting prisoners was provided for subsistence 

costs in the latest period for which figures are available. 

[40955] 

Mr Blunt: Financial assistance has been available to 

families to visit prisoners since the 1950s when it was 

run by the National Assistance Board on an individual

797W 




798W 

needs basis. The formal Assisted Prisons Visits Scheme 

has been in existence since 1970 and became part of the 

National Offender Management Service in 2008. 

Currently the scheme has two rates of subsistence; a 

rate where travel time is between five and 10 hours of 

£2.55 and a rate where travelling takes in excess often 

hours of £5.10. 

In the financial year 2009-10 the total amount paid to 

friends and relatives under the scheme was £196,000. 

Philip Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Justice if he will estimate the administrative cost of 

reimbursing relatives of prisoners for prison visits by 

girocheque in the latest period for which figures are 

available; and if he will estimate the cost of making 

such payments by BACS. [40956] 

Mr Blunt: The Assisted Prison Visits Unit made 

59,501 girocheque payments in the year 2009-10 at an 

estimated inclusive cost of £98,000. It is estimated that 

payment by BACS could have an inclusive cost of 

£15,000 per year. 

A proposal is actively being pursued to upgrade 

current APVU systems. 

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT 

Arts: Public Participation 

Chris Ruane: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, 

Olympics, Media and Sport what assessment he has 

made of long-term trends in (a) visits to art galleries, 

(b) visits to museums, (c) attendance at concerts, (d) 

attendance at musical theatre, (e) attendance at cinema, 

(f) attendance at theatre and (g) television viewing. 

[41038] 

Mr Vaizey: The Department assesses attendance trends 

at cultural events and television watching in the Taking 

Part survey. The information set out in the following 

tables is from the August 2010 published reports. 

Percentage 

In the last 12 

months, have you 

been to a... 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 

Film at a cinema 52.3 51.9 51.7 50.2 54.7 

or other venue 

Play/drama 22.7 21.7 22.4 21.0 21.4 

Musical — — — 22.4 23.5 

Museum/gallery 42.3 41.5 43.5 44.5 46.7 

Percentage 

How many hours a day do 

youwatchTVfor,on 

average? 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 

Never watch TV 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.8 

Less than 1 hour 7.6 7.8 7.6 7.7 

About 1 hour 11.8 11.9 12.3 11.6 

About 2 hours 26.8 27.2 27.4 26.6 

About 3 hours 22.5 21.7 21.2 22.7 

About 4 hours 14.7 14.6 14.6 14.2 

About 5 hours or more 14.7 14.7 14.9 14.7 

Percentage 

How many hours a day do 

you watch TV for, on 

average? 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 

Don’t have a TV 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 

It does not record attendance at concerts, and the 

data for museums and art galleries cannot be divided 

between the two categories. 

Broadband: Devon 


Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport what recent 

estimate he has made of the number of households in 

Devon with a broadband connection speed of less than 

2mbps. [39256] 

Mr Vaizey: The Digital Britain report (June 2009) 

reported that 12-15% of the telephone lines in Devon 

were unsuitable for broadband at 2Mbps. 

Broadband Delivery UK is assessing current broadband 

provision at community level across the UK in its work 

to deliver the coalition Government’s objective to facilitate 

universal broadband access of at least 2Mbps and 

achieve the best superfast broadband network in Europe 

by 2015. 

Broadband: Wales 

Ian Lucas: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, 

Olympics, Media and Sport what areas of North Wales 

are included in the pilot area for superfast broadband 

announced on 10 February 2011. [41162] 

Mr Vaizey [holding answer 15 February 2011]: The 

funding announced by the Chancellor will help bring 

superfast broadband to hard-to-reach areas and extend 

superfast broadband to Pwllheli and the surrounding 

areas of North Wales. 


Philip Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, 

Olympics, Media and Sport how much his Department 

spent on carbon offsetting in each of the last three 

years; and to which companies payments for carbon 

offsetting were made in each such year. [40289] 

John Penrose: The Department has spent the following 

amounts on carbon offsetting over the last three years. 

Companies to whom payment made Amount (£) 

2009-10 EDF Trading Ltd 84 Government Carbon 

2,882 

Offsetting Fund 

2008-09 Government Carbon Offsetting Fund 3,469 

2007-08 Government Carbon Offsetting Fund 3,469 

Digital Economy Act 2010 

Mr Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, 

Olympics, Media and Sport what definition of the term 

economically sterile traffic his Department uses; and 

what plans his Department has to remove such traffic 

from networks. [41338]

799W 




800W 

Mr Vaizey: The Department does not have a standard 

definition of the term “economically sterile traffic”, 

and does not have a policy dedicated to removing such 

traffic from networks. 

Mr Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport what estimate he 

has made of the cost to Ofcom of implementation of 

sections 3 to 16 of the Digital Economy Act 2010; and 

if he will make a statement. [41339] 

Mr Vaizey: Ofcom is expected to incur one-off costs 

of £5.8 million, and ongoing costs of £5 million per 

annum as a result of its responsibilities under the Digital 

Economy Act. These responsibilities include monitoring 

and enforcement activities, devising a code of practice, 

and the establishment of an appeals mechanism. 

These estimates can be found in the impact assessment 

which accompanied the draft statutory instrument on 

cost-sharing for the initial obligations under the Digital 

Economy Act. 

http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/business-sectors/docs/i/ 

10-1164-impact-assessment-cost-sharing-consultation.pdf 


Olympics, Media and Sport for what reasons his 

Department has decided to impose 25 per cent. loss of 

costs for implementation of sections 3 to 16 of the 

Digital Economy Act 2010 on internet service providers. 

[41340] 

Mr Vaizey: Placing part of the costs for the 

implementation of the initial obligations under the 

Digital Economy Act on internet service providers means 

that they have a real incentive to adopt efficient and 

effective systems for issuing notifications and producing 

copyright infringement lists. 

This apportionment of costs was consulted upon in 

2010. The consultation document, along with the individual 

responses and Government response can be found at 

http://www.bis.gov.uk/Consultations/online-infringement-ofcopyright?cat=closedwithresponse 


Olympics, Media and Sport what estimate he has made 

of the effects on consumer demand for internet broadband 

of implementation of sections 3 to 16 of the Digital 

Economy Act 2010. [41341] 

Mr Vaizey: The impact assessment which accompanied 

the Digital Economy Act contains this information. 

Assuming that internet service providers fully pass down 

to consumers the annual costs incurred by complying 

with the initial obligations of the Digital Economy Act, 

it is estimated that the increased cost to consumers 

would have a relatively small but permanent effect of 

reducing demand for broadband connection by between 

10,000-40,000. 

Background information and supporting evidence 

for this estimate can be found at 

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100511084737/ 

http:/interactive.bis.gov.uk/digitalbritain/wp-content/uploads/ 

2010/04/Digital-Economy-Act-IAs-final.pdf 

EU Electronic Communications Framework 

Tom Brake: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, 

Olympics, Media and Sport what steps he plans to take 

in respect of implementation of the EU Electronic 

Communications Framework. [39557] 

Mr Vaizey: DCMS is currently implementing revisions 

to the EU Electronic Communications Framework. The 

deadline for implementation is 25th May 2011. 

Following a public consultation which ran between 

September and December last year officials are currently 

analysing responses. 

We will publish the responses to that consultation 

and revised impact assessments In March and lay the 

statutory instruments that will enable legislative change 

in April. 

Sport 


Olympics, Media and Sport what assessment he has 

made of the trends in long-term participation rates in 

each region for (a) football, (b) cricket, (c) rugby, (d) 

volleyball, (e) netball, (f) swimming and (g) hockey 

by age and sex. [41239] 

Hugh Robertson: The detail on participation in these 

sports is contained in the surveys I referred to in my 

reply to the hon. Member on 7 February 2011, Official 

Report, column 11W. In addition, I understand that 

Sport England has already contacted the hon. Member 

to offer their help in providing any further specific 

pieces of information that he would like. I will, of 

course, answer any questions that he may have in this 

House, but hope that the Sport England contact will 

also prove helpful. 

Sport: Finance 


Olympics, Media and Sport pursuant to the answer of 

7 February 2011, Official Report, column 12W, on 

sport: finance, what proportion of the grant-in-aid received 

by Sport England in each year from 2000-01 to 2009-10 

was spent in each region; and what estimate he has 

made of the proportion of such grant in aid funding 

that will be spent in each region in each year from 

2010-11 to 2015-16. [41284] 

Hugh Robertson: A regional breakdown of grant in 

aid received by Sport England is not held and to commission 

this information would exceed the disproportionate cost 

limit. 

Television: Children 


Olympics, Media and Sport what estimate he has made 

of the number of children with a television in their 

bedroom. [40844] 

Mr Vaizey: The Secretary of State has made no 

estimate.

801W 




802W 

DEFENCE 

Armed Forces: Blood 

Simon Kirby: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 

what recent steps he has taken to ensure the safety and 

security of blood supplies to members of the armed 

forces; and if he will make a statement. [40489] 

Mr Robathan: All the blood components received 

from NHS Blood and Transplant (NHSBT) are provided 

under a service level agreement, and as such, the blood 

supplied to members of the armed forces will be as safe 

as that given to any other NHS patient. We are not 

aware of any new recent steps that have been taken with 

regards to blood safety. 


how many soldiers received a blood transfusion as part 

of their medical care in the last 12 months for which 

figures are available. [40490] 

Mr Robathan: Members of the armed forces receive 

treatment in a number of NHS hospitals in the UK, as 

well as in hospitals abroad. This information is not held 

centrally and it would be impossible to establish how 

many people have received a blood transfusion as part 

of their medical care, without interrogating individuals’ 

medical records. This would entail gaining permission 

to access medically confidential information on an 

individual basis and could be obtained only at 



what consideration he has given to the use of pathogen 

reduction technology in healthcare provision for armed 

forces personnel; and if he will make a statement. 

[40694] 

Mr Robathan: In common with all new medical 

techniques and technologies, the Defence Medical Services 

will consider the merits of pathogen reduction technology 

as appropriate. New technology will be subject to national 

best practice and guidance, and only introduced once 

licensed and demonstrated to be safe and effective. The 

Advisory Group on military medicine will advise the 

surgeon general on the safety and efficacy of new 

approaches to patient management. 


whether (a) the Royal Centre for Defence Medicine 

and (b) the Ministry of Defence Hospital Units have 

considered the use of pathogen reduction technology 

for use on blood products; and if he will make a 


Mr Robathan: The Royal Centre for Defence Medicine 

and the Ministry of Defence Hospital Units are essentially 

administrative units for the management of Defence 

Medical Services (DMS) personnel who work within 

the host NHS Trusts and are not responsible for the 

delivery of clinical care. The care given at each of these 

sites, including consideration of pathogen reduction 

technology, is delivered in accordance with the clinical 

policies, guidelines and governance of the relevant NHS 

Trust. 

Simon Kirby: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Defence whether staff at the Defence Medical Services 

establishment have carried out any studies into the use 

of pathogen reduction technology for use on blood 

products to treat wounded armed services personnel; 

and what representations he has received on this issue. 

[40696] 

Mr Robathan: On the basis of the work conducted in 

2009 by the Advisory Committee on the Safety of 

Blood, Tissues and Organs (SaBTO, a UK independent 

non-departmental public body run by the Department 

of Health) into the reduction of risk of bacterial 

contamination of platelets, the Defence Medical Services 

have not conducted any studies into the use of pathogen 

reduction technology on blood products for the treatment 

of injured service personnel. 

Astute Class Submarines 

Jeremy Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Defence on what date long-lead items for the Astute-class 

submarines, including reactors, have been purchased or 

ordered to date. [40529] 

Dr Fox: The requirement for, and timing of, ordering 

long lead items varies between submarine class. 

The dates that orders were placed for long lead items 

including reactors for the Astute Class submarines are 

shown in the following table: 

Long lead items 

Dates ordered 

Boat 1-3 March 1997 

Boat 4 December 2003, April 2004, 

April 2005, March 2007 

Boat 5 April 2005, January 2008, 

September 2008 

Boat 6 August 2006, March 2010 

Defence: Procurement 

Angus Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Defence (1) what estimate he has made of the value of 

each industrial participation contract involving foreign 

firms in each of the last 25 years; [40318] 

(2) if he will estimate the value of industrial 

participation by foreign firms in each region of the UK 

in each of the last 25 years; [40319] 

Peter Luff: The Ministry of Defence (MOD) does 

not have industrial participation (IP) contracts. It is the 

MOD’s policy to invite IP proposals from foreign bidders 

when they are bidding for MOD contracts. However, IP 

proposals are not considered as part of the evaluation 

of a tender, either at selection or award. Individual 

cases of IP within contracts are not readily available, 

could only be given at disproportionate cost and would 

be commercially sensitive. However, since 1987 the 

cumulative value of IP arrangements is around £10 billion. 

This can be broken down as follows: 

Value (£ million) 

1987 7 

1989 10 

1992 187

803W 




804W 

Value (£ million) 

Ex-servicemen: Radiation Exposure 

1994 1,415 

1995 1,370 

1996 1,635 

1997 268 

1998 43 

1999 427 

2000 860 

2001 57 

2002 624 

2003 215 

2005 341 

2006 206 

2007 1,964 

2008 124 

2009 227 

2010 398 

Total 10,378 

Departmental Travel 

Bridget Phillipson: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Defence how much his Department spent on travel in 

each month since April 2010. [32382] 

Mr Robathan [holding answer 10 January 2011]: 

Ministry of Defence monthly expenditure on travel 

since April 2010 has been as follows: 

Expenditure (£ million) 

April 2010 16.0 

May 2010 14.5 

June 2010 15.2 

July 2010 17.2 

August 2010 13.9 

September 2010 13.0 

October 2010 14.8 

November 2010 14.2 

December 2010 14.9 

These figures include, for both service and civilian 

staff, the cost of travel and accommodation booked 

centrally, the reimbursement of expenses incurred when 

using their own vehicle for duty journeys, most rail fares 

not booked centrally and some car hire costs. The 

figures also include expenses reimbursed to civilian staff 

for overnight accommodation, subsistence, taxi, bus 

and underground fares, parking charges and road tolls, 

and most of their air fares not booked centrally. Costs 

of the MOD’s white fleet are not included as they are 

not recorded on a monthly basis; however, we estimate 

that white fleet contract and fuel costs averaged just 

under £4 million a month between April and September 

2010. The figures also do not include all travel and 

subsistence costs reimbursed to service personnel, but 

we are currently improving the accessibility of these in 

the interests of transparency. 

By whatever means staff travel, they must do so in a 

way that is the most economical in both money and 

official time. 

I apologise for the delay in answering this question. 


Defence pursuant to the reply to the hon. Member for 

East Lothian of 13 January 2011, Official Report, columns 

747-48W, on ex-servicemen: radiation exposure, on what 

basis the independent contractor was selected; what the 

name of the contractor is; what the monetary value of 

the contract is; on what date the report on health audit 

is due for delivery; and whether the contract was advertised 

for competitive tender. [40667] 

Mr Robathan: Following informal contacts and meetings 

with a number of academic departments in 2009 and 

discussions with a range of stakeholders, including the 

British Nuclear Test Veterans Association, the Ministry 

of Defence (MOD) identified an option to conduct an 

independent health needs audit in February 2010. 

The MOD statement of requirement detailed the 

need for external assistance to provide an assessment of 

the health needs of British nuclear test veterans and in 

particular to look at: 

their experience and impact of major or significant illness; 

their experiences of NHS and social care services, including 

access to, and availability of services and the service itself; 

common issues and themes from veterans’ experiences, outcomes 

and recommendations to improve health and care services for 

nuclear test veterans. 

Stakeholders expressed a strong desire to undertake a 

study quickly. Oxford Healthcare Associates (now known 

as Miles and Green Associates) were identified as having 

the relevant levels of expertise and experience to undertake 

a study of this nature. 

Following a business case setting out procurement 

options, the intention to place a single source contract 

was advertised in the Defence Contracts Bulletin in 

16 July 2010 and the contract was formally let on 

26 August 2010. 

The value of the contract is £75,000 excluding VAT. 

Miles and Green are due to present their findings in the 

summer. 

Hotels 

Mr Jim Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Defence what the cost to his Department was of overnight 

accommodation in (a) April 2010 and (b) each subsequent 

month. [31696] 

Mr Robathan [holding answer 20 December 2010]: 

Ministry of Defence expenditure on overnight 

accommodation since April 2010 has been as follows: 

Expenditure (£ million) 

April 2010 3.2 

May 2010 3.3 

June 2010 3.8 

July 2010 3.9 

August 2010 3.3 

September 2010 2.6 

October 2010 3.6 

November 2010 3.8 

December 2010 3.4

805W 




806W 

These figures include accommodation costs paid centrally 

for both service and civilian staff and subsistence 

costs reimbursed to civilian staff for hotel and mess 

accommodation and for staying with family or friends 

for the purpose of undertaking official duty commitments. 

The figures do not include travel and subsistence costs 

reimbursed to service personnel but we are currently 

improving the accessibility of these in the interests of 

transparency. 

I apologise for the delay in answering this question. 

Nuclear Submarines 


Defence what type of reactor his Department plans to 

order for the Trident replacement submarines. [40545] 

Dr Fox: It is planned that the Vanguard replacement 

submarine will be powered by a pressurised water reactor, 

as was the case with previous classes. The precise 

configuration of the reactor is under consideration as 

part of the Initial Gate decision. 


Defence whether steel for the substantial construction 

of the hull structure of the first boat of the Trident 

replacement programme will be made as a long-lead 

purchase prior to main gate. [40547] 

Dr Fox: Yes. The specialist high strength steel needed 

for the hull structure for the first boat is included as a 

long-lead item in the Initial Gate Business Case for the 

programme. This is due to the length of time needed for 

the mill run, that means that the order must be placed 

prior to Main Gate in order not to put at risk the 

in-service date. 

Nuclear Weapons 


Defence from which work streams the £750 million of 

savings to the public purse arising from the Trident 

replacement programme identified in the Strategic 

Defence and Security Review will be made. [40531] 

Dr Fox: The Strategic Defence and Security Review 

identified a total of £1.2 billion of savings and £2 billion 

of deferrals over the next 10 years. These savings are 

attributable to submarine production, the nuclear warhead, 

supporting infrastructure and improved efficiency at 

the Atomic Weapons Establishment. 


Defence by what date he expects it will be necessary to 

reach a decision on the replacement or refurbishing of 

the UK nuclear warhead. [40540] 

Dr Fox: As the Prime Minister informed the House 

on 19 October 2010, Official Report, columns 797-826, 

the strategic defence and security review announced the 

deferral of the decision to replace or refurbish the UK 

nuclear warhead until the next Parliament. 


Defence what contracts his Department has agreed for 

work on the Trident replacement concept phase to 

date; and with which companies such contracts have 

been agreed. [40542] 

Dr Fox: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given 

by the Minister for Defence Equipment, Support and 

Technology, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid 

Worcestershire (Peter Luff), on 29 November 2010, 

Official Report, column 579W, to the hon. Member for 

Cambridge (Dr Huppert). 


Defence how much his Department has allocated to 

spend on the Trident replacement programme in each 

year between 2010-11 and 2015-16. [40543] 

Dr Fox: Approximately £330 million was allocated to 

the programme to replace the Vanguard submarine for 

the financial year 2010-11. This includes expenditure on 

the Common Missile Compartment and on nuclear 

propulsion. The Initial Gate Business Case for the 

assessment phase of the programme to replace the 

Trident submarines is currently being reviewed. 

However, we do not routinely publish figures for 

anticipated annual project expenditure, as to do so 

would prejudice commercial interests. Moreover, in line 

with standard procedures, the programme will be subject 

to the normal Ministry of Defence annual planning 

round process. 


Defence whether he plans to seek Parliamentary approval 

for long-lead orders prior to the Trident replacement 

main gate decision. [40549] 

Dr Fox: I have no such plans. It is not normal practice 

to seek parliamentary approval for such matters. The 

Initial Gate approval is subject to the normal Ministry 

of Defence and Treasury process for category A 

programmes. 

Trident Missiles 


Defence (1) whether he had discussions with his US 

counterpart prior to the sharing of information with 

the Russian Federation on UK-designated Trident D5 

missiles; [40538] 

(2) whether he has made an assessment of the 

potential effects of the sharing of information between 

the US and Russia on UK-designated Trident D5 

missiles on the operational status of the UK’s Trident 

nuclear weapon system. [40539] 

Dr Fox: Officials from the Ministry of Defence have 

regular discussions with US authorities on a range of 

Defence issues. Where discussions relate to the D5 

Trident missiles they take place mainly under the auspices 

of the 1963 Polaris Sales Agreement (as amended for 

Trident). 

The US holds a stockpile of Trident D5 missiles from 

which the UK has purchased title to a number but these 

are unspecified in the stockpile. There are therefore no 

UK-designated missiles. 

Under the terms of the bilateral new strategic arms 

reduction treaty (New START) limited information is 

shared between the US and Russia. Procedures for

809W 




810W 

used safely, and their importance for UK businesses, the 

Government intend to take advantage of a derogation 

permitted in the ban to allow for the continued sale and 

use of these paint strippers for trained professionals. 

Disability Living Allowance 

Nicky Morgan: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Work and Pensions if he will assess the merits of 

extending the higher rate disability living allowance 

component to people in employment aged 65 and over. 

[40313] 

Maria Miller: The Government have no plans to 

extend the higher rate mobility component of disability 

living allowance to people in employment aged 65 and 

over. 

It is normal for pension and benefit schemes to 

contain different provisions for people at different stages 

of their lives. Disability living allowance and its proposed 

replacement—personal independence payment—are 

intended to help people who have the financial disadvantage 

of being disabled early, or relatively early, in life and 

have had less opportunity to work, earn and save. 

There is a wide range of support available to disabled 

people over the age of 65 including state pension, 

pension credit and attendance allowance. In addition, 

Access to Work scheme is also available to those aged 65 

and over and can pay towards the equipment needed at 

work, adapting premises to meet needs, a support worker, 

and it can also pay towards the cost of getting to work 

for people who cannot use public transport. 

Jake Berry: To ask the Secretary of State for Work 

and Pensions how many residents of Rossendale and 

Darwen constituency receive disability living allowance; 

and what the cost to the public purse was of such 

payments in the last 12 months. [40421] 

Maria Miller: The latest available 12 months is the 

2009-10 financial year. This information is shown in the 

following table. 

Great Britain, 2009/10—Rossendale and Darwen 

Number/£ million 

Caseload (thousand) 6.3 

Expenditure (£ million) 22.8 

Source: 

DWP statistical and accounting data 

Parliamentary constituency expenditure data can be 

found at the following URL: 

http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd4/pc_expenditure.xls 

Further benefit expenditure data can be found at the 

following URL: 

http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd4/ 

index.php?page=expenditure 

Disability Living Allowance: Cancer 

Dame Anne Begg: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of the 

number of people with cancer who are eligible for 

disability living allowance who will be ineligible for the 

personal independence payment. [39125] 

Maria Miller: We are currently consulting on the 

reform of disability living allowance with the key proposal 

of a new benefit, to be known as personal independence 

payment, which will be introduced from 2013. The 

Department has made no such estimate because disability 

living allowance and its successor are designed to recognise 

the extra costs associated with disability and are not 

based on diagnoses or condition. 

Employment: Asylum 

Mr Betts: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and 

Pensions (1) what measures he is taking to increase the 

rate of employment of refugees; [41096] 

(2) what steps he is taking to ensure that the Work 

programme’s prime contractors in each lot provide 

appropriate support to refugee customers; [41097] 

(3) what steps he is taking to ensure that refugees on 

active benefits receive appropriate pre-employment 

support; [41098] 

(4) whether he has assessed the effect on the employment 

prospects of refugee customers of excluding refugees 

from the categories of customer eligible for early access 

onto the Work programme at the discretion of Jobcentre 

Plus; [41164] 

(5) for what reason refugees are not included in the 

categories of customer eligible for early access onto the 

Work programme at the discretion of Jobcentre Plus 

listed in the invitation to tender for the Work 

programme; [41165] 

(6) what the employment outcomes were for refugee 

customers who gained early access onto Flexible New 

Deal and New Deal programmes in 2008 and 2009; 

[41166] 

(7) how many refugee customers gained early access 

onto Flexible New Deal and New Deal programmes 

between 2008 and 2010; [41167] 

(8) what consideration he gave to continuing the 

eligibility of refugee customers for early access when 

the Work programme starts. [41168] 

Chris Grayling: The Government are radically reforming 

the welfare to work system to provide an integrated 

programme of personalised help for people who are out 

of work. The support package includes enhancement of 

the provision offered by Jobcentre Plus, an improved 

skills offer through the Get Britain Working measures 

and tailored support via the Work programme. This 

flexible system will offer the right support at the right 

time to all people on benefits, including refugees. 

For the majority of refugees the flexible, personalised 

services that Jobcentre Plus will offer, alongside the Get 

Britain Working measures, will meet their needs. 

For those with significant disadvantages, early entry 

to the Work programme may be appropriate. Advisers 

will have the discretion to refer more vulnerable customers 

to the Work programme where it is clear that they 

would benefit from the type of assistance provided. 

The term refugee covers a broad spectrum of individuals 

with a wide range of differing needs. I therefore do not 

believe it would be appropriate to refer all refugees to 

the Work programme more quickly than other people 

receiving benefit.

811W 




812W 

We have asked bidders for the Work programme 

contracts, without being prescriptive, to develop innovative 

models of support. These must be designed to be flexible 

and specifically tailored to meet the needs of individual 

customers and the local area. As part of the evaluation 

of process, the Department will consider bidders’ ability 

to meet the diverse needs of different customers and 

customer groups. 

I am unable to provide the statistical information 

requested in relation to the position of refugees under 

previous programmes such as New Deal and Flexible 

New Deal. This information was not systematically 

collected at the time and cannot be obtained retrospectively. 

Housing Benefit 

Glenda Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Work and Pensions pursuant to the contribution of the 

Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State of 24 January 

2011, Official Report, House of Lords, column 778, on 

the Housing Benefit (Amendment) Regulations 2010, 

when he expects to commission the independent review 

into housing benefit; whom he expects to undertake the 

review; what method he plans to use to identify the 

review team; when he expects the review to report; and 


Steve Webb: The Department is in the process of a 

procurement exercise with leading research organisations 

for the evaluation and working on the final specification 

of the project. 

We will work to the Government Social Research 

Code to commission a team of independent, external 

researchers who will undertake the review and fieldwork 

elements of the project by early April. 

The Department anticipates emerging findings of the 

implementation of the new measures will be available 

by the spring of 2012. Interim findings will be available 

by the summer of 2012. Draft final findings will be 

available by the winter of 2012-13. 

Housing Benefit: Greater London 

Glenda Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Work and Pensions how many private rented homes in 

the (a) City of London, (b) London borough of Camden 

and (c) London borough of Brent he estimates will be 

affordable to housing benefit recipients following the 

implementation of his reforms to housing benefit. 

[38420] 

Steve Webb: The number of affordable properties will 

depend upon the total number of properties available to 

rent in each area, for which forecasts are not available, 

and the rent-setting decisions of landlords. 

Injuries, Disease and Dangerous Occurrences 

Regulations 1995 

Mr Crausby: To ask the Secretary of State for Work 

and Pensions what assessment he has made of the 

effects of reductions in funding to the Health and 

Safety Executive on the effective operation of the Reporting 

of Injuries, Disease and Dangerous Occurrences 

Regulations 1995. [39646] 

Chris Grayling: There have been no changes to the 

operation of the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and 

Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995 (RIDDOR) 

as a result of the spending review. 

The proposed change, about which HSE is currently 

consulting, was recommended in the report by Lord 

Young, “Common Sense, Common Safety”. This report 

seeks to focus regulations where they are needed most 

to create a new system that is proportionate and not 

bureaucratic. Actions to implement the recommendations 

are being taken forward across Government in line with 

the timetable set out in his report. 

Incidents reported under the regulations are selected 

for investigation using HSE’s published RIDDOR incident 

selection criteria. There has been no change to these 

criteria although HSE is considering the modalities for 

notification. 

Enforcement action in the event of an employer or 

other duty holder failing to report a death, injury, 

dangerous occurrence or case of an occupational disease 

is taken in accordance with its enforcement policy statement 

(EPS). Again there has been no change to this. 

Mr Crausby: To ask the Secretary of State for Work 

and Pensions what consultation he has undertaken on 

changes to the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and 

Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995. [39647] 

Chris Grayling: A formal, statutory consultation was 

launched by HSE on 31 January 2011 seeking views on 

the proposed amendment to regulation 3(2) of the 

Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences 

Regulations 1995 (RIDDOR). The consultation closes 

on 9 May 2011. A copy of the consultation document 

can be viewed at 

http://www.hse.gov.uk/consult/condocs/cd233.htm 

Jobcentres 

Miss McIntosh: To ask the Secretary of State for Work 

and Pensions when he next plans to visit the jobcentre 

which serves Thirsk, Malton and Filey constituency; 


Chris Grayling: Since May 2010, the Department’s 

ministerial team has visited numerous constituencies 

and jobcentres across the UK. 

The Department’s ministerial team currently have no 

plans to visit the Thirsk Malton and Filey constituency, 

however, should any Ministers do so, they will look to 

visit the jobcentre there. 

Lone Parents: Earnings 

Stephen Lloyd: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Work and Pensions what consideration he has given to 

the merits of introducing an increased earnings 

disregard for lone parents prior to implementation of 

other aspects of his universal credit proposals. [39752] 

Chris Grayling: The increased earnings disregards are 

an intrinsic part of the new universal credit and designed, 

alongside a single taper, to improve the incentives to 

enter work.

813W 




814W 

Until the universal credit is introduced lone parents 

will greatly benefit from the comprehensive, personalised 

support provided by Jobcentre Plus and the new Work 

programme which will provide a flexible, personalised 

approach to helping people back into work, and will 

aim to continue supporting people after they have entered 

work. 

Pensions: Females 

Jessica Morden: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Work and Pensions if he will estimate the number of 

women in Newport East constituency who will be 

affected by the change in timetable for the equalisation 

of the state pension age. [41229] 

Steve Webb: This information is not available. 

On the basis of the mid-2009 ONS population estimates, 

we estimate that around 1,500 women in the Newport 

local authority area could be affected by the change in 

the equalisation of the state pension age. 

Poverty: Families 

Stephen Lloyd: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Work and Pensions what discussions he has had with 

service users to inform the development of universal 

credit proposals; and to what extent those proposals 

take into account the needs of low-income families. 

[39758] 

Chris Grayling: The Department is committed to 

involving customers at every stage of the design and 

delivery of universal credit. We have an ongoing programme 

of customer insight work and have already held a 

number of focus groups with a broad range of benefit 

and tax credit customers (who will be the service users 

of universal credit), including low-income families. 

The ongoing programme of user-centred design activity, 

which is being conducted jointly with customers, means 

that the Department will continue to ensure that the 

delivery of universal credit is designed around specific 

customer needs. 

The research findings have not been published, as the 

analysis is not yet complete. They are also covered by 

the policy advice exemption from publication. 

Social Fund: City of Chester 

Stephen Mosley: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Work and Pensions how many Social Fund (a) budgeting 

loans, (b) crisis loans and (c) community care grants 

for the purpose of buying television sets over the value 

of (i) £500 and (ii) £1,000 there were in (A) City of 

Chester constituency and (B) the UK in each of the last 


Steve Webb: Firstly, part of the question refers to 

figures for the whole of the UK—information regarding 

the discretionary social fund for Northern Ireland is a 

matter for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, 

my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire 

(Mr Paterson). 

In the case of budgeting loans, applicants are asked 

to tick which of seven categories they need help for, but 

are not asked to specify the items they require. Television 

sets would come under the category ‘to buy furniture or 

household equipment’. Data are not available on the 

number of awards for each category. 

The number of crisis loans or community care grants 

initially awarded for the purpose of buying television 

sets over the value of (i) £500 or (ii) £1,000 in (A) City 

of Chester constituency or (B) Great Britain in each of 

the financial years 2005-06 to 2009-10 was extremely 

low, being recorded as nil or negligible. 

Notes: 

1. The information provided is management information. Our 

preference is to answer all parliamentary questions using Official/ 

National Statistics but in this case we only have management 

information available. It is not quality assured to the same extent 

as Official/National statistics and there are some issues with the 

data, for example, the information given does not include applications 

which were processed clerically and had not been entered on to 

the social fund computer system by the end of the relevant 

financial year. 

2. Data are available for initial awards only. No information is 

available on the number of awards of the type described which 

were made after review. 

3. Exact numbers have not been given for data protection reasons. 

‘Nil or negligible’ means less than five. 

Source: 

Department for Work and Pensions Social Fund Policy, Budget 

and Management Information System. 

Social Security Benefits: Expenditure 

Tessa Munt: To ask the Secretary of State for Work 

and Pensions how much was spent on each type of 

welfare and benefits payment to people with an income 

of (a) £6,475 to £7,475, (b) £7,476 to £8,475, (c) 

£8,476 to £9,475 and (d) £9,476 to £10,000 on each of 

the last five years; and if he will make a statement. 

[39051] 

Maria Miller: Information is not available for all 

welfare and benefits by income level. The following 

table shows the available data on expenditure on benefits 

in payment to people in households with gross unequivalised 

annual incomes within the bands requested. Estimates 

are derived from the Family Resources Survey and are 

based on a three year average to help take account of 

small sample sizes in certain income bands and statistical 

variation across the years. Use of survey data means 

that information is only available for the benefits shown. 

Table 1: Benefit expenditure (in millions) by unequivalised annual 

gross income band, United Kingdom, 2004-05 to 2006-07 

Benefit 

Disability 

living 

allowance 

Child 

benefit 

State 

retirement 

pension 

Pension 

credit 

Attendance 

allowance 

Incapacity 

benefit 

£6,476 

to 

£7,475 

£7,476 

to 

£8,475 

£8,476 

to 

£9,475 

£9,476 

to 

£10,000 

Total 

(three 

year 

average) 

100 150 200 150 9,361 

50 50 100 50 9,840 

1,800 2,050 2,650 1,650 55,730 

300 300 500 300 6,975 

50 50 100 100 4,253 

250 300 300 100 7,205

815W 




816W 



Benefit 

Income 

support 

Winter fuel 

payments 

Council tax 

benefit 

Housing 

benefit 

Jobseekers 

allowance 

£6,476 

to 

£7,475 

£7,476 

to 

£8,475 

£8,476 

to 

£9,475 

£9,476 

to 

£10,000 

Total 

(three 

year 

average) 

250 350 450 300 10,165 

100 100 100 50 2,159 

250 250 300 200 4,081 

600 800 1,200 750 15,179 

100 100 50 50 2,453 



Benefit 

Disability 

living 

allowance 

Child 

benefit 

State 

retirement 

pension 

Pension 

credit 

Attendance 

allowance 

Incapacity 

benefit 

Income 

support 

Winter fuel 

payments 

Council tax 

benefit 

Housing 

benefit 

Jobseekers 

allowance 

£6,476 

to 

£7,475 

£7,476 

to 

£8,475 

£8,476 

to 

£9,475 

£9,476 

to 

£10,000 

Total 

(three 

year 

average) 

100 150 200 100 9,745 

50 50 50 50 10,176 

1,550 1,950 2,350 1,550 57,363 

350 250 400 300 7,317 

50 50 100 50 4,413 

250 300 250 100 7,015 

250 300 350 300 9,509 

100 100 100 50 2,141 

250 250 250 200 4,142 

550 700 1,000 750 15,689 

100 100 50 50 2,455 



Benefit 

Disability 

living 

allowance 

Child 

benefit 

State 

retirement 

pension 

Pension 

credit 

Attendance 

allowance 

Incapacity 

benefit 

Income 

support 

Winter fuel 

payments 

£6,476 

to 

£7,475 

£7,476 

to 

£8,475 

£8,476 

to 

£9,475 

£9,476 

to 

£10,000 

Total 

(three 

year 

average) 

50 150 200 100 10,114 

50 50 50 50 10,674 

1,300 1,850 2,050 1,300 59,168 

250 300 350 250 7,574 

50 50 100 50 4,563 

200 250 200 150 6,787 

200 300 300 200 9,063 

50 100 100 50 2,320 



Benefit 

£6,476 

to 

£7,475 

£7,476 

to 

£8,475 

£8,476 

to 

£9,475 

£9,476 

to 

£10,000 

Total 

(three 

year 

average) 

Council tax 200 250 250 150 4,179 

benefit 

Housing 550 650 850 600 16,319 

benefit 

Jobseekers 100 100 50 50 2,574 

allowance 

Notes: 

1. Estimates are derived from the Family Resources Survey and are 

based on a three year average to help take account of small sample 

sizes in certain income bands and statistical variation across the years. 

2. All amounts are in 2008-09 prices. Information covers Great 

Britain only. 

3. Shares of benefit expenditure by income band according to the 

Family Resources Survey have been applied to administrative data to 

derive a split by income band. Administrative data totals are available 

to the nearest million pounds, while information based on survey data 

is presented rounded to the nearest £50 million. 

4. The income measures used to derive the estimates shown employ 

the same methodology as the Department for Work and Pensions 

publication ‘Households Below Average Income’ series. Note, however, 

that unlike most incomes used in the ‘Households Below Average 

Income’ publication, incomes here are gross and unequivalised. 

5. The Family Resources Survey is known to undercount receipt of 

certain benefits. This methodology assumes that this undercount is 

spread proportionally across income bands. For example, if 30% of 

expenditure is in a certain income band, this assumes 30% of any 

undercount is also in that income band. This assumption may not be 

justified here given the relationship between overall income and 

reporting of benefit income. 

6. Unequivalised gross incomes have been rounded to the nearest 

pound sterling in order to assign all incomes to bands. 

The relatively small proportion of benefit expenditure 

directed at the low income bands specified is mainly due 

to three reasons; firstly, there is a low proportion of the 

population overall with gross unequivalised annual incomes 

less than £10,000; secondly, a major factor causing very 

low incomes is non take-up of benefits and tax credits; 

and thirdly, evidence suggests that the Family Resources 

Survey has an undercount in terms of recording benefit 

receipt compared to administrative totals. 

Work Capability Assessment: Carmarthen 

Simon Hart: To ask the Secretary of State for Work 

and Pensions (1) how many and what proportion of 

claimants of employment and support allowance in 

Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire constituency 

have been found capable of work as a result of a work 

capability assessment since May 2005; [34378] 

(2) what proportion of residents of Carmarthen 

West and South Pembrokeshire constituency who 

appealed against work capability assessments were 

successful since May 2005; [34379] 

(3) how many appeals against the outcomes of work 

capability assessments were made in Carmarthen West 

and South Pembrokeshire constituency in each of the 

last five years; and how many such appeals were 

successful. [34380] 

Chris Grayling: Since the above questions all relate to 

the work capability assessment (WCA) for employment 

and support allowance (ESA) in the same geographical 

areas, a single response addressing all the questions is 

given as follows.

817W 




818W 

ESA was introduced in October 2008. Information 

on WCAs held, their outcomes and subsequent appeals 

is not available at the constituency level. Figures have 

therefore been provided for the Carmarthenshire and 

Pembrokeshire local authority (LA) areas, which cover 

the Carmarthen West and Pembrokeshire constituency. 

The number of fit for work decisions given at initial 

WCA in Carmarthenshire LA between October 2008 

and February 2010, the latest data available, is 1,540 or 

42% of all new ESA claims received. In Pembrokeshire 

LA there were 680 fit for work decisions, representing 

36% of all new ESA claims received in the same period. 

Of claims received between October 2008 and August 

2009 in Carmarthenshire, that were found fit for work 

at initial WCA, 430 have appealed the WCA decision 

and had their appeal heard by July 2010. Of these 

appeals 160 or 38% found in favour of the appellant. 

For Pembrokeshire, there have been 140 appeals, of 

which 20 or 15% found in favour of the appellant. 

The above data are taken from benefit claims data 

held by the Department for Work and Pensions, functional 

assessment data sourced from Atos Healthcare and 

appeals data sourced from the Tribunals Service. 

All case load figures have been rounded to the nearest 

10 and percentages to the nearest percentage point. 

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE 

Burundi: Politics and Government 

Pauline Latham: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent steps 

his Department has taken to support post-conflict 

reconstruction in Burundi, with particular reference to 

providing livelihoods for returning reintegrated refugees. 

[41029] 

Alistair Burt: The UK has provided strong political 

and programmatic support to post-conflict reconstruction 

and the return of refugees in Burundi since the end of 

the civil war in 2003. 

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has worked 

closely with the international community to support 

Burundi in its return to stability. Through regular discussions 

in the UN Security Council, in particular around the 

regular renewal of the mandate of the UN mission in 

Burundi, and through active participation in the Peace 

Building Commission, the UK has promoted the protection 

of the human rights of vulnerable citizens, including 

returnees, and emphasised the importance of instituting 

an effective transitional justice mechanism. Our offices 

in Burundi and our ambassador based in Kigali have 

also encouraged the Government of Burundi to take 

the steps that we believe are essential in enabling Burundi 

to complete its post-conflict recovery. The Anglican 

Archbishop of Burundi recently praised the support of 

the British Government for their engagement. 

Departmental Flags 

Andrew Rosindell: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what guidance his 

Department issues on flying the EU flag from (a) 

embassies, (b) high commissions and (c) other 

Government buildings overseas. [40298] 

Mr Lidington: The British flag has precedence. In all 

cases where it is deployed, the European flag is displayed 

alongside, not instead of, the British Diplomatic, Consular 

or (in Commonwealth countries) Union flag. Our 

Representation to the EU in Brussels displays the European 

flag at all times, as do all our EU partners on their 

buildings. 

On Europe day (9 May), posts in EU and EU-applicant 

countries display the European flag. Other posts may 

also display the European flag on Europe day where 

this is normal local practice. 


Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the 

provisions of any EU treaty govern the flying of EU 

flags from Government buildings overseas; and if he 

will make a statement. [40299] 

Mr Lidington: There is no specific legal base in either 

the treaty on European Union or the treaty on the 

functioning of the European Union which governs the 

flying of an EU flag from Government buildings overseas. 

The UK’s representation to the EU in Brussels displays 

the European flag at all times, as do all our EU partners 

on their buildings. On Europe day (9 May), posts in EU 

and EU-applicant countries display the European flag. 

Other posts may also display the European flag on 

Europe day where this is normal local practice. In all 

cases, the European flag is displayed alongside, not 

instead of, the British Diplomatic, Consular or (in 

Commonwealth countries) Union flag, with the British 

flag having precedence. 

Egypt: Elections 

Mr Douglas Alexander: To ask the Secretary of State 

for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place 

in the Library a copy of each unclassified item of 

briefing given to Ministers on the outcome of the 2010 

parliamentary elections in Egypt. [40131] 

Mr Hague: Ministers received no briefing at unclassified 

level following the outcome of the 2010 parliamentary 

elections in Egypt. 

During parliamentary elections in Egypt in November 

and December, domestic observers, civil society 

organisations and election participants raised serious 

concerns about arrangements in the run-up to and 

during the elections. These included refusal of access 

for international monitors, lack of access in many instances 

for independent national monitors and candidate 

representatives to key parts of the voting and counting 

process and reports of attempts to limit media comment 

on the elections. In a number of cases, reported voting 

irregularities and the harassment and arrest of opposition 

candidates and their supporters amounted to serious 

interference in the electoral process. This called into 

question the credibility of some of the results. The 

majority of the opposition parties and candidates refused 

to participate in the second round of elections, citing 

these issues. We strongly encouraged the Egyptian 

authorities to address those concerns. After the elections 

the UK and EU highlighted in public and in private 

irregularities in the electoral process including the absence 

of independent monitors and limits to press freedom.

819W 




820W 

The Government worked to support free and fair 

parliamentary elections in 2010. We called on the Egyptian 

Government to amend legislation to ensure full 

compatibility with Egypt’s international obligations in 

this regard and to permit international observers to 

visit Egypt during the election periods. 

The EU also supported a coalition of Egyptian civil 

society organisations to monitor the presidential and 

parliamentary elections. These non-governmental 

organisations are also working to raise Egyptian voter 

awareness towards their political rights, train observers 

to be able effectively to monitor the elections, and to 

improve media coverage of the electoral campaigns 

along internationally recognised professional and ethical 

standards. Our embassy is also supporting a number of 

smaller projects with Egyptian civil society to assist 

their capacity building for the electoral process. 

Egypt: Politics and Government 


for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contact 

his Department has had with representatives of the 

Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt; and if he will make a 


Mr Hague: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister 

has made clear, we continue to press the Egyptian 

Government to give opposition groups a real role in the 

reform process, through a genuinely broad-based dialogue. 

The Egyptian Government has begun that Dialogue 

and as part of it, has met the Muslim Brotherhood in 

Egypt who are an important part of Egypt’s national 

political mosaic. 

Our embassy in Cairo maintains working level contacts 

with many government and opposition figures, including 

the Muslim Brotherhood. We have been in contact with 

members of the Muslim Brotherhood in their positions 

as elected representatives in the Egyptian parliament. 

We will continue to have contacts with those members 

of the Muslim Brotherhood who are, or who are likely 

to be, part of the political dialogue process in Egypt 

and who have agreed to respect and work within that 

process. 

Embassies: Official Hospitality 


Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what expenditure 

was incurred for hospitality for the British embassy or 

high commission in (a) Albania, (b) Macedonia, (c) 

Serbia, (d) Mozambique and (e) Angola in the 

financial year 2009-10; and if he will make a statement. 

[37954] 

Alistair Burt: In the financial year 2009-10 our British 

embassies and high commissions in the countries listed 

as follows incurred the following expenditure for hospitality: 

£ Percentage of post 

expenditure 

Albania 4,199 0.8 

Macedonia 15,458 1.7 

Serbia 43,278 1.2 

Mozambique 11,002 1.1 

Angola 22,827 1.6 

This expenditure was spent on a wide range of activities 

designed to establish and cultivate contacts and included 

meetings and events hosted for political and business 

delegations (including those in support of UK Trade 

and Industry) abroad, to promote and defend wider 

British interests. All expenditure on official hospitality 

is incurred in accordance with the principles of Managing 

Public Money and the Treasury handbook on Regularity, 

Propriety and Value for Money. 

European Union Bill 


for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many 

meetings Ministers in his Department have had with 

hon. Members on the European Union Bill. [40124] 

Mr Hague: Ministers have met or otherwise engaged 

with a number of hon. Members from all political 

parties, on a range of issues relating to the EU Bill both 

prior to introduction and during Parliament’s consideration 

of the Bill. This is consistent with the normal course of 

business, and as the Bill proceeds through Parliament, 

Ministers will continue to engage with hon. Members in 

this way. 

North Africa and Middle East: British Nationals 

Abroad 

Stephen Phillips: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps his 

Department is taking to facilitate the safety of UK 

nationals in (a) Tunisia, (b) Egypt, (c) Jordan and (d) 

Yemen. [40681] 

Alistair Burt: The Foreign and Commonwealth Office 

(FCO) produces travel advice for all countries which is 

kept under constant review. This includes information 

for British nationals on travel safety and avoiding problem 

situations. FCO travel advice is available on the FCO 

website as well as the FCO British Abroad Facebook 

and Twitter sites. The FCO has a strong relationship 

with around 400 travel industry partners as part of the 

ongoing Know Before You Go campaign to help British 

nationals stay safe and healthy abroad. 

During the recent crisis in Tunisia, in response to the 

deteriorating situation, the FCO changed the travel 

advice on 13 January 2011 to advise against all but 

essential travel to Tunisia. The FCO worked closely 

with travel industry partners to enable British nationals 

wanting to leave the country in line with our travel 

advice to do so safely. The advice against all but essential 

travel to Tunisia was removed on 4 February 2011, in 

line with an improving security situation on the ground. 

In response to the unrest in Egypt, the FCO advises 

against all but essential travel to Cairo, Alexandria, 

Suez and Luxor. In addition, the FCO organised two 

government-funded charter flights for British nationals 

wanting to leave Cairo, on 3 and 5 February 2011. The 

FCO sent additional staff to both Tunisia and Egypt to 

reinforce our embassies on the ground. We continue to 

monitor the situation in Jordan and Yemen. There are 

currently no travel restrictions in place in Jordan. We 

currently advise against all but essential travel to Yemen, 

and against all travel to the Governorate of Sa’ada.

821W 




822W 

Sudan: Referendums 

Lady Hermon: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance he 

has provided to Sudan following the recent referendum 

in that country. [41030] 

Alistair Burt: We are committed to providing long 

term support to the people of north and south Sudan. 

We are providing significant humanitarian and development 

funding this year to improve governance, address insecurity 

and provide basic services. The Government are currently 

conducting a review of all our bilateral and multilateral 

aid, including our humanitarian emergency response. 

Trade Promotion 


Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many times 

the then Foreign Secretary led trade delegations to (a) 

Brazil, (b) Russia, (c) India and (d) China between 

May 2005 and May 2010. [38790] 

Alistair Burt: The then Foreign Secretary, the right 

hon. Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett), 

visited China in May 2007 accompanied by a trade 

delegation. 

There were no Foreign Secretary-led trade delegations 

to Brazil, Russia or India between May 2005 and May 

2010. 

Tunisia: Politics and Government 


for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he first 

received reports of unrest in Tunisia. [40210] 

Mr Hague: The Foreign and Commonwealth Office 

Minister responsible for North Africa and I receive 

regular reports from both our embassies in the region 

and officials here in London. In the case of Tunisia, our 

embassy in Tunis reported in December 2010 on the 

political developments that formed the backdrop to 

the unrest and thereafter provided regular updates as 

the unrest escalated. 

PRIME MINISTER 

Children’s Centres 

Chris Ruane: To ask the Prime Minister what assessment 

he has made of the role of Sure Start centres in developing 

the big society. [40988] 

The Prime Minister: The Government have ensured 

that there is enough money in the system to maintain 

the network of Sure Start children’s centres. 

The Government are working with local authorities 

to enable voluntary and community sector organisations 

with a track record of supporting families to become 

more involved with running and delivering services 

within children’s centres. 

The Localism Bill is introducing a right for local 

organisations and local authority employees to challenge 

local authorities to contract out services. Where services 

are contracted out, community groups, including parents 

and other local people, can apply to run children’s 

centres, or services within centres, themselves. 

General Practitioners 

John Healey: To ask the Prime Minister what the 

attendance list was for the 10 Downing street event for 

GP pathfinders held on 26 January 2011; and with 

which organisations each attendee is affiliated. [41439] 

The Prime Minister: Information on official and charity 

receptions held at 10 Downing street is published by 

means of an annual list as soon as it is ready at the end 

of the financial year. 

TREASURY 

Departmental Temporary Employment 

Kate Green: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 

what the (a) total salary cost and (b) average salary is 

of staff employed on fixed-term contracts in his 

Department. [34534] 

Justine Greening: There are currently 76 staff employed 

on fixed-term contracts in the Treasury. The total of the 

basic salaries of those staff is £2,684,506, an average of 

£35,322 per fixed-term employee. 

EU Law 

Priti Patel: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 

how many EU directives are pending transposition into 

domestic legislation by his Department; and what 

estimate he has made of the cost of each such 

transposition. [27502] 

Mr Hoban: The EU Directives pending transposition 

into domestic legislation as of 14 January 2011 on 

which HM Treasury officials were engaged are set out in 

the following table. Estimates made by this Department 

of the gross transitional cost to the UK of their 

transposition (i.e. including costs likely to be incurred 

by private industry) are shown. No separate estimates 

of HM Treasury’s administrative costs have been made. 

These estimates do not take account of any benefits 

that might accrue to the UK. 

Title of legislation 

Estimated costs 

Electronic Money Directive 2009/110/EC 

Estimated cost to the UK of implementation is £1 million. 

Capital Requirements 2010/76/EU 

Transposition has been partially completed; the estimated cost to 

the UK of implementation of the remaining parts is nil/marginal.

823W 




824W 

Title of legislation 

Estimated costs 

Directive 2010/78/EU amending Directives 98/26/EC, 2002/87/EC, 2003/6/ 

EC, 2003/41/EC, 2003/71/EC, 2004/39/EC, 2004/109/EC, 2005/60/EC, 

2006/48/EC, 2006/49/EC and 2009/65/EC in respect of the powers of the 

European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority), the 

European Supervisory Authority (European Insurance and Occupational 

Pensions Authority) and the European Supervisory Authority (European 

Securities and Markets Authority) 

European Directive 2010/73/EU (amendments to EU Prospectus Directive) 

Directive 2009/65/EC Recast Undertakings for Collective Investments in 

Transferable Securities (UCITS IV) Directive 2009 

Directive 2009/128/EC on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of 

insurance and reinsurance (Solvency II) 

The estimated cost to the UK is nil/marginal (the only anticipated 

costs will be HM Treasury and Financial Services Authority staff 

costs). 

At pre-consultation stage: no estimate has yet been made of the 

total cost of implementation of the Amending Directive. 

£50 million 

Implementing measures are not yet agreed and so no estimate is 

currently available. 

Excise Duties: Fuels 

Mr Carswell: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 

whether he has assessed the merits of allowing county 

and metropolitan councils to collect and retain fuel 

duty locally; and if he will make a statement. [41288] 

Justine Greening: Fuel duty is collected directly from 

fuel producers and therefore does not distinguish between 

different fuel consumers or geographic areas. The 

Chancellor keeps all taxes under review. 

James Murdoch 

Paul Farrelly: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 

what meetings in an official capacity (a) he (b) Ministers 

and (c) officials in his Department have had with (i) 

Rupert Murdoch, (ii) James Murdoch, (iii) Rebekah 

Wade, (iv) individuals representing News International, 

(v) individuals representing News Corporation and (vi) 

individuals representing BSkyB since 4 November 2010. 

[34116] 

Justine Greening: Treasury Ministers and officials 

have meetings with a wide range of organisations and 

individuals in the public and private sectors as part of 

the process of policy development and implementation. 

The Treasury publishes a list of ministerial meetings 

with external organisations, available at: 

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/minister_hospitality.htm 

Public Bodies: Accountancy 

Stephen Barclay: To ask the Chancellor of the 

Exchequer what guidance his Department issues to (a) 

Ofcom and (b) other arm’s length bodies on ensuring 

that their accounting practices are in line with those 

required of (i) Government departments and (ii) the 

National Audit Office. [40792] 

Danny Alexander [holding answer 14 February 2011]: 

Ofcom is a public corporation. The Secretary of State 

for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Secretary of 

State for Culture, Media and Sport issue an Accounts 

Direction (to date administered by BIS, but which now 

passes to DCMS) that determines the accounting practice 

to be followed. As a Public Corporation, Ofcom accounts 

under the Companies Act and follows International 

Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) in line with the 

Government sector. 

Arm’s length bodies such as NDPBs, executive agencies 

and trading funds (along with Government Departments) 

follow the Government Financial Manual (FReM). 

Accounts Directions for NDPBs are issued by their 

Secretary of State in line with their legislation, normally 

with the agreement of the Treasury. HM Treasury issues 

the Accounts Directions for Departments and agencies 

(under the Government Resources and Accounts Act 

2000) and trading funds (under The Government Trading 

Funds Act 1973). 

The NAO carry out their audits based on the 

requirements of the Accounts Directions. 

Revenue and Customs: Debt Collection 

Caroline Lucas: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 

pursuant to the answer of 17 January 2011, Official 

Report, column 578W, on tax collection: debts, for what 

reason HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) has published 

in the Official Journal of the European Community an 

invitation to tender for debt collection services which 

stipulates that during the lifetime of the agreement 

clients may wish to expand on core services and use 

supplementary services to ensure that debt recovery is 

maximised; and if he will assess the implications of this 

notice for HMRC policy on referring cases to private 

sector debt collection agencies for door-to-door visits. 

[40674] 

Mr Gauke: The advertisement to which the hon. 

Member refers relates to a procurement being conducted 

under the EU Open procedure in respect of a cross 

government framework contract and was published in 

the OJEU on 28 January 2011. This can be viewed at: 

http://ted.europa.eu/udl?uri=TED:NQTICE:30619- 

2011:TEXT:EN:HTML&src=0 

As the advertisement makes clear the intention is 

to procure, through a single framework contract, a 

comprehensive range of debt collection agency services 

that would then be available to HMRC, other Government 

Departments and public bodies to draw upon should 

the need arise. 

The current procurement exercise does not alter the 

position with regard to door-to-door visits by HMRC 

staff that I set out in my answer of 17 January 2011, 

Official Report, column 578W.

825W 




826W 

Taxation: Aviation 

Jim Fitzpatrick: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 

what information his Department holds for benchmarking 

purposes on aviation taxation regimes in (a) EU member 

states and (b) G20 countries; and if he will make a 


Justine Greening: I refer the hon. Member to the 

answer given to the hon. Member for Central Suffolk 

and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) on 22 November 2010, 

Official Report, column 83W. 

Taxation: Financial Services 

Mr Meacher: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 

if he will estimate the likely yield to the Exchequer of 

a tax on financial trades (a) internationally and (b) 

within the UK alone for clearing house automated 

payments system transactions at a rate of (i) 1 per cent., 

(ii) 0.1 per cent., (iii) 0.01 per cent. and (iv) 0.001 per 

cent. [39955] 

Mr Hoban: I refer the right hon. Member to the 

answer I gave on 16 September 2010, Official Report, 

column 1254W, to the hon. Member for West Suffolk 

(Matthew Hancock). 

VAT: Alcoholic Drinks 

Karen Lumley: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 

whether EU member states may operate differential 

value added tax rates on the sale of alcohol through the 

on trade and the off trade. [40493] 

Mr Gauke: Under the principal VAT directive, member 

states are only permitted to apply one standard rate of 

value added tax which must not be less than 15%. 

Member states may also apply two reduced rates of 

value added tax, but they are not permitted to apply a 

reduced rate to alcoholic beverages. 

LEADER OF THE HOUSE 


Philip Davies: To ask the Leader of the House how 

much his Department spent on carbon offsetting in 

each of the last three years; and to which companies 

payments for carbon offsetting were made in each such 

year. [40519] 

Sir George Young: The Office of the Leader of the 

House of Commons is an integral part of the Cabinet 

Office. 

I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given today by 

the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate 

Change, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and 

Battle (Gregory Barker). 

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT 

Fair Trade 

12. Julie Hilling: To ask the Secretary of State for 

International Development what steps his Department 

is taking to promote fair trade in developing countries. 

[40982] 

Mr O’Brien: The Department for International 

Development is committed to the relief of poverty, and 

one of the most cost effective means is to promote open 

markets through a fair and strong multilateral trading 

system. DFID’s support to fair and ethical trade aims 

to double the number of Fairtrade-certified producers 

to 2.2 million and improve working conditions in global 

supply chains. 

Poverty Reduction 

14. Lilian Greenwood: To ask the Secretary of State 

for International Development what steps his Department 

is taking to ensure that development aid contributes to 

poverty reduction in the developing world. [40984] 

Mr Duncan: DFID is highly regarded as a world 

leader in international development. Our focus on poverty 

reduction is designed to make a serious impact on 

attaining the Millennium Development Goals. The Bilateral 

and Multilateral Aid Reviews focus rigorously on securing 

value for money and transparency in all that we do. 

Poverty Relief Targets 

15. Mrs Riordan: To ask the Secretary of State for 

International Development what steps his Department 

is taking to assist African nations in meeting world 

poverty relief targets by 2015. [40985] 

Mr O’Brien: DFID is helping African nations to 

achieve the 2015 poverty relief targets through results-driven 

cost-effective investments to create wealth, strengthen 

governance and security, save and improve the lives of 

women and girls, and tackle climate change. We are 

committed to working transparently, and maximising 

value for money and impact. 

Africa: Young People 

Ms Harman: To ask the Secretary of State for 

International Development what recent assessment he 

has made of the humanitarian situation of children and 

young people in (a) Sudan, (b) Uganda, (c) the 

Democratic Republic of Congo and (d) the Central 

African Republic; and what steps he is taking to support 

such children and young people. [41320] 

Mr Andrew Mitchell: In Sudan one in 10 children die 

before the age of five, net enrolment in primary education 

is around 54% and Southern Sudan alone has over one 

million children out of school. In Uganda, children and 

young people have lost opportunities for education as a 

result of two decades of conflict, and now risk being 

unable to access the services they need because of a very 

high rate of population growth. In the Democratic 

Republic of Congo (DRC) one in five children die 

before their fifth birthday and more than four million

827W 




828W 

children are out of school. The Central African Republic 

(CAR) has been affected by civil war for a number of 

years. The UN estimates that 838,000 children need 

humanitarian assistance and one in 10 children suffers 

from acute malnutrition. 

Investing in children and young people is of critical 

importance for a country’s future development. DFID 

is currently reviewing its aid programme to ensure UK 

aid represents value for money for the UK taxpayer, 

while bringing real benefits to the world’s poor and 

accelerating progress towards the Millennium Development 

Goals. The conclusions of the Bilateral Aid Review 

(BAR), Multilateral Aid Reviews (MAR) as well as the 

Humanitarian and Emergency Response Review (HERR) 

will determine our response to the challenges faced by 

children and young people in these countries. Conclusion 

of the BAR and MAR will be announced in the coming 

weeks, while the HERR will report by the end of 

March. 

Burundi: Reconstruction 

Pauline Latham: To ask the Secretary of State for 

International Development what recent steps his 

Department has taken to support the post-conflict 

reconstruction process in Burundi; and what support he 

has provided for returning reintegrated refugees in that 

country. [41133] 

Mr O’Brien: In the last four years, the Department 

for International Development (DFID) has provided 

£5.8 million for post-conflict reconstruction and support 

for returning refugees and internally displaced persons 

(IDPs) in Burundi. UK support has enabled the 

refurbishment and construction of 143 schools and the 

repair of more than 13,000 pieces of school equipment. 

This has benefitted 35,000 students, of whom over 

4,000 are returning refugees, and 850 teachers. 170,000 

returning refugees have been successfully reintegrated 

and one million IDPs were provided with better access 

to basic health care and rural and urban water facilities. 

With less than 50,000 refugees now remaining outside 

Burundi, DFID’s focus has moved from providing 

humanitarian and post-conflict reconstruction support, 

to increasing the Government of Burundi’s ability to 

deliver better health and education services. 

DFID’s future support to Burundi and the East 

Africa Community, of which Burundi is a member, will 

be announced upon the conclusion of the bilateral aid 

review in the coming weeks. 

Cotonou Agreement 

Stephen Phillips: To ask the Secretary of State for 

International Development what steps he is taking to 

ensure that development assistance provided by the 

European Union under the Cotonou Agreement is linked 

to good governance within the African, Caribbean and 

Pacific Group of States countries. [40689] 

Mr O’Brien: The Cotonou agreement, which governs 

relations between the EU and the 79 African, Caribbean 

and the Pacific countries (ACP), is based on ‘good 

governance’ and the fundamental principles of democracy, 

rule of law and human rights. The violation of any of 

these principles can lead to a suspension of aid. 

The agreement has recently been revised and sets out 

a clearer process for evoking the final imposition of 

article 96 measures, which apply when fundamental 

principles are breached. The UK continues to work 

with other member states and the European Commission 

to look at how to strengthen the implementation of the 

relevant articles. 

The European Development Fund (EDF) has a 

governance incentive mechanism built into its aid 

programmes to ACP countries, through which it provides 

additional funding for commitments to deliver governance 

reforms. 



International Development how much his Department 

spent on carbon offsetting in each of the last three 

years; and to which companies payments for carbon 

offsetting were made in each such year. [40517] 

Mr Duncan: The Department for International 

Development (DFID) spent the following sums on carbon 

offsetting in each of the last three years: 

2007-08: £179,818 

2008-09: £219,243 

2009-10: £303,140. 

During 2007-08 and 2008-09, the Government Carbon 

Offsetting Scheme was administered by the Department 

for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) 

and the sums were therefore transferred directly to 

them. In 2009-10 the payment was made to EDF Trading 

Ltd. 

CABINET OFFICE 

Childbirth: Enfield 

Nick de Bois: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet 

Office how many births there were at (a) Chase Farm 

Hospital, Enfield, (b) North Middlesex Hospital, 

Enfield and (c) Barnet Hospital in each of the last five 

years. [41608] 

Mr Hurd: The information requested falls within the 

responsibility of the UK Statistics Authority. I have 

asked the authority to reply. 

Letter from Stephen Penneck, dated February 2011: 

As Director General for the Office for National Statistics, I 

have been asked to reply to your recent question asking how many 

births there were at (a) Chase Farm Hospital, Enfield, (b) North 

Middlesex Hospital, Enfield and (c) Barnet Hospital in each of 

the last five years. [41608] 

Figures for live births by hospital have been compiled from 

birth registration data. Information on place of birth is provided 

by the informant at registration rather than by the hospitals 

themselves. 

Live births occurring in selected hospitals, 2005 to 2009 

Communal 

establishment 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

Chase Farm 

Hospital, Enfield 

North Middlesex 

Hospital, Enfield 

2,864 3,004 3,039 3,124 3,134 

3,333 3,330 3,489 3,466 3,240

829W 




830W 

Live births occurring in selected hospitals, 2005 to 2009 

Communal 

establishment 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

Barnet General 

Hospital 

2,718 3,298 3,241 3,163 3,235 

Government Departments: Pay 

Average number of televisions per 

household, UK 

2002/03 2.4 

2009 2.4 

Source: 

Living Costs and Food Survey, Office for National Statistics 

Lisa Nandy: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office 

whether his Department provides guidance to departments 

on data collection on the pay of sub-contracted staff. 

[41245] 

Mr Maude: The Government do not require 

Departments to collect data on the pay of sub-contracted 

staff, so no guidance has been issued. 

All companies, including those acting as contractors 

or sub-contractors to Government, are required to comply 

with national minimum wage legislation. 

Job Creation 

Chris Ruane: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet 

Office how many and what proportion of jobs created 

in 2010 were (a) full-time and (b) part-time. [40630] 






have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question asking 

for the number of part-time and full-time jobs created in 2010 

(40630). 

The requested information is not available. However estimates 

for the number of people in full-time and part-time employment 

are available from the Labour Force Survey. In the three months 

to November 2010 the number of people in full-time employment 

was 21,159,000, down 43,000 on the year. In the three months to 

November 2010 the number of people in part-time employment 

was 7,930,000, up 227,000 on the year. These estimates are 

seasonally adjusted. 

Televisions 

Chris Ruane: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet 

Office what data his Department holds on the average 

number of televisions in households in (a) 1981, (b) 

1990, (c) 2000 and (d) 2010. [41285] 







what data is held on the average number of televisions in households 

in (a) 1981, (b) 1990, (c) 2000 and (d) 2010. (41285) 

The table provided shows the average number of televisions 

per household in the UK, in 2002/03 and 2009, the latest available. 

Data prior to 2002/03 are not available. These estimates are based 

on data from the Living Costs and Food Survey (LCF), an annual 

survey of approximately 5,000 households in the UK. 

These estimates, as with any involving sample surveys, are 

subject to a margin of uncertainty. 

COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT 

Affordable Housing: Barking 

Margaret Hodge: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Communities and Local Government what funding his 

Department plans to provide for the provision of affordable 

housing in the Barking Riverside development in the 

Thames Gateway. [40888] 

Robert Neill: The first four plots developed at Barking 

Riverside will deliver 358 homes of which 167 will be 

affordable. The building of these homes is supported by 

a National Affordable Housing grant of £24 million. 

Further affordable housing within future phases will 

be developed and supported through the HCA’s new 

Affordable Homes programme the principal product of 

which is affordable rent. 

Audit Commission: Allowances 

Matthew Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Communities and Local Government how much each 

director of the Audit Commission claimed for (a) 

hospitality and (b) other expenses in each of the last 

two years. [40994] 

Robert Neill: This is an operational matter for the 

Audit Commission and I have asked the chief executive 

of the Audit Commission to write to my hon. Friend 

direct. 

Letter from Eugene Sullivan, dated 16 February 2011: 

Your Parliamentary Question has been passed to me to reply. 

The amounts claimed by Managing Directors for hospitality 

and expenses in the last two years are detailed below: 

Hospitality 

£ 

Expenses 

2009 

Chief Executive Steve Bundred 1,557.60 1,445.47 

Managing Director Audit Martin Evans 0 12.00 

Managing Director Finance and 

21.60 1,362.59 

Corporate Services Eugene Sullivan 

Managing Director PRS Peter Wilkinson 0 533.04 

Managing Director Local Government 

0 1,098.01 

Gareth Davies 

Managing Director HR Tracey Dennison 78.21 394.19 

Managing Director Communications 1,809.03 404.90 

David Walker 

Managing Director Health Andy 

McKeon 

83.25 583.80 

2010 

Chief Executive Steve Bundred to 

31 March 2010, Eugene Sullivan from 

1 April 2010 

0 1,203.30

831W 




832W 

Hospitality 

£ 

Expenses 

Managing Director Audit Martin Evans 0 0 

Managing Director Finance and 

0 225.10 

Corporate Services Eugene Sullivan to 31 

March 2010. Eugene became Chief 

Executive on 1 April 2010. 

Director Finance Sonia Rees was 

0 198.21 

appointed Finance Director, a senior 

management team post, on 1 April when 

Eugene Sullivan became Chief Executive. 

Managing Director PRS and Local 

0 0 

Government Peter Wilkinson. The MD, 

Local Government role was added to this 

post in October 2010. 

Managing Director Local Government 

0 168.10 

Gareth Davies. Responsibility for this 

post was moved to the MD, PRS in 

October 2010. 

Managing Director Audit Practice 

0 45.00 

Gareth Davies. This post was created in 

October 2010. 

Managing Director HR Tracey Dennison 0 46.70 

Managing Director Communications 

180.65 35.00 

David Walker. This post was made 

redundant from September 2010 and 

responsibility moved to the MD, Health. 

Managing Director Health and 

Communications Andy McKeon. The 

MD, Communications role was added to 

this post in October 2010. 

0 241.46 

Hospitality registers and expenses for the Chairman, Board 

members, the Chief Executive and Managing Directors are published 

on the Audit Commission website. These can be viewed here: 

http://www.audit-commission.gov.uk/legal/ 

freedomofinformation/publicationscheme/ 

hospitalityandexpenses/pages/default.aspx 

Audit Commission: Expenditure 


Communities and Local Government how much the 

Audit Commission spent on calls to (a) premium-rate 

telephone numbers, (b) directory enquiry services and 

(c) the speaking clock in the last 36 months for which 

figures are available. [41008] 

Robert Neill: This is an operational matter for the 

Audit Commission and I have asked the chief executive 

of the Audit Commission to write to my hon. Friend 

direct. 

Letter from Eugene Sullivan, dated 16 February 2011: 

Your Parliamentary Question has been passed to me to reply. 

The Commission routinely bars premium rate calls for fixed 

and mobile phones where technically possible. Some premium 

rate calls are required for targeted business purposes, the main 

one being for postal franking machines (£162 over the three 

years). The speaking clock is sometimes used to test lines externally 

where a guaranteed reply is needed. 

For our main offices, all directory enquiry calls are routed to 

our main provider Cable & Wireless service as this provides the 

most effective rate. Mobile phone calls to directory enquiries and 

the speaking clock are barred. 

The detail of the spending requested is provided in the table 

below. However, information for home workers and small office 

users is excluded, as the detail is not readily accessible from the 

service supplier for the total period. 

Main office phone system and mobile phone contracts 

£ 

12 months to 31 January 

2009 2010 2011 Total 

(a) Premium 55 69 46 170 

rate 

(b) Directory 5 1 1 7 

inquiry services 

(c) Speaking 75 44 21 140 

clock 

Total 135 114 68 317 

Community Centres: Finance 

Caroline Flint: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Communities and Local Government (1) how many 

community centres have been (a) refurbished and (b) 

built with assistance from funds from his Department 

in each local authority area in each year since 1997; 

[40816] 

(2) what sources of funding from his Department 

community groups and local authorities may access to 

fund the refurbishment of rebuilding of community 

centres and parish meeting halls. [40817] 

Greg Clark: In 2009-10, 15 community groups received 

funding from the Department’s Communitybuilders 

programme and 24, so far, have received or will receive 

funding in 2010-11. A list of local authority areas where 

this funding has or will be made is shown as follows: 

Local authority areas in which community groups have/are 

to receive Communitybuilders funding 

2009-10 

Bradford 

Camden 

City of Bristol 

County of Herefordshire 

Eden 

Exeter 

Hammersmith and Fulham 

Islington 

Liverpool 

Sheffield 

Southwark 

Tameside 

Teignbridge 

Torridge 

Wirral 

20010-11 

Bradford 

Calderdale 

Camden 

Cornwall 

East Lindsey 

East Cambridgeshire 

Harrogate 

Kensington and Chelsea 

Leeds 

Lewes 

Newark and Sherwood 

Newcastle upon Tyne 

North Tyneside

833W 




834W 

Northumberland 

Rotherham 

Scarborough 

Grant funding to local authorities is not ringfenced 

and as a result we do not track what it is spent on. 

Decisions to target funding on refurbishment of community 

centres or parish halls are taken at the local level and we 

do not hold information on this. This could be provided 

only at disproportionate cost. 

Community Development 

Chris Ruane: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Communities and Local Government pursuant to the 

answer of 25 January 2011, Official Report, columns 

206-7W, on citizen engagement, what (a) new legislation 

has been introduced and (b) bureaucracy has been 

removed with the aim of building a Big Society. [40332] 

Greg Clark: The Localism Bill, which was published 

on 13 December 2010, contains a wide range of measures 

to devolve more powers to councils and neighbourhoods 

and give local communities greater control over local 

decisions like housing and planning. 

The Department is reducing burdens and barriers 

that make it difficult for local authorities and individuals 

taking action locally which help to build the Big Society. 

We have reduced burdens and increased flexibility for 

local authorities through dismantling the local performance 

framework and inspection regime, giving greater control 

over use of their funding and through measures announced 

in our response to the Sustainable Communities Act. 

Increasing transparency across Whitehall and local 

authorities enables citizens to hold service providers to 

account or open up services to new providers. 

The Department is removing its capital clawback 

rights from accountable bodies that are either a public 

body or a body subject to an asset lock from four 

historic grant programmes (Single Regeneration Budget, 

Urban Programme, City Challenge and Inner Area 

Grants). By removing capital clawback rights we are 

freeing councils and voluntary and community sector 

organisations to use assets originally funded through 

these programmes in ways that best meet the needs of 

their communities. 

We continue to tackle issues drawn to our attention 

through DCLG’s “barrier busting portal”, most recently 

reaching agreement with the Department for Transport 

that their guidance on “special event” orders—which 

had been incorrectly presented as necessary for street 

parties—be withdrawn. 

Council Tax Benefits 

Ms Buck: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities 

and Local Government what estimate he has made of 

the level of expenditure on council tax benefit in each 

local authority in 2009-10; and how much such expenditure 

was incurred in respect of (a) pensioner and (b) working 

age households in each authority. [38001] 

Steve Webb: I have been asked to reply. 

The information has been placed in the Library. 

Departmental Procurement 

Jon Trickett: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Communities and Local Government whether all new 

contracts his Department has tendered over £10,000 

have been published with associated tender documents 

on the Contracts Finder website since its inception. 

[39217] 

Robert Neill: All new contracts over £10,000, a total 

of four, will be published in week commencing 14 February 

2011. 

The Department has used ‘Contracts Finder’ to publish 

tender documentation in respect of three requirements 

and has a further four live tenders that it will also be 

publishing in the course of week commencing 14 February 

2011. 

Housing: Taxation 


Communities and Local Government whether his 

Department has estimated the annual revenue to be 

raised from implementing a levy of 1 per cent. on the 

monetary value of all dwellings in England and Wales 

valued at £2 million or higher. [40654] 

Robert Neill: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer 

given to him on 14 February 2011, Official Report, 

column 538W. 

Landlords: Coventry 

Mr Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State 

for Communities and Local Government how many 

landlords in Coventry have applied for a selective licence 

to date. [41515] 

Andrew Stunell: This information is not held centrally. 

Local Government: Conditions of Employment 

Jim Dobbin: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Communities and Local Government whether he has 

any plans to revise the best value code of practice on 

workforce matters in local authority service contacts in 

relation to the terms and conditions of (a) transferred 

workers and (b) new employees under outsourced contracts 

within local government. [41324] 

Robert Neill: The current guidance to local authorities 

on handling workforce matters in contracting is part of 

a wider suite of best value guidance. The fitness for 

purpose of this guidance is under consideration within 

the Department. 

Non-domestic Rates: Devon 

Dr Wollaston: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Communities and Local Government how many residential 

properties in the South Hams district council area have 

been transferred from council tax to business rates in 

the last 10 years. [40233] 

Robert Neill: A precise count of the number of residential 

properties that transfer from council tax valuation lists 

to non domestic rating lists in the South Hams district

835W 




836W 

council area is not held, but the Valuation Office Agency 

(VOA) has used its records to make the estimates shown 

in the following table, which have been rounded to the 

nearest 10. 

Nearly all these movements between lists are as a 

result of seasonal holiday lets being treated as commercial 

property during the summer and residential property 

during the winter. 

Estimated number of properties inserted in non domestic rating lists 

that were previously residential properties 

As at April to March each year 

Number 

2000-01 40 

2001-02 50 

2002-03 70 

2003-04 60 

2004-05 190 

2005-06 100 

2006-07 120 

2007-08 120 

2008-09 120 

2009-10 90 

North East 

Mr Alan Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Communities and Local Government which Ministers 

of his Department have visited the North East since 

their appointment; and what the (a) date and (b) 

purpose was of each such visit. [31783] 

Robert Neill: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I 

gave to the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline 

Flint) on 21 December 2010, Official Report, column 

1308W. 

The Secretary of State for Communities and Local 

Government, my right hon. Friend the Member for 

Brentwood and Ongar (Mr Pickles), and members of 

his ministerial team will be visiting this area of England 

in due course as part of a wider programme of visits. 

Regeneration: Newcastle upon Tyne 

Mr Nicholas Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Communities and Local Government pursuant to the 

answer of 10 November 2010, Official Report, column 

355W, on urban regeneration: Newcastle upon Tyne, 

what recent progress he has made in meetings to deliver 

a sustainable long-term future for the Byker estate. 

[40717] 

Andrew Stunell: My Department and the Homes and 

Communities Agency (HCA) have held further meetings 

with representatives from Newcastle city council, Your 

Homes Newcastle, and the Byker Steering Group to 

establish a sound financial model for the estate. Our 

overriding priority is to ensure a sustainable outcome 

for Byker which achieves value for money and is affordable 

to Government. The HCA is currently undertaking a 

financial and technical assessment of the proposals and 

will shortly submit a recommendation to the Department. 

Social Rented Housing 


and Local Government what assessment he has made of 

the likely effects of the proposed cap on household 

benefit entitlement on the ability of registered social 

landlords to (a) build family-sized accommodation in 

all regions and (b) set rents at 80 per cent. of market 

value. [40573] 

Grant Shapps: The new affordable rent product will 

allow social landlords to charge rents at up to 80% of 

local market rents. When setting rents, it is expected 

that providers will, where possible, utilise the flexibility 

to charge rents at 80% of local market rents in order to 

maximise delivery of new homes, but landlords should 

take into account a number of factors, including the 

proposed reforms of the welfare system. 

We will be publishing an impact assessment on the 

affordable rent model shortly. 

Our affordable rent proposals do not change the 

rights or rents of existing social tenants. Instead they 

will help increase the provision of new affordable housing, 

helping provide below-market rents to a greater number 

of households who would otherwise not have access to 

affordable housing. 


and Local Government what definition his Department 

uses to determine under-occupancy in the social rented 

sector. [40574] 

Andrew Stunell: For the purposes of English Housing 

Survey a household is considered to be under-occupying 

if they have two or more bedrooms more than they need 

as measured by the Bedroom Standard. Details of the 

Bedroom Standard, including the rules used to calculate 

the number of bedrooms needed, can be found in the 

Glossary of the English Housing Survey Household 

Report 2008-09 which can be downloaded from: 

http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/corporate/ 

statistics/ehs200809householdreport 

Solar Energy: Planning Permission 

Angela Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Communities and Local Government how many large-scale 

solar photovoltaic schemes are the subject of a planning 

application which has not yet been determined. [40894] 

Robert Neill: Information on undetermined planning 

applications for large-scale solar photovoltaic schemes 

will be available from individual local planning authorities 

but is not collected by this Department. The Renewable 

Energy Planning Database, accessible via the Department 

for Energy and Climate Change’s website, includes data 

on solar photovoltaic projects but the statistics do not 

include all live planning applications because of the 

time lag in collecting data. 

Standards Board for England: Furniture 


Communities and Local Government how much the 

Standards Board has spent on office chairs in the last 

36 months for which figures are available; and what the 

(a) make and model and (b) cost was of each type of 

chair. [41007] 

Robert Neill: The Standards Board for England has 

spent £5,570.54 on office chairs since April 2008, as 

follows:

837W 




838W 

14 April 

2008 

8 

December 

2008 

26 May 

2009 

27 

July2009 

Make and 

model 

Herman 

Miller Mirra 

Task Chair 

Herman 

Miller Aeron 

Task Chair 

Herman 

Miller Aeron 

Task Chair 

Herman 

Miller Aeron 

Task Chair 

Quantity 

Unit 

price (£) Total (£) 

3 517.33 1,551.99 

1 733.55 733.55 

2 657.00 1,314 

3 657.00 1,971 

I note that the Localism Bill legislates to abolish the 

Standards Board. 

Supporting People Programme: Liverpool 

The data are available on the CEFAS website at: 

http://www.cefas.co.uk/our-science/observing-and-modelling/ 

monitoring-programmes/monitoring-sites/liverpool-bay.aspx 

Flood Control: Wales 


Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the level of 

spending on flood defences in each parliamentary 

constituency in Wales was in each of the last 10 years; 

and what estimate she has made of the level of such 

spending in each such constituency in each of the next 


Richard Benyon: Flood defence spending is devolved 

and in Wales is a matter for the Welsh Assembly 

Government. 

Mrs Ellman: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Communities and Local Government if he will assess 

the effects of the reduction in the supporting people 

grant to Liverpool city council on people in Liverpool. 

[39706] 

Grant Shapps [holding answer 10 February 2011]: 

The Department has secured investment of £6.5 billion 

for the Supporting People programme over the next 

four years, which equates to an average annual reduction 

over the four years of less than 1% in cash term. 

By rolling Supporting People funding into the main 

formula grant, we have given councils the maximum 

flexibility to meet their local needs in the best way. The 

formula grant system includes safeguards to ensure that 

no authority suffers a large reduction in funding. There 

is therefore no reason why Liverpool city council should 

need to impose large reductions on its spending for 

Supporting People services. 

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS 

Algae: Liverpool Bay 


Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent 

assessment she has made of the level of algal blooms in 

Liverpool Bay; and if she will make a statement. [40953] 

Richard Benyon: The Centre for the Environment, 

Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS) is contracted 

by the Environment Agency (EA) to help England and 

Wales comply with the requirements of the water framework 

directive (WFD). Samples are received on a monthly 

basis from a number of sites around Liverpool Bay to 

identify and enumerate the whole phytoplankton 

community. These results are then fed into various 

assessment tools which the EA uses to assess the 

environmental status of all English and Welsh coastal 

and transitional waters. 

Currently phytoplankton abundance is estimated every 

30 minutes by measuring Chlorophyll fluorescence in 

situ and can be linked to concurrent environmental and 

nutrient data. 

Floods 

Andrew George: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many (a) 

residential and (b) industrial properties in each local 

authority area were flooded by each source in (i) 2005 

and (ii) 2009. [41091] 

Richard Benyon: The following tables give figures 

recorded by the Environment Agency on the number of 

residential and industrial properties flooded (recorded 

by local authority area and by flood source) in 2005 and 

2009. 

2005 flooding statistics 

Number of properties 

flooded 

Source (if 

Local authority Residential Business known) 

Cumbria CC 

3,066 Fluvial/SW 

(mainly Carlisle City 

Council) 

Hampshire/West 

110 37 Unknown 

Sussex 

London Borough of 

39 0 Fluvial/SW 

Bexley 

Gloucester CC 2 0 Fluvial 

Worcester CC 4 0 Fluvial 

Stoke City Council 1 0 Fluvial 

Conwy/Gwynedd 45 Fluvial/SW 

Gwynedd/Anglesey 10 Fluvial/SW 

Carmarthenshire 5 3 Fluvial 

Pembrokeshire 11 2 Fluvial 

Ceredigion 18 4 Fluvial 

London Boroughs 5 8 Tidal 

Thames 

Devon 69 43 Fluvial/SW 

Somerset 1 0 Fluvial 

Torbay 44 14 Fluvial/SW 

North Dorset 3 0 Fluvial 

Cornwall 56 2 SW 

London Boroughs 9 0 Fluvial 

Northumberland 200 23 Fluvial 

Newcastle 18 0 SW 

North Tyneside 5 0 SW 

Durham 3 0 Fluvial

839W 




840W 

2009 flooding statistics 

Number of properties 

flooded 

Local authority Residential Business 

Source (if 

known) 

Cumbria CC 1,800 Fluvial/SW 

South Lakeland 

12 Fluvial/SW 

(Cumbria) 

Hastings BC 36 4 Fluvial 

Gloucester CC 5 1 Fluvial 

Powys 54 1 Fluvial 

Derbyshire Amber 

10 0 Fluvial 

Valley District (B) 

Birmingham 1 0 SW 

Herefordshire 1 0 Fluvial 

Cardiff 10 0 Fluvial 

Conwy 3 Fluvial/SW 

Anglesey 1 2 Fluvial/SW 

Gwynedd 12 Fluvial 

Gwynedd 2 GW 

Carmarthenshire 9 0 Fluvial 

Pembrokeshire 3 1 Fluvial 

Bridgend 4 0 Fluvial 

Bedfordshire 19 SW 

Luton 8 SW 

Essex 21 0 SW 

South Holland, 

10 0 Fluvial 

Lincolnshire 

Devon 20 17 SW 

Somerset 26 3 Fluvial/SW 

Torbay 4 3 SW 

Dorset 12 1 Fluvial 

Wiltshire 2 0 Fluvial 

Hampshire 1 0 Fluvial 

Bournemouth and 

8 0 Fluvial 

Poole 

Cornwall 74 0 SW 

London Boroughs 203 17 Fluvial/SW 

Northumberland 7 1 Fluvial 

Durham 9 16 Fluvial 

Durham 3 0 SW 

Redcar and 

8 0 Fluvial 

Cleveland 

Middlesbrough 8 0 Fluvial 

SW = Surface Water 

GW = Groundwater 

Notes: 

1. Property data collected has not always been broken down as being 

either residential or business. 

2. Most inland flooding incidents are a combination of surface water 

and fluvial flooding. 

Forestry Commission: Land 

Mr Bain: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her policy 

is on whether owners of former Forestry Commission 

land disposed of by sale should be entitled to charge 

fees for use of the land by others. [38803] 

Mr Paice: Under the previous Government there 

were no restrictions placed on the new owners of former 

Forestry Commission-managed land preventing them 

charging for use of the land, other than for access on 

foot where the land had been dedicated for access under 

the provisions in the Countryside and Rights of Way 

Act. 

We are committed to protecting the access and public 

benefits of the Public Forest Estate and the current 

consultation on the future of the Estate in England sets 

out and invites views on our proposals to achieve this. 

No further sales will take place under the rules agreed 

by the previous administration until the mechanisms 

are in place to provide extra protections on access and 

biodiversity. 

Mr Bain: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, 

Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of 

the (a) redundancy costs and (b) costs of transferring 

staff from the Forestry Commission to alternative owners 

or managers arising from her proposals for the transfer 

of Forestry Commission land in England. [38867] 

Mr Paice: The outcome of the current consultation 

on the future of the public forest estate in England will 

determine the impact for existing Forestry Commission 

staff. There will need to be detailed consultation with 

staff representatives about implementation of any agreed 

proposals before an estimate of cost can be made. 

Forestry Commission: Scotland 

Ann McKechin: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to the 

answer of 4 February 2011, Official Report, column 

998W, on Forestry Commission: Scotland, if she will 

place in the Library copies of the recent correspondence 

between her Department and the Forestry Minister in 

Scotland. [40907] 

Mr Paice [holding answer 14 February 2011]: We do 

not place copies of the correspondence in the Library in 

order to respect the confidentiality of inter-Administration 

communications. 

Forestry Commission: Staff 

Miss McIntosh: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many people 

the Forestry Commission employs in (a) Thirsk and 

Malton constituency and (b) England. [38972] 

Mr Paice: As of January 2011, the Forestry Commission 

employs 1,368 people (in both full and part-time positions) 

across England with 61 staff based in Thirsk and Malton 

constituency. 

Forests 

Hugh Bayley: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many 

expressions of interest in purchasing land in England 

put up for sale by the Forestry Commission have been 

received from (a) private buyers, (b) community or 

charitable bodies and (c) other public bodies since 6 

May 2010. [39046] 

Mr Paice [holding answer 8 February 2011]: Expressions 

of interest made direct to the Forestry Commission are 

not recorded centrally. Land to be sold on the open 

market by the Forestry Commission is marketed through 

its professional selling agents who invite potential buyers 

to register their interest.

841W 




842W 

Barry Gardiner: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what average 

market price of timber from the public forest estate was 

in each year since 2000. [39131] 

Mr Paice [holding answer 8 February 2011]: The 

following table lists average price per cubic metre overbark 

(the volume of wood including the bark) standing of 

timber sold from the public forest estate by financial 

year since 2000-01. 

Direct 

production 1 

Standing 

sales 2 

£ 

Average all 

sales 

2000-01 21.22 10.69 15.11 

2001-02 20.21 9.64 13.70 

2002-03 19.56 7.88 12.24 

2003-04 19.14 6.78 11.07 

2004-05 18.52 6.72 11.13 

2005-06 19.91 7.80 12.36 

2006-07 20.06 9.11 13.59 

2007-08 23.71 13.08 17.44 

2008-09 23.40 13.66 17.65 

2009-10 21.34 11.49 15.34 

1 

Direct production is timber harvested by the Forestry Commission 

and sold at ride side or delivered to customer’s premises. 

2 

Standing sales is timber sold as standing trees and harvested by the 

customer. 

Mary Creagh: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what land 

owned by the Forestry Commission is for sale. [40425] 

Mr Paice: The following table shows the Forestry 

Commission England land that was identified using the 

2010-11 sales criteria put in place by the previous 

Administration and where sales are agreed but not yet 

completed. No further sales will take place until the 

mechanisms are in place to provide extra protections on 

access and biodiversity. 

Region Wood Area (ha) 

York and Wadworth 94 

Humber 

York and Arncliffe 173 

Humber 

York and Thwaite Wood (Old Field Wood) 21 

Humber 

West Midlands Limburies 12 

West Midlands Brookshill 30 

West Midlands Mansty, Cannock (Pillaton)—with 

— 

above 

West Midlands Madeley Heath Lot 1 Waltons 30 

West Midlands Buxton 8 

West Midlands Madeley Heath Lot 2 Old Wharf 13 

South West Bircham 20 

England 

South West Lulworth Woods 255 

England 

South West Ashclyst 2 

England 

South West Hay Wood 53 

England 

South West 

England 

Pt Grogley 4 

South West 

England 

Lot 2 Rookery Wood, Coombe 

Valley Woods 

6 

Region Wood Area (ha) 

South West 

England 

South West 

England 

South West 

England 

South West 

England 

South West 

England 

South West 

England 

South East 

England 

South East 

England 

South East 

England 

South East 

England 

South East 

England 

South East 

England 

South East 

England 

South East 

England 

South East 

England 

South East 

England 

South East 

England 

North West 

England 

North West 

England 

Sleech and Pond. Lot 1 Sleech 

14 

Wood 

Sleech and Pond. Lot 2 Pond 

2 

Coppice 

Lot 1 Stowe Wood Coombe Valley 

53 

Woods 

Winsford 23 

Beardown 48 

Stonaford and North Hill, 

65 

Trebatha, Bodmin 

Buscot and Badbury 168 

Orlestone (Penfold Wood) 7.29 

Alice Holt (Wey Spinney north of 

2 

railway) 

Brassets Wood 19.88 

Lot 1 Land at Christmas 

0.23 

Common (paddock) also known 

as Field at Queens and College 

Wood 

Lot 2 Land at Christmas 

0.19 

Common (footings of former 

office) also known as Field at 

Queens and College Wood 

Market Reading, (Latimer) 3.68 

Sulham 98.30 

Rewell 281 

Houghton 233 

New sowed wood (Shardeloes) 2 

Bigwood 29 

Dalton Park 79 

East Midlands Compton Estate—Cold Oak 42 

East Midlands Compton Estate—Horn Wood 24 

East Midlands Compton Estate—Long Furlong 

73 

(Easton) 

East Midlands Wadworth—Wet Holt 6 

Forests: Bedfordshire 

Andrew Selous: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the access 

arrangements are for Dedmansey Wood in South West 

Bedfordshire constituency. [39867] 

Mr Paice [holding answer 11 February 2011]: Dedmansey 

Wood is leased by the Forestry Commission. The terms 

of the lease prevent the commission from providing 

public access to it. 

Forests: Devon 


Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many acres 

of forest land the Forestry Commission owns in (a) 

Devon and (b) Newton Abbot constituency; and 

where such land is located. [39254]

843W 




844W 


Forestry Commission public forest estate in Devon 

extends to approximately 8,987 hectares, of which, 455 

hectares is in the Newton Abbott constituency. This is 

owned by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food 

and Rural Affairs, and placed at the disposal of the 

Forestry Commissioners under section (3)1 of the Forestry 

Act 1967. 

The following table lists the woods that comprise the 

public forest estate in Devon. 

Grid reference Constituency Wood name Area (ha) 

SS420020 

SX871870 

SX655834 

SX646771 

SX527600 

SS291198 

SX913810 

SS695109 

SS373191 

SX431964 

SX881839 

Torridge and 

West Devon 

Central 

Devon 

Torridge and 

West Devon 

Torridge and 

West Devon 

South West 

Devon 

Torridge and 

West Devon 

Newton 

Abbott 

Central 

Devon 

Torridge and 

West Devon 

Torridge and 

West Devon 

Central 

Devon 

Halwill, 

875 

Clawmoor, 

Croftmoor 

Haldon2 724 

Fernworthy 575 

Believer 540 

Plym Main 

Block 

Meddon, 

Summerwell, 

Wooley 

516 

410 

Haldon4 350 

Eggesford 311 

Melbury Hill, 

Powlers Piece 

Witherdon, 

Westlake, Upcott 

308 

285 

Haldon3 229 

SY112918 East Devon East Hill 217 

SX938854 Central Sousons 215 

Devon 

SX592972 Central 

Devon 

Berrydown, 

Abbeyford 

208 

SX925960 

Central 

Devon 

Wadland, 

Ashbury, 

Homing Down 

188 

SX904787 Central Oldridge 170 

Devon 

SX825825 Central Canonteign 170 

Devon 

SS700337 North Devon Gratton, 

Sheracombe, 

Hunstone 

165 

SX492843 

SS353012 

ST118074 

SX820754 

Torridge and 

West Devon 

Torridge and 

West Devon 

Tiverton and 

Honiton 

Central 

Devon 

Burley Down, 

Brentor 

Circuit, Rydon, 

Merryfieid 

151 

140 

Sheldon 137 

Great Plantation 137 

SS804273 North Devon Molland Estate 129 

SX401987 Torridge and Quoditch 106 

West Devon 

SY309948 Tiverton and Wyld Warr, 

104 

Honiton Trinity Hill, Hole 

SX472666 Torridge and Denham 99 

West Devon 

SX469960 Torridge and 

West Devon 

Northcombe 93 


SY185990 

SX882766 

SY211921 

SX900827 

SS645085 

SX860956 

ST122159 

SX820754 

SX664742 

SY159961 

SX491864 

ST003186 

SY221969 

SS330007 

Tiverton and 

Honiton 

Newton 

Abbott 

Tiverton and 

Honiton 

Central 

Devon 

Torridge and 

West Devon 

Central 

Devon 

Tiverton and 

Honiton 

Central 

Devon 

Torridge and 

West Devon 

Tiverton and 

Honiton 

Torridge and 

West Devon 

Tiverton and 

Honiton 

Tiverton and 

Honiton 

Torridge and 

West Devon 

Offwell 84 

Haldon5 78 

Morganhayes 68 

Haldon5 67 

Winkleigh 65 

Powderham, 

63 

Cleave 

Culm Davey 63 

Haldon1 60 

Brimpts 58 

Offwell, Farway 56 

Lydford 54 

Huntsham 48 

Parehayne 47 

Leworthy 47 

SY112918 East Devon Straightway 46 

SX925961 Exeter Stoke Wood2 44 

SS636149 Torridge and Bithefin 43 

West Devon 

SS644214 North Devon Shortbridge 42 

SX468715 Torridge and Birch Wood 39 

West Devon 

SS649419 North Devon Wistlandpound 37 

SX677795 Central Stoke Wood1 35 

Devon 

SS404046 Torridge and 

West Devon 

Ltl Moor, Mdl 

Rolls, Westcott 

30 

SS547197 

Torridge and 

West Devon 

Dodscott, 

Moreton, Deers 

Hill 

SX528666 Torridge and Olderwood 28 

West Devon 

SS396061 Torridge and Cookbury 28 

West Devon 

SX943815 Newton Black Forest 27 

Abbott 

SS410054 Torridge and Bramble Wood 25 

West Devon 

SY059950 East Devon Straighway Head 21 

SX519963 East Devon Buckley 20 

SX476827 Torridge and Langstone Wood 13 

West Devon 

ST189081 Tiverton and South Cleve 10 

Honiton 

SS404039 Torridge and Dunsland 9 

West Devon 

SY331950 Tiverton and Whitty Hill 9 

Honiton 

SX473828 Torridge and Asheltor Wood 9 

West Devon 

SX477831 Torridge and Coles Wood 9 

West Devon 

SX559598 South West 

Devon 

Hooksbury 9 

30

845W 




846W 


SY331959 

SX565604 

Tiverton and 

Honiton 

South West 

Devon 

Forches 8 

Browns Wood 7 

Forests: Ministerial Statements 

Roger Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many (a) 

oral and (b) written ministerial statements have been 

made by Ministers in her Department on (i) the 

Forestry Commission and (ii) UK Forestry in each year 

since 2001; and what title her Department assigned to 

each statement. [40897] 

Mr Paice [holding answer 14 February 2011]: All oral 

and written statements made by DEFRA are recorded 

in the Official Report. Separate records outside the 

current session of Parliament are not kept in the 

Department and could be provided only at disproportionate 

cost. 

To date, in the 2010-11 Session, there has been one 

written ministerial statement, ‘Public Forest Estate’, on 

27 January 2011, Official Report, columns 16-18WS. 

Forests: Public Finance 

Miss McIntosh: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate 

she has made of the net cost to the public purse of the 

sale of (a) forestry woodland and (b) commercial 

woodland in her proposals for the future of the public 

forest estate; and if she will make a statement. [38970] 

Mr Paice: We are currently consulting on the proposals 

for the future of the public forest estate in England. No 

decisions will be made until after the conclusion of the 

consultation. 

The Impact Assessment includes initial estimates of 

the set cost of any sales to be comparable with those 

that have taken place to date, which is approximately 

5% of the gross sale value. 

Forests: Timber 

Barry Gardiner: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the percentage 

change in the volume of wood supplied to the market 

from the public forest estate in (a) England and (b) the 

UK there was in each year since 1999. [41082] 


following table gives the percentage change in wood 

production each year from 1999 to 2009. Figures for 

2010 are not yet available. 

Calendar year 

England (green 

tonnes) 

Percentage change 

from the previous 

year 


from 1999 

baseline 

UK 1 (green 

tonnes) 


from the previous 

year 


from 1999 

baseline 

1999 1,379,000 4,853,000 

2000 1,270,000 -8 -8 4,980,000 +3 +3 

2001 1,205,000 -5 -13 4,749,000 -5 -2 

2002 1,211,000 +1 -12 4,768,000 0 -2 

2003 1,214,000 0 -12 4,934,000 +4 +2 

2004 1,308,000 +8 -5 5,007,000 +2 +3 

2005 1,255,000 -4 -9 4,680,000 -6 -4 

2006 1,194,000 -5 -13 4,627,000 -1 -5 

2007 1,248,000 +5 -9 4,693,000 +1 -3 

2008 1,140,000 -9 -17 4,458,000 -5 -8 

2009 1,291,000 +13 -6 5,213,000 +17 +7 

1 

UK includes Forestry Commission managed woodland (England, Scotland and Wales) and the Forest Service in Northern Ireland. 

Note: 

Percentages are given to the nearest whole number. 

Irish Sea: Pollution 


Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what assessment 

her Department has made since 2007 of the effect of 

polychlorinated biphenyls on the marine environment 

in the Irish Sea; [41043] 

(2) which (a) statutory and (b) non-statutory bodies 

have monitored pollution levels in the Irish Sea in each 

year since 2007; [41221] 

(3) what estimate she has made of the cost to the 

public purse of monitoring pollution levels in the Irish 

Sea in each year since 2007. [41225] 

Richard Benyon: The Irish sea is bounded by England 

and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and the Irish 

Republic and these regions all have their own arrangements 

for monitoring and reporting on pollution in the Irish 

sea. 

A number of UK statutory bodies have co-operated 

since 2007 to ensure that the monitoring of pollution in 

UK marine waters in the Irish sea is appropriately 

funded and carried out. The bodies involved are: 

in England and Wales: Department for Environment, Food 

and Rural Affairs, Department for Transport, Department of 

Energy and Climate Change, Welsh Assembly Government, 

Environment Agency and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency; 

in Scotland: Scottish Executive, Marine Scotland (formerly 

Fisheries Research Services), Scottish Environmental Protection 

Agency, and; 

in Northern Ireland: Department of Agriculture and Rural 

Development, Department of the Environment in Northern 

Ireland, Northern Ireland Environment Agency and the Agri-Food 

and Biosciences Institute.

847W 




848W 

Small amounts of monitoring may also be done by 

the Loughs Agency which is a cross border body partly 

supported by Department of Agriculture and Rural 

Development. 

A number of non-statutory bodies also measure pollution 

levels in the Irish sea, including marine institutes, universities, 

industries and non-governmental organisations. 

The monitoring carried out by these bodies is brought 

together and co-ordinated through the UK Marine 

Monitoring and Assessment Strategy (UKMMAS), which 

has the goal of ensuring the cost-effective provision of 

the information needed for policy and management 

decisions to deliver the UK marine vision of clean, 

healthy, productive and biologically diverse seas. UKMMAS 

has recently published Charting Progress 2, an assessment 

of the state of UK seas, which also includes assessments 

of the status of the Irish sea available at: 

http://chartingprogress.defra.gov.uk 

The UK Government co-operate with the Irish 

Government in the framework of the OSPAR Convention 

for the Protection of the North East Atlantic through 

participation in its Joint Assessment and Monitoring 

Programme. Regular joint assessments of the status of 

the various regions of the North East Atlantic are 

made. OSPAR has recently published its Quality Status 

Report 2010, which includes assessments of the state of 

pollution across the North-East Atlantic, including in 

the Irish sea. 

The monitoring of pollution in the Irish sea is funded 

by a number of government bodies in England and 

Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Funds are generally 

allocated on a national basis and support monitoring 

across all the seas within each administration’s jurisdiction. 

It is not therefore possible to distinguish the specific 

amount of money allocated to monitoring pollution 

levels in the Irish sea. 

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) are monitored in 

the Irish sea under the Clean Seas Environmental 

Monitoring Programme. Levels are assessed in sediments 

and biota (shellfish and fish liver). 

PCB results were incorporated in the Clean and Safe 

Seas chapter of Charting Progress 2 which was delivered 

in 2010. Results were also included in the Quality Status 

Report 2010 prepared by the OSPAR Convention for 

the Protection of the marine environment of the North 

East Atlantic. 

These reports concluded, that despite these substances 

having been banned, exceedances of the environmental 

quality standards for PCBs at some sites are still being 

observed within the Irish sea. 


Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will estimate 

the mass of fertiliser washed into the Irish sea in each of 

the last 10 years. [41216] 

Richard Benyon: The monitoring of pollution in the 

Irish sea is carried out by a number of organisations in 

England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. 

Various components of fertilizer are monitored, such 

as: ammonia, nitrate, orthophosphate, and nitrogen but 

no records are held centrally of the total mass of 

fertilizer discharged into the Irish sea. 


Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many pollution 

incidents of each type there were on each river flowing 

into the Irish Sea in each of the past 10 years. [41220] 

Richard Benyon: The following table shows the estimated 

number of category 1 (major) and 2 (significant) pollution 

incidents that had an impact to water in a catchment 

that flowed in to the Irish sea. 

Number of category 1 and 2 

incidents 

2001 182 

2002 140 

2003 127 

2004 150 

2005 115 

2006 112 

2007 93 

2008 90 

2009 105 

2010 87 

Not all recorded incidents will have reached the Irish 

sea. Pollutants would have broken down before they 

entered the sea. 

Not all of the incidents will have had a major or 

significant impact on the Irish sea. The incident level is 

recorded on site which can be many miles from the sea. 

Land 

Mr Bain: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate 

she has made of the proportion of the net cost of (a) 

the proposed transfer to the charitable sector of land in 

(i) the New Forest and (ii) the Forest of Dean and (b) 

the proposed disposal of Kielder Forest which will be 

met from the public purse. [39281] 

Mr Paice: An impact assessment was published alongside 

the current consultation on the future of the Forestry 

Commission public forest estate in England. This gives 

an initial indication of costs for each of the policy 

options outlined in the consultation, but does not consider 

them in relation to specific sites. 

No decisions about the future of the sites mentioned 

will be made until after the conclusion of the consultation. 

Michael Fallon: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment 

she has made of the likely effects on common land of 

the provisions of the Localism Bill. [41169] 

Richard Benyon: No formal assessment has been made 

on the likely effects on common land of the provision of 

the Localism Bill. Restricted works on registered and 

certain other common land require the consent of the 

Secretary of State under section 38 of the Commons 

Act 2006. The Localism Bill does not affect the requirement 

for such consent. 

Nature Reserves 


Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment 

she has made of the long-term trends in visits to nature 

reserves. [41042]

849W 




850W 

Richard Benyon: There are a number of different 

statutory and non-statutory designations of nature reserve. 

These range from informal designations made by nature 

conservation bodies, through local wildlife sites and 

local nature reserves, to the nationally designated National 

Nature Reserve series. We do not hold information on 

long-term trends in numbers of visits to these sites. 

Plantations 

Hugh Bayley: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which Forestry 

Commission and Forest Enterprise-owned plantations 

of 50 hectares or more in Yorkshire and the Humber 

(a) have been bought since 1981, (b) have been sold 

since 1981 and (c) are scheduled for sale; and what the 

(i) name, (ii) ordnance survey grid reference, (iii) local 

authority area, (iv) size, (v) price and (vi) date of 

purchase or sale was in each case. [38689] 


public forest estate is owned by the Secretary of State 

for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and placed at 

the disposal of the Forestry Commissioners under section 

(3)1 of the Forestry Act 1967. Acquisitions and sales, 

including areas in the process of being sold, since 1997 

are given in the following table. 

Grid reference Local authority Area (ha) Net price (£) Date 

Acquisitions since 1997 

Wombwell Wood—Community Wood SE379025 Barnsley district 52 0 30 September 

2002 

Upper Woodhead Farm—Community 

Wood 

SE369032 Barnsley district 58 0 1 June 2010 

Sales since 1997 

Wraby Moors, North Lindsey, Brigg TA031105 North Lincolnshire 70 104,000 22 April 2009 

Faceby (Bonny Cliff) NZ509019 North Yorkshire 62 40,000 1 December 2010 

Being sold as part of the 2010-11 

programme 

Arncliffe SE454990 North Yorkshire 173 — Sale agreed 

Wadworth SK556972 Doncaster district 94 — Sale agreed 

Sewage: Railways 

Mr Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make 

an assessment of the legality of authorisations granted 

for train operating companies discharging sewage onto 

railway tracks. [40558] 

Richard Benyon: The discharge of sewage onto railway 

tracks is lawfully provided via an exemption from the 

need for an environmental permit. This is set out in 

Chapter 4 of Schedule 3 to the Environmental Permitting 

(England and Wales) Regulations 2010. The discharge 

is exempt providing the operator: meets the rules of the 

exemption; registers the exemption with the Environment 

Agency; and carries out the operation without endangering 

human health or risking harm to the environment. 

The Government carries out regular reviews of 

exemptions from environmental permitting to ensure 

the controls are proportionate to the risk posed. 

Squirrels 

Simon Hart: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much the 

Forestry Commission spent on controlling the size of 

the squirrel population on its estate between 2008 and 

2010. [39907] 

Mr Paice: The Forestry Commission in England spent 

approximately £102,000 during 2008-09 and £127,000 

during 2009-10 on activities associated with the control 

of grey squirrel populations on the public forest estate. 

Wareham Forest 

Annette Brooke: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she 

has for the future of Wareham Forest; and what steps 

she plans to take to maintain current public rights of 

access, rights to recreational activity and levels of 

biodiversity. [39032] 


main block of Wareham Forest has been indicatively 

categorised as ‘heritage’ on the map that accompanies 

the consultation on the future of the Public Forest 

Estate in England. We are committed to protecting the 

public benefits that are currently provided by the Public 

Forest Estate, including public access and biodiversity. 

The consultation sets out and invites views on the 

proposals for protecting these benefits. 

Wood: Licensing 

Nicola Blackwood: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much 

timber was removed under felling licences from (a) 

Oxford West and Abingdon constituency and (b) 

Oxfordshire in each year since 2007. [38388] 

Mr Paice: The Forestry Commission records information 

on felling licences and grant schemes (which may have 

associated permission to fell trees) by local authority 

area. Information by constituency could be provided 

only at disproportionate cost.

851W 




852W 

The following table gives details of the felling licences 

issued in each district in Oxfordshire for each financial 

year from 2007-08. A licence, which is valid for between 

two and five years, gives the landowner permission to 

fell the trees but does not place them under any obligation 

to do so. The Forestry Commission does not record 

timber volume removals as a result of the licences it 

issues or felling permission given in association with 

woodland grant scheme agreements. 

Clear felling Cutting coppice Other felling 1 Thinning Total 

Area 

(ha) 

Volume 

(m 3 ) 

Area 

(ha) 

Volume 

(m 3 ) 

Area 

(ha) 

Volume 

(m 3 ) 

Area 

(ha) 

Volume 

(m 3 ) 

Area 

(ha) 

Volume 

(m 3 ) 

2007-08 

Cherwell District 1.2 977 — 2 — 15 4.9 191 6.1 1,185 

Oxford District 0.1 16 — — — — — 5 0.1 21 

South Oxfordshire 1 178 — — — 7 105.7 3,586 106.7 3,771 

Vale of White 

2.1 660 — — 0.6 88 104.8 2,909 107.5 3,657 

Horse 

West Oxfordshire 4.6 546 0.6 114 0.5 80 9.1 381 14.8 1,121 

2008-09 

Cherwell District — 10 — 5 1 99 61.2 2,038 62.3 2,152 

Oxford District — — — 5 — — 5.1 30 5.1 35 

South Oxfordshire 0.5 10 — — 0.4 17 299.6 14,038 300.5 14,065 

Vale of White 

1.9 1,080 2 100 19.1 11,587 10.6 1,647 33.6 14,414 

Horse 

West Oxfordshire 5.3 801 0.1 10 13 759 151.1 3,257 169.5 4,827 

2009-10 

Cherwell District 4.1 1,184 0.1 5 1.5 146 37.6 1,825 43.3 3,160 

Oxford District — — — — — 10 — — — 10 

South Oxfordshire 3.3 241 0.8 156 7.6 540 72.5 2,183 84.2 3,120 

Vale of White 

1.7 40 — — 0.7 41 11 235 13.4 316 

Horse 

West Oxfordshire 2.7 1,327 4.8 150 5.1 1,131 371 11,354 383.6 13,962 

1 

Other felling includes selective felling, hedgerow trees and single isolated trees not forming part of a woodland. 

ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE 

Biofuels 

Stewart Hosie: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Energy and Climate Change what recent assessment he 

has made of the (a) prospects for, (b) funding requirements 

for and (c) potential contribution of large-scale biomass 

developments to his Department’s energy strategy. 

[40925] 

Charles Hendry: DECC’s renewable energy planning 

database (REPD) at: 

https://restats.decc.gov.uk/cms/welcome-to-the-restats-website 

contains detailed information on biomass plant under 

construction, in planning, and consented in the UK. 

There are no large scale (>50 MW) dedicated biomass 

plants currently operational in the UK, however, a 50 

MW combined heat and power biomass plant is under 

construction at Markinch, Fife. Four projects for large-scale 

plant have received planning consent (805 MW total 

capacity) and six large-scale projects (1.2 GW total 

capacity) are currently under planning consideration. 

Modelling to inform delivery of the renewable energy 

directive target suggested that up to around 10 TWh of 

renewable generation in 2020 might come from dedicated 

biomass generation, or biomass CHP (based on an 

estimate of around 1.3 GW by 2020). This estimate is 

not based on specific size of plant. The renewables 

obligation (RO) is currently the Government’s main 

mechanism for incentivising large scale renewable 

deployment. The cost of renewables obligation support 

for this level of biomass generation is estimated to be in 

the region of £0.5 to £1 billion in 2020 (2010-11 prices). 

We are currently reviewing the level of support for all 

renewables technologies, and will consult on any changes 

to RO bands this summer. As part of that process, we 

have asked our consultants Arup to provide updated 

assumptions on potential deployment and costs for 

each renewable electricity technology. 

Chemicals: Teesside 

Ian Swales: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy 

and Climate Change if he will meet representatives of 

the chemical industry from Teesside to discuss UK 

energy policy. [41079] 

Charles Hendry [holding answer 15 February 2011]: 

The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change 

and all the ministerial team at DECC value the importance 

of the UK chemicals industry to the UK economy and 

helping to deliver a low carbon economy. DECC Ministers 

and officials are already engaged with representatives 

from the chemicals industry to discuss the impact of 

DECC policies on their sector. Last September I met 

with representatives from the Chemical Industries 

Association to discuss UK energy and climate change 

policies.

853W 




854W 


Green Climate Fund 

Philip Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy 

and Climate Change how much his Department spent 

on carbon offsetting in each of the last three years; and 

to which companies payments for carbon offsetting 

were made in each such year. [40286] 

Gregory Barker: Figures for the amount spent on 

carbon offsets purchased through the Government Carbon 

Offsetting Facility by Central Government Departments 

are shown in the following table. 

£ 

Financial year 

Department 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 1 

Cabinet Office (including No. 43,129 44,595 0 

10 Downing street) 

Department for Business, 

2 

58,578 3 

51,532 0 

Innovation and Skills (BIS) 

Department for Children, 

3,965 2,208 0 

Schools and Families (DCSF) 

Department for Communities 2,338 2,657 0 

and Local Government 

Department for Culture, 

3,469 3,469 0 

Media and Sport (DCMS) 

Department for Environment, 4 

50,481 5 

50,541 0 

Food and Rural Affairs 

(DEFRA) 

Department for International 179,818 219,243 0 

Development (DFID) 

Department for Transport 12,756 13,111 0 

(DFT) 

Department for Work and 27,641 27,365 0 

Pensions (DWP) 

Department of Energy and 

n/a n/a 6 

11,670 

Climate Change (DECC) 

Department of Health 9,099 9,117 0 

Foreign and Commonwealth 263,595 0 742,066 

Office (FCO) 

Government Equalities Office 

0 0 0 

(GEO) 

HM Revenue and Customs 55,429 69,098 0 

(HMRC) 

HM Treasury 8,808 11,892 0 

Home Office 30,369 29,120 0 

Law Officer’s Department 

5,839 8,925 0 

(LOD) 

Northern Ireland Office 

6,339 6,448 0 

(NIO) 

Ministry of Defence (MOD) 167,215 240,881 0 

Ministry of Justice (MOJ) 

(including Department for 

Constitutional Affairs) 

14,825 14,956 0 

Payments made to: 

Trading 

Emissions 

plc 

Trading 

Emissions 

plc 

Essent 

Trading 

International 

SA 

1 

Some Departments may have purchased offsets in 2010-11 to 

account for emissions which took place in 2009-10 and therefore 

have a zero entry for 2009-10. 

2 

Includes Energy section of DECC from 3 October 2008. 

3 

Includes Energy section of DECC from 3 October 2008. 

4 

Includes Climate Change section of DECC from 3 October 2008. 

5 

Includes Climate Change section of DECC from 3 October 2008. 

6 

Includes Act On CO 2 Campaign. 


Energy and Climate Change pursuant to his oral statement 

of 13 December 2010, Official Report, columns 698-99W, 

on the Cancun Climate Change Conference, what the 

membership of the board of the green climate fund is; 

when he expects the fund to become operational; and 

how the fund will be capitalised. [41596] 

Gregory Barker: The operational details of the green 

climate fund, including its board membership and financing 

structure, will be considered by a Transitional Committee. 

This committee has been tasked with designing the fund 

and making its recommendations to COP 17 later this 

year. Terms of reference for the committee were annexed 

to the Cancun agreement. The timing of the fund 

becoming operational will depend on decisions taken at 

COP 17. 

Radioactive Waste 

Dan Byles: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy 

and Climate Change what estimate he has made of the 

average quantity of radioactive materials released into 

the atmosphere from each (a) coal-fired and (b) nuclear 

power station in each of the last five years. [40680] 

Charles Hendry: Assessments published by the National 

Radiological Protection Board, now a division of the 

Health Protection Agency (HPA) in 2001 confirmed 

that the radioactivity in coal and its waste products is 

below the threshold value for regulation as a radioactive 

substance. This remains the most recent and authoritative 

report in respect of these discharges. It is available on 

the HPA website at: 

http://www.hpa.org.uk/Publications/Radiation/ 

NPRBArchive/MiscellaneousNRPBReports/ 

Abstracts1996To2001/2001nrpbR327/ 

Principal atmospheric discharges for 2006 to 2009 

from operating nuclear power stations, and those 

undergoing decommissioning, are provided in the following 

table. The data are as reported to the Environment 

Agency and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency 

and published in the annual publication, ‘Radioactivity 

in Food and the Environment (RIFE)’. Copies of RIFE 

are available in the Libraries of the House and on the 

Food Standards Agency website at: 

http://www.food.gov.uk/science/surveillance/radiosurv/rife/ 

Data for 2010 are not yet available. 

TBq 

Site name/ 

radioactivity 2006 2007 2008 2009 

Berkeley 

Beta 4.04E-07 2.53E-07 2.73E-07 5.10E-07 

Tritium 0.00386 0.00421 0.00469 3.39E-03 

Carbon-14 1.66E-04 2.50E-04 2.82E-04 2.24E-04 

Bradwell 

Beta 9.76E-06 4.13E-06 1.91E-07 2.08E-07 

Tritium 0.00843 0.0226 0.00691 9.87E-03 

Carbon-14 5.63E-04 0.00111 0.00116 6.24E-04

855W 




856W 

TBq 

Site name/ 


Chapelcross 

Tritium 121 85.1 68.4 95.1 

Sulphur-35 4.20E-05 2.7E-05 3.9E-05 Nil 

Argon-41 Nil Nil Nil Nil 

Dungeness A 

Beta 1 1.97E-04 6.41E-05 5.21E-05 3.91E-05 

Tritium 0.181 0.219 0.0347 0.0238 

Carbon-14 1.93 0.243 0.00111 0.0301 

Sulphur-35 0.047 0.00165 2.58E-04 9.87E-04 

Argon-41 1280 Nil Nil Nil 

Dungeness B 

Beta 1,2 5.54E-06 1.34E-06 — — 

Tritium 2.99 4.46 8.1 9.06 

Carbon-14 0.601 0.797 0.73 0.634 

Sulphur-35 0.0201 0.0366 0.0509 0.0957 

Argon-41 13.6 20.9 12.8 24.4 

Cobalt-60 1,3 — 3.67E-07 3.14E-07 6.82E-07 

Iodine-131 2.19E-06 1.03E-05 1.52E-05 1.68E-05 

Hartlepool 

Beta 1,2 4.32E-06 9.42E-07 — — 

Tritium 1.26 0.843 0.114 0.704 

Carbon-14 1.47 1.66 0.0152 1.17 

Sulphur-35 0.0198 0.0187 0.0025 0.019 

Argon-41 4.52 6.83 0.00104 6.12 

Cobalt-60 1,3 — 1.95E-06 4.0E-06 1.19E-05 

Iodine-131 2.29E-05 4.76E-05 8.9E-05 1.69E-04 

Heysham 1 

Beta 1 8.57E-06 1.91E-06 — — 

Tritium 1.04 1.18 0.47 0.785 

Carbon-14 1.72 1.48 0.033 1.3 

Sulphur-35 0.0241 0.021 0.014 0.0194 

Argon-41 8.55 8.01 Nil 0.314 

Cobalt-60 1,3 — 4.42E-06 5.9E-06 5.55E-06 

Iodine-131 1.10E-04 8.99E-05 8.0E-05 7.96E-05 

Heysham 2 

Beta 1 1.18E-05 2.76E-06 — — 

Tritium 0.994 1.17 1.2 0.85 

Carbon-14 1.27 1.52 1.7 1.4 

Sulphur-35 0.0149 0.01 0.013 0.0108 

Argon-41 11.8 8.84 6.6 17.8 

Cobalt-60 1,3 — 6.94E-06 7.3E-06 1.35E-05 

Iodine-131 5.39E-05 3.82E-05 5.8E-05 9.36E-05 

TBq 

Site name/ 


Argon-41 8.04 3.76 8.85 12.1 

Cobalt-60 1,3 — 5.23E-06 8.03E-06 7.55E-06 

Iodine-131 4.06E-06 5.91E-06 7.03E-06 6.33E-06 

Hunterston A 

Beta 1 2.83E-07 3.8E-07 4.26E-07 4.40E-07 

Tritium 0.00197 0.00161 0.0013 0.00113 

Carbon-14 1.84E-04 1.81E-04 1.28E-04 1.17E-04 

Hunterston B 

Beta 1 3.40E-05 4.47E-05 7.08E-05 1.14E-04 

Tritium 1.66 1.60 2.78 3.31 

Carbon-14 1.68 0.540 1.31 1.32 

Sulphur-35 0.0222 0.0182 0.0436 0.0684 

Argon-41 20.6 5.9 12.4 12.7 

Iodine-131 4 — 8.13E-05 4.0E-04 1.30E-04 

Oldbury 

Beta 1.39E-05 1.56E-05 2.94E-05 4.42E-05 

Tritium 1.72 1.31 1.59 2.05 

Carbon-14 0.887 0.325 0.93 1.44 

Sulphur-35 0.0412 0.0133 0.0546 0.0821 

Argon-41 19.6 5.2 19.3 29.1 

Sizewell A 

Beta 2.23E-04 3.80E-06 E-06 1.90E-06 

Tritium 1.42 1.18 0.659 0.214 

Carbon-14 1.49 0.11 0.0464 0.0131 

Sulphur-35 0.143 0.015 0.00202 0.001 

Argon-41 2130 Nil Nil Nil 

Sizewell B 

Noble gases 3.05 — 2.87 3.92 

Halogens 5.33E-04 3.75E-06 — — 

Beta 1 4.52E-05 5.00E-06 7.0E-06 5.00E-06 

Tritium 1.23 1.18 0.598 0.714 

Carbon-14 0.169 0.295 0.333 0.297 

Iodine-131 3 — 1.90E-05 3.6E-05 2.11E-04 

Torness 

Beta 1 4.22E-06 3.34E-06 3.41E-06 5.57E-06 

Tritium 1.91 2.62 1.60 1.44 

Carbon-14 0.688 0.880 0.841 1.07 

Sulphur-35 0.0136 0.00873 0.00595 0.0097 

Argon-41 3.76 5.45 4.27 4.90 

Iodine-131 — 2.21E-06 2.08E-06 2.83E-06 

Hinkley Point A 

Beta 8.39E-07 4.37E-07 4.99E-07 3.67E-07 

Tritium 0.121 0.103 0.113 6.62E-02 

Carbon-14 6.87E-04 7.12E-04 7.31E-04 7.25E-04 

Trawsfynydd 

Beta 2.69E-07 3.94E-07 5.0E-07 6.85E-07 

Tritium 0.11 0.12 0.0959 0.0727 

Carbon-14 0.00296 0.00274 0.00213 0.00227 

Hinkley Point B 

Beta 1 2.48E-05 6.24E-06 — — 

Tritium 6.52 0.902 1.48 2.55 

Carbon-14 1.32 0.472 1.11 0.908 

Sulphur-35 0.180 0.0670 0.12 0.106 

Wylfa 

Beta 3.69E-05 4.84E-05 3.39E-05 4.22E-05 

Tritium 2.65 2.78 2.63 2.86 

Carbon-14 1.28 1 1.49 1.42 

Sulphur-35 0.161 0.13 0.154 0.172

857W 




858W 

TBq 

Site name/ 


Argon 41 14.8 14.4 22 17.9 

TBq = Terabecquerel—the international system unit of activity of a 

radionuclide. 

1 

Particulate activity 

2 

Not reported after 31 March 2007 

3 

Not reported prior to 1 April 2007 

4 

Not reported prior to1 June 2007 

Note: 

Beta particles are high-energy, high-speed electrons or positrons 

emitted by certain types of radioactive nuclei. The beta particles 

emitted are a form of ionizing radiation also known as beta rays. 

Source: 

Radioactivity in Food and the Environment, 2006-09 

TBq = Terabecquerel—the international system unit of activity of a 

radionuclide. 

1 

Particulate activity 

2 

Not reported after 31 March 2007 

3 

Not reported prior to 1 April 2007 

4 

Not reported prior to1 June 2007 

Note: 

Beta particles are high-energy, high-speed electrons or positrons 

emitted by certain types of radioactive nuclei. The beta particles 

emitted are a form of ionizing radiation also known as beta rays. 

Source: 

Radioactivity in Food and the Environment, 2006-09 

Solar Power: Feed-in Tariffs 

Graham Stringer: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Energy and Climate Change what minimum efficiency 

standards his Department has set for solar photovoltaic 

projects to qualify for subsidy. [41309] 

Gregory Barker: FITs rewards generators in proportion 

to the amount of electricity generated so there is a 

strong economic incentive to use efficient equipment 

and to site the installation optimally. 

A requirement of feed-in tariffs (FITs) is that installations 

under 50 kW, including solar photovoltaics, must use 

installers and products accredited under the 

Microgeneration Certification Scheme (MCS), or 

equivalent, to be eligible for FITs. MCS gives assurances 

about likely quality, durability and performance of 

installations. Solar photovoltaic installations of more 

than 50 kW are accredited by Ofgem under a process 

similar to the renewables obligation. 


Energy and Climate Change whether feed-in tariffs for 

solar photovoltaic energy vary by latitude. [41310] 

Gregory Barker: No. Under the feed-in tariffs scheme, 

tariff levels were set through consideration of the technology 

costs and electricity generation expectations at different 

scales. The tariffs were set to deliver an approximate 

rate of return of 5-8% for well sited installations. 


Energy and Climate Change what information his 

Department holds on the variation in (a) efficiency of 

and (b) payback periods for investment in solar 

photovoltaic energy by latitude within the UK. [41311] 

Gregory Barker: Under the feed-in tariff (FITs) scheme, 

tariff levels were set through consideration of the technology 

cost and electricity generation expectations at different 

scales. The tariffs were set to deliver an approximate 

rate of return 5-8% for well-sited installations. 

Reference installation was based on 850kWhr/kWp 

per year for well-orientated UK PV installations—see 

‘Quantitative Analysis of the Design of the Feed-in 

Tariffs’ at: 

http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/consultations/ 

elec_financial/elec_financial.aspx 

HEALTH 

Blood: Donors 

Chris Ruane: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 

(1) what estimate he has made of the (a) number, (b) 

number per 1,000 head of population and (c) proportion 

of people who gave blood in each age decile for each of 

the last five years; [40841] 

(2) what estimate he has made of the number of 

blood donors per 1,000 head of population in each 

ethnic group in each of the last five years; [40845] 

(3) how many blood donors there were in each year 

for which figures are available; [41045] 

(4) how many blood donors of each (a) age group, 

(b) sex, (c) socio-economic group and (d) blood type 

there are in each region. [41126] 

Anne Milton: The information has been placed in the 

Library. 

Children: Television 


what research his Department has (a) commissioned 

and (b) evaluated on the potential effects of television 

viewing on the (i) metabolic rates and (ii) long-term 

health of children. [40842] 

Mr Simon Burns: The Department has not commissioned 

research specifically on the potential effects of television 

viewing on the metabolic rates and long-term health of 

children. 

In 2009, the Department set up an expert group to 

review existing evidence on the impact of sedentary 

behaviour, including screen time on overweight and 

obesity, and the impact on health and activity levels. 

The group has drawn up draft recommendations on 

sedentary activities for all ages. These will be included 

in updated Chief Medical Officer guidelines on physical 

activity, expected in spring 2011. 

Cockermouth Community Hospital 

Tony Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Health what his policy is on the rebuilding of Cockermouth 

Community Health Hospital; and on what date he 

expects construction to begin. [40648] 

Mr Simon Burns: The Department supports the national 

health service in realising the potential of community 

services and recognises the health and wider benefits 

community hospitals can bring to the local population. 

However, the re-development of the Cockermouth 

community hospital is a matter for the local NHS in 

Cumbria. Cumbria primary care trust can advise on the 

current position of the development.

859W 




860W 

Dentistry: Qualifications 

Mr Chope: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if 

he will make it his policy to equalise the position of 

British and foreign citizens seeking to obtain access to 

discretionary recognition of qualifications for dental 

care professions; and if he will make a statement. 

[40809] 

Mr Simon Burns: We sympathise with dental care 

professionals whose qualifications have not been approved 

by the General Dental Council (GDC), but any extension 

of the limited powers the GDC has for discretionary 

recognition of qualifications would have significant resource 

implications for the council. It would be preferable if 

these dental care professionals had the opportunity to 

undergo additional training to meet the standards set 

by the GDC. 



Health how much his Department spent on carbon 

offsetting in each of the last three years; and to which 

companies payments for carbon offsetting were made 

in each such year. [40527] 

Mr Simon Burns: The Department offsets the carbon 

emissions resulting from our business air travel by 

contributing to the Government Carbon Offsetting Fund 

(GCOF). The GCOF aims to fulfil the Government’s 

commitment to offset emissions attributable to all official 

and ministerial air travel in central Government. It is 

available to all central Government Departments and 

provides a simple and cost-effective way to offset, as 

well as ensuring high environmental integrity. 

For the last three years, the Department paid: 

2007-08 9,099 

2008-09 9,117 

2009-10 £0 

Payments were made to Trading Emissions plc. 

Food: Additives 

Mrs Hodgson: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Health if he will assess the merits of providing routine 

screening for food intolerances to children from an 

early age. [41276] 

Anne Milton: The UK National Screening Committee 

(UK NSC) advises Ministers and the national health 

service in all four countries about all aspects of screening 

policy and supports implementation. Using research 

evidence, pilot programmes and economic evaluation, it 

assesses the evidence for programmes against a set of 

internationally recognised criteria. 

The UK NSC regularly reviews policy on screening 

for different conditions in the light of new research 

evidence becoming available. Where stakeholders of the 

UK NSC feel that there is enough evidence published in 

peer reviewed journals to consider screening for a condition 

£ 

they can submit a policy proposal to the UK NSC. 

Further information is available on the UK NSC’s 

website at: 

http://www.screening.nhs.uk/policyreview 

Food: Hygiene 

Margot James: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Health (1) how many local authorities have launched 

the Food Standards Agency national food hygiene rating 

scheme recommended in Lord Young’s report, Common 

Sense, Common Safety; [41201] 

(2) what progress has been made by the Food Standards 

Agency in rolling out a national food hygiene rating 

scheme across local authorities as recommended in 

Lord Young’s report, Common Sense, Common Safety; 

[41202] 

(3) whether the Food Standards Agency has launched 

the web-based database for local authorities to publish 

results of food hygiene rating scheme inspections 

recommended in Lord Young’s report, Common Sense, 

Common Safety. [41208] 

Anne Milton: The online search facility for the national 

food hygiene rating scheme being introduced by the 

Food Standards Agency (FSA) went live on 1 October 

2010. 

The scheme was launched formally on 30 November 

2010 and, to date, 47 local authorities have started 

to roll it out in their areas and are publishing ratings 

online. This includes 28 in England, 18 in Wales and one 

in Northern Ireland. By the end of June, it is anticipated 

that around 40% of local authorities in England, all 

local authorities in Wales and around 70% of those in 

Northern Ireland will be operating the scheme. 

The FSA is encouraging and supporting as many 

more local authorities as possible to adopt the scheme. 

General Practitioners: Equality 

John Cryer: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 

whether GP consortia will be subject to the general 

duties of the public sector equality duty under the 

Equality Act 2010. [41261] 

Mr Simon Burns: The Health and Social Care Bill 

will amend the Equality Act 2010 to include commissioning 

consortia. Consortia will therefore be subject to the 

general duties under the Equality Act 2010. 

Genito-urinary Medicine 

Simon Kirby: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 

what steps he is taking to ensure that relevant commissioning 

expertise will be available for the provision of integrated 

sexual health services by local authorities following 

implementation of his proposed public health reforms. 

[40487] 

Anne Milton: On 21 December 2010, we published 

“Healthy Lives, Healthy People: Consultation on the 

funding and commissioning routes for public health”, a 

copy of which has already been placed in the Library.

861W 




862W 

The consultation makes proposals about the role of 

local authorities (LAs) in commissioning comprehensive 

open-access sexual health services using funds from the 

ring-fenced public health budget. 

The ring-fenced public health grant will fund LAs to 

commission the integrated sexual health services they 

are responsible for. This means that it will fund those 

functions that are necessary for LAs to deliver their 

new public health responsibilities, including relevant 

commissioning expertise. These proposals are currently 

subject to consultation which closes on 31 March. 

In addition, a new sexual health strategy to be published 

this year will set the broad future direction and priorities 

for sexual health. 

Health 

Simon Kirby: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 

what steps he is taking to ensure the impartiality of 

decision-making within local authorities in delivering 

public health commissioning. [40488] 

Anne Milton: As set out in the Public Health White 

Paper “Healthy Lives, healthy People: Our strategy for 

public health in England”, directors of public health 

are to be employed in upper-tier councils and unitary 

authorities to lead local public health efforts and will 

play the leading role in discharging local authorities’ 

public health functions. 

Directors of public health will be a statutory member 

alongside general practitioner commissioning consortia, 

local HealthWatch and other key partners on health 

and well-being boards and as part of the local authority 

will play a key role in preparing the joint strategic needs 

assessment which will need to paint an objective picture 

of the health and social care needs of the local population. 

The needs assessments will provide the basis for developing 

a joint health and well-being strategy, outlining how 

health and social care commissioners can meet the 

needs identified and should provide the overarching 

framework for local commissioning plans. 

Local democratic accountability to their local health 

populations, joint strategic working with other key partners 

and the focus on health outcomes aims to facilitate an 

impartial and objective approach to public health 

commissioning. 


whether his Department uses measures of health and 

well-being that involve self-reporting by individuals. 

[40628] 

Anne Milton: Self-reported measures of health and 

well-being are periodically included in a number of 

population-based surveys. The findings are used by the 

Department in developing and monitoring policy. 

The most frequently used measures on health and 

wellbeing are: 

General health and longstanding illness. These are primarily 

established by means of two main questions: 

How is your health in general? Would you say it was: very 

good/good/fair/bad/very bad? 

Do you have any long-standing illness, disability or infirmity? 

Yesorno? 

Both of these questions have been included each year 

in both the General Lifestyle Survey (previously known 

as the General Household Survey) and the Health 

Survey for England. 

EQ5D. Five questions aim to establish the respondent’s general 

state of health and quality of life. In selected years, this has 

been included in the Health Survey for England. 

GHQ—12 questions aim to establish whether the respondent 

has any mental health issues. In selected years, this has been 

included in the Health Survey for England. 

Warwick and Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Score (WEMWBS). 

14 questions aim to assess the respondent’s mental and overall 

wellbeing. This was included for the first time in the 2010 

Health Survey for England and will also be included in the 

2011 survey. 

A list of the questions included in the final three 

measures have been placed in the Library. 

The findings of the both the General Lifestyle Survey: 

www.statistics.gov.uk/statbase/product.asp?vlnk=5756 

and the Health Survey for England: 

www.ic.nhs.uk/statistics-and-data-collections/health-andlifestyles-related-surveys/health-survey-for-england 

are published online and are publicly available. 

Health Services: Competition 


for Health if he will ensure that competition in the 

health sector is based on the quality of the supplier; and 


Mr Simon Burns: In the new national health service, 

competition between providers will be a means, not an 

end, to empower patients and staff, drive up responsiveness, 

outcome, improved quality and efficiency. 

Our aim is for services to be commissioned from the 

best provider(s) whether from the public, private or 

voluntary sector and for patients to have greater choice 

and control over their care. 

Hospitals: Food 

Zac Goldsmith: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Health what steps he plans to take to encourage hospitals 

to comply with the Government Buying Standards for 

the public procurement of food and food services. 

[40836] 

Anne Milton: “The Operating Framework for the 

NHS in England 2011-12”, published on 15 December 

2010, makes it clear that national health service 

organisations are encouraged to consider the Government 

Buying Standards for food and catering when they are 

introduced at the end of March 2011. 

Hull and East Riding NHS Stop Smoking Service: 

Correspondence 

Mr Knight: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 

(1) how many unsolicited letters the Hull and East 

Riding NHS Stop Smoking Service has sent; and what 

the cost to the public purse, including postage, of sending 

such letters was; [41084]

863W 




864W 

(2) whether the Hull and East Riding NHS Stop 

Smoking Service attempted to ensure that the recent 

letters it sent were not addressed to non-smokers. 

[41163] 

Anne Milton: Priorities are set by local national health 

service Stop Smoking services for their own local 

population. This is a matter for the City Health Care 

Partnership (CHCP), which runs the Hull and East 

Riding Stop Smoking Service on behalf of Hull Teaching 

Primary Care Trust (PCT) and East Riding of Yorkshire 

PCT. I understand that my hon. Friend has already 

been in contact with the CHCP about this matter. 

Meat: Hygiene 

Guto Bebb: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 

(1) what estimates he has made of the cost to the 

livestock industry in Wales of implementation of the 

Food Standard Agency’s proposals for full cost recovery 

of meat hygiene controls; [40819] 

(2) what assessment he has made of the effect of the 

Food Standard Agency’s plans for full cost recovery of 

meat hygiene controls at slaughterhouses on small and 

medium-sized abattoirs in Wales. [40820] 

Anne Milton: The Food Standards Agency (FSA) has 

consulted across the United Kingdom on proposals for 

full cost recovery by removal of current discounts, with 

options for a phased introduction and a reduction in 

charges for low throughput businesses, and is committed 

to reducing its own costs. 

I am advised that on the basis of the information 

available prior to the consultation, the FSA estimated 

that full cost recovery for meat controls would cost the 

Welsh meat industry approximately £2.2 million. In the 

draft impact assessment, the FSA has assumed that 

slaughterhouses will absorb approximately one-third of 

the cost associated with full recovery charging and 

farmers the remaining two-thirds. On this basis the 

FSA estimates that slaughterhouses, including low 

throughput establishments, will absorb approximately 

£0.73 million of the cost, and pass on £1.47 million to 

the livestock industry in Wales. The FSA will refine the 

impact assessment in light of information received in 

responses to the consultation. 

139 consultation responses have been received across 

UK, 20 in Wales, including 11 from Welsh slaughterhouses 

of varying sizes, and FSA is in the process of considering 

all responses prior to determining its advice to Government. 

Note: 

The FSA impact assessment has been published on the FSA 

website at: 

http://food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/consultation/ 

meatcharges1110eng.pdf 

Myalgic Encephalomyelitis 

Ian Swales: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 

pursuant to the Minister of State’s contribution on 

4 February 2011, Official Report, column 327WH, on 

Myalgic Encephalomyelitis, what recent representations 

his Department has received on the definition of CFS/ME. 

[41259] 

Paul Burstow: The Department has received, and 

continues to receive, a large volume of correspondence 

from stakeholders, and those living with this condition, 

on the definition and naming of chronic fatigue syndrome/ 

myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME). 

During the Westminster Hall debate, on 4 February 

2011, I said that the World Health Organisation uses 

the composite term CFS/ME for this condition. This 

was incorrect. 

The World Health Organisation classes benign myalgic 

encephalomyelitis and post viral fatigue syndrome under 

the same classification G93.3 ‘diseases of the nervous 

system’; subheading ‘other disorders of the brain’. 

The report of the CFS/ME Working Group to-the 

Chief Medical Officer, in January in 2002, suggested 

that the composite term CFS/ME be used as an umbrella 

term for this condition, or spectrum of disease. This 

term is also used by the National Institute for Health 

and Clinical Excellence for their clinical guidelines. 

We do, however, intend to seek further advice on our 

classification and will update the hon. Member in due 

course. 

NHS Institute for Innovation and Improvement 

Clive Efford: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 

with reference to clause 262 of the Health and Social 

Care Bill, whether the functions of the NHS Institute 

will be incorporated into the Commissioning Board; 


Mr Simon Burns: The Department’s “Liberating the 

NHS: Report of the arm’s length bodies review”(published 

26 July 2010) looked to reduce bureaucracy and improve 

efficiency by better aligning the arm’s length bodies 

(ALBs) sector with the rest of the health and social care 

system. This is available at: 

www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/ 

PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_117691 

The review found, in assessing the NHS Institute for 

Innovation and Improvement’s current form and functions, 

that it did not satisfy the criteria to remain as an ALB, 

as set out in the report. 

It was therefore decided to abolish the NHS Institute 

for Innovation and Improvement as an ALB. The 

Department is engaging with the NHS Institute for 

Innovation and Improvement to review and evaluate its 

remaining functions, with a view to determining whether 

opportunities exist for alternative commercial delivery 

models, and whether or not to stop providing for certain 

functions altogether 

The Health and Social Care Bill currently before 

Parliament provides for the NHS Commissioning Board 

to have a duty, in exercising its functions, to promote 

innovation in both the provision of health services and 

approaches to commissioning them. This will enable the 

NHS Commissioning Board to promote innovation as 

part of its role in providing national leadership for 

quality improvement in the national health service. 

NHS Outcomes Framework 

Emily Thornberry: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Health if he will include indicators on the incidence of 

fragility fractures in older people in (a) the NHS 

Outcomes Framework and (b) the Adult Social Care 

Outcomes Framework. [41280]

865W 




866W 

Paul Burstow: On 20 December 2010, we published 

‘The NHS Outcomes Framework 2011/12’, which will 

measure the overall progress of the national health 

service in delivering better health outcomes for patients. 

In the Framework, ‘Domain 3: Helping people to 

recover from episodes of ill health or following injury’, 

there is an improvement area which focuses on ‘improving 

recovery from fragility fractures’. The indicator ‘The 

proportion of patients recovering to their previous levels 

of mobility/walking ability at (i) 30 days and (ii) 120 days’. 

This indicator is replicated in the draft Adult Social 

Care Outcomes Framework to help align the unique 

contributions that the NHS and adult social care have 

in delivering outcomes for fragility fractures in older 

people. 

The draft Framework, on which we consulted from 

16 November to 9 February 2011, also includes the 

indicator ‘the number of emergency hospital admissions 

for people aged 65 and older as a result of falls and 

injuries’, which is also relevant to improving outcomes 

for fragility fractures. 

As with all measures in the draft Framework, inclusion 

in the final Adult Social Care Outcomes Framework for 

2011/12 is subject to the level of support received via 

the consultation from councils, people using the services 

and their carers, providers, user-led organisations and 

others. We will publish a consultation response this 

spring setting out what people have said and how we 

have reflected this in the final Framework; as well as in 

our broader proposals to bring transparency to social 

care quality and outcomes. 

NHS: Drugs 


Health pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member 

for Pudsey of 27 January 2011, Official Report, 

column 468W, on the NHS: drugs, if he will assess (a) 

the effectiveness of the unwanted and wasted medicines 

campaign run by Brighton and Hove Link and (b) the 

potential of such campaigns to reduce (i) the quantity 

of wasted medicines and (ii) the dangers such drugs 

pose; and if he will make a statement. [40673] 

Mr Simon Burns: We take the issue of waste medicines 

very seriously. Local initiatives such as the one run by 

Brighton and Hove Local Involvement Network, can 

play an important part in raising awareness of the issue 

of waste medicines with local populations and health 

care professionals. 

The Department commissioned the York Health 

Economics Consortium and the School of Pharmacy at 

the University of London to carry out research to 

determine the scale, causes and cost of waste medicines 

in England. The report, ‘Evaluation of the Scale, Causes 

and Costs of Waste Medicines’, was published by the 

researchers on 23 November 2010. 

The Department and key interested parties took part 

in a round table event hosted by the King’s Fund on 

20 January 2011 to discuss possible actions that could 

be taken forward either nationally or locally. Local 

initiatives, such as the one in Brighton, will help to 

inform our future work programme on reducing waste 

and improving health outcomes. 

NHS: Market Research 

Iain Stewart: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 

how much each (a) primary care trust and (b) strategic 

health authority spent on market research and opinion 

polling in 2009-10; and what estimate he has made of 

such expenditure in 2010-11. [40957] 

Mr Simon Burns: The information requested is not 

held centrally. 

NHS: Pensions 

Stephen Mosley: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Health what reports his Department has received from 

former NHS employees about administrative errors 

associated with the processing of their pension in the 

last five years. [40962] 

Mr Simon Burns: NHS Pensions, the administrators 

of the NHS Pension scheme, received enquiries from 

former national health service employees about the non 

payment of interest where it was due under the Scheme 

regulations. An administrative exercise was undertaken 

to trawl and pay interest to members for all cases where 

it was due. 

NHS: Private Sector 


(1) what consideration he has given to allowing private 

health providers to take ownership of NHS property 

under his proposals for NHS reform; and if he will 

make a statement; [40494] 

(2) what consideration he has given to the transferral 

of NHS property to private health providers under his 

proposals for NHS reform; and if he will make a 


Mr Simon Burns: On 6 January 2011, the Department 

announced that the primary care trust-owned estate 

that is required to deliver the commissioned services 

will be made available to first and second wave aspirant 

community foundation trusts. The Department is currently 

examining the implications for the management and 

ownership of the remaining estate following the dissolution 

of primary care trusts in 2013. An announcement will 

be made when this has been completed. 

The acute sector estate is owned by foundation and 

national health service trusts. The White Paper “Equity 

and excellence: Liberating the NHS” proposes that the 

latter will become foundation trusts by 2013-14. These 

reforms will not otherwise affect the property holding 

arrangements in the NHS acute sector. 


whether any limit will be imposed on the amount of 

private income a Foundation Trust can earn as a proportion 

of its overall income under his proposals for NHS 

reform; and if he will make a statement. [40497] 

Mr Simon Burns: The Government have decided to 

use the Bill to remove the private patient cap, which is 

both arbitrary and unfair in its effects: giving extensive 

freedoms to some trusts and imposing tight constraints 

on others, based solely on the historical accident of how

867W 




868W 

much private income they earned in 2002-03. The 

Government are not persuaded that there is a case for 

imposing a new limit in the Bill on the amount of 

private income a foundation trust can earn as a proportion 

of its overall income. The Bill would not change a 

foundation trust’s principal purpose of providing goods 

and services for the purposes of the national health 

service in England. 


if he will ensure that NHS patients do not wait longer 

for treatment as result of the removal of the private 

income cap for Foundation Trusts; and if he will make 

a statement. [40501] 

Mr Simon Burns: There is no reason to believe that 

removing the cap would disadvantage national health 

service patients. A foundation trust’s principal purpose 

will remain the provision of goods and services for the 

purposes of the NHS. The Bill proposes reforms that 

would strengthen a foundation trust’s governance 

arrangements. It would ensure greater transparency 

and accountability to enable the governors and members 

to ensure that a foundation trust is managed in the best 

interests of the public and its NHS patients. 

NHS: Reorganisation 

Fabian Hamilton: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Health what assessment he has made of the likely 

status of the NHS as a protected state service under the 

relevant European directives under his proposals for 

NHS reform. [40657] 

Anne Milton: As we develop the national health service 

reform proposals we are assessing where European Union 

law will have an impact and what the position will be 

with respect to a health system that will remain funded 

by the taxpayer and providing universal coverage, free 

at the point of need. 


for Health how he will ensure that his Department’s 

proposals for health and social care reform will not 

create a risk of loss of financial control; and if he will 

make a statement. [40861] 

Mr Simon Burns: The maintenance of financial control 

during transition and the effective design of financial 

control in the new health landscape will remain a key 

objective as we implement the health reforms. 

The NHS Operating Framework 2011/12, published 

on 15 December 2010, outlines the business and planning 

arrangements for the national health service over the 

transition year 2011-12. It describes the national priorities, 

system levers and enablers needed to build strong 

foundations set out in “Equity and excellence: Liberating 

the NHS”, and to maintain and improve quality, while 

keeping tight financial control and delivering the quality 

and productivity challenge at a time of significant change. 

The Operating Framework sets out how tight financial 

control will be maintained during 2011-12. Primary 

care trusts will continue to be required to invest 2%, of 

their budgets non-recurrently in order to create financial 

flexibility and headroom to support change. The marginal 

rate of tariff payment for emergency admissions above 

baseline thresholds will be maintained, incentivising 

commissioners and providers to work together in an 

area that is critical to delivering local Quality, Innovation, 

Productivity and Prevention plans. These measures are 

critical for ensuring that the NHS maintains a strong 

financial position, to get the new system on the right 

footing from the outset. 

NHS: Standards 


what safeguards he plans to put in place to maintain 

quality of care in the NHS in the light of cost 

pressures; and if he will make a statement. [40500] 

Mr Simon Burns: The Operating Framework for the 

NHS in England set out the Department’s plans for 

maintaining and improving the quality of care. Specifically, 

it says (paragraph 4.3, page 31) that 

“as part of this NHS Operating Framework, we have developed a 

list of key indicators against which PCTs and clusters will be held 

to account during 2011-12. The list is included as an annex to this 

NHS Operating Framework and brings together key performance 

indicators to support quality, innovation, productivity and prevention 

efficiencies; indicators relating to new commitments and reform; 

and clinically relevant indicators from existing measures”. 

A copy of the Framework has already been placed in 

the Library and is available on the Department’s website 

at: 

www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/ 

@dh/@en/@ps/documents/digitalasset/dh_122736.pdf 


for Health if he will assess the merits of maintaining 

process targets which have a relationship to health 

outcomes; and if he will make a statement. [40859] 

MrSimonBurns:TheWhitePaper“EquityandExcellence: 

Liberating the NHS”set out how the Government would 

introduce a new system of accountability for the national 

health service based around the outcomes achieved for 

patients. As part of this, the first ever NHS Outcomes 

Framework was published on 20 December 2010. This 

framework will be used by the Secretary of State to hold 

the proposed NHS Commissioning Board to account 

for its role in overseeing the commissioning of NHS 

services. 

It will be for the NHS Commissioning Board to 

translate the national outcomes into outcomes and 

indicators that are meaningful at a local level, and it 

may choose to include process measures in the tools and 

levers it will have its disposal. Putting in place the right 

processes of care is critical to securing improved outcomes. 

However, these should be determined by expert bodies 

and healthcare professionals rather than politicians. In 

line with this, the National Institute for Health and 

Clinical Excellence have begun building a broad library 

of quality standards which will set out the processes 

and structures of care that should be put in place for a 

particular care pathway in order to achieve high quality 

outcomes. 

Nurses: Pay 

John Mann: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 

what assessment he has made of the effect of the public 

sector pay freeze on the payment of annual increments 

to NHS nurses who earn less than £21,000 per annum. 

[40716]

869W 




870W 

Mr Simon Burns: The starting pay for a qualified 

nurse is £21,176 per annum full time equivalent. 

There is currently no national freeze on incremental 

progression although there have been discussions between 

national health service employers and NHS trade unions 

on a National Enabling Framework to support local 

agreements to guarantee no compulsory redundancies 

in return for suspending incremental payments. 

Patient Choice Schemes 


if he will ensure that patient choice will continue to be 

determined on the basis of clinical need rather than 

price or competition law under his proposals for NHS 

reform; and if he will make a statement. [40498] 

Mr Simon Burns: The decision to refer a patient for 

national health service treatment is a clinical one and 

will remain so. Services will be commissioned according 

to the clinical needs of the population, but in a way 

which allows service users appropriate choice of treatment 

and provider. 


what the implications for patient choice are of lifting 

the competition exemption for the NHS under EU 

requirements; and if he will make a statement. [40499] 

Mr Simon Burns: The use of competition in the 

national health service is not about establishing normal 

commercial markets under price competition, and 

competition is not an end in itself. 

The Government are focusing on using competition 

to enhance quality and choice in the system, in most 

instances using NHS tariff or pricing arrangements. 

For some services, where the delivery of care is essential 

(e.g. rural ambulance and emergency), competition will 

be more limited—if it exists at all. 

Our aim is for services to be commissioned from the 

providers who are best placed to deliver the needs of 

their patients and populations. Commissioners and 

providers should also ensure that patients have accurate 

and reliable information, so that they can exercise more 

choice and control over their health care. 

Fabian Hamilton: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Health by what mechanism patients will be able to 

choose any healthcare provider under his proposals for 

GP commissioning. [40656] 

Mr Simon Burns: We expect the ability of patients to 

choose services to be extended through the introduction 

of any willing provider as part of the implementation of 

the Government’s proposals on choice. The NHS 

Commissioning Board will have overall responsibility 

for ensuring that commissioning consortia deliver a 

choice of provider. Further details of how the choice 

offer will develop will be given in the response to the 

choice consultation in the spring. 

Postnatal Depression 

Mr Lammy: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 

what estimate he has made of the number of mothers 

who suffered from a post-natal mental health problem 

as a proportion of the number of live births in each 

year since 2000. [37850] 

Mr Hurd: I have been asked to reply. 

The information requested falls within the responsibility 

of the UK Statistics Authority. I have asked the authority 

to reply. 




what estimate has been made of the number of mothers who 

suffered from a post-natal mental health problem as a proportion 

of the number of live births in each year since 2000. (37850) 

The Office for National Statistics does not hold the information 

requested. 

Prostate Cancer 

Mr Betts: To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) 

with reference to the report prepared for his Department, 

One to one support for cancer patients, what steps he is 

taking to address the gap in the provision of one to one 

support workers for men with prostate cancer identified 

in the report; [41094] 

(2) what steps he is taking to implement the national 

clinical audit of prostate cancer referred to in 

Improving Outcomes: A Strategy for Cancer. [41137] 

Paul Burstow: ‘One to One Support for Cancer Patients’ 

shows that, in many scenarios, the savings that can be 

achieved through improved co-ordination of care can 

outweigh the costs of dedicated support roles. These 

savings include reductions in emergency bed days, reductions 

in routine follow-up appointments, and reductions in 

general practitioner visits. 

The findings of the report are intended to assist local 

decision making and support the continued expansion 

in one to one support for all cancer patients, including 

those with prostate cancer. It is for local national health 

service organisations to decide whether to invest in new 

one to one support roles, and we have welcomed the 

recent announcement by Macmillan Cancer Support 

that they will invest up £300 million to pump prime 

additional one to one support posts over the next seven 

to 10 years. 

We will build on ‘One to One Support for Cancer 

Patients’ to provide further evidence to support the 

NHS to develop new one to one support posts. We will 

highlight issues that service providers and commissioners 

need to consider as part of work force planning. 

Regarding the implementation of a prostate cancer 

audit, a process to select topics for an extended national 

clinical audit and patient outcomes programme will 

begin shortly. We will consult widely and consider all 

representations before decisions are taken in the autumn. 

Schizophrenia 


what the number of diagnosed schizophrenics of each 

(a) age group and (b) sex there were in each region in 

each of the last 30 years. [41127] 

Paul Burstow: We do not collect this information 

centrally. However, the “Adult Psychiatric Morbidity in 

England, 2007” survey does contain some of the 

information requested. This publication has already 

been placed in the Library.

871W 




872W 

BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND SKILLS 

Adult Education 

Mr Mike Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Business, Innovation and Skills whether his review of 

informal adult learning will include consideration of 

(a) the transparency of and (b) mechanisms for 

allocating funding for informal adult and community 

learning. [39601] 

Mr Hayes: In November 2010, “Skills for Sustainable 

Growth” announced that the adult safeguarded learning 

budget of £210 million per annum for informal adult 

and community learning would be protected and that 

informal adult and community learning would be reformed 

in order to: 

help build the big society, through learning for personal 

development, mental/physical health, digital inclusion, democratic 

engagement, family learning etc. 

engage and motivate disadvantaged groups and create progression 

pathways towards the wider learning continuum, including 

skills-focused learning and employment. 

Over the coming months BIS will hold a series of 

policy round table meetings, including one with a specific 

focus on funding. We will work closely with a wide 

range of partners, including representative bodies, local 

authorities, colleges and other learning providers to 

consider how to address historical funding imbalances 

and how best to fund informal adult and community 

learning in future. 

Mr Mike Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State 

for Business, Innovation and Skills (1) whether local 

authority adult community education services will be 

exempt from the Skills Funding Agency’s minimum 

contract value proposals; [39603] 

(2) whether local authority adult community education 

services will be exempt from the Skills Funding Agency’s 

minimum contact value arrangements. [40926] 

Mr Hayes: We announced in “Investing Skills for 

Sustainable Growth” in November 2010 that a minimum 

contract level (MCL) was being introduced for the 

2011/12 academic year as part of our commitment to 

create a streamlined and more efficient FE system. In 

an environment of declining budgets, it has become 

increasingly difficult for small providers to operate without 

realising the efficiencies of shared services or economies 

of scale through collaboration or subcontracting. The 

Skills Funding Agency also needs to become more 

efficient and streamlined. 

The Skills Funding Agency (SFA) published Guidance 

Note 6 1 (16 December 2010), which gives further detail 

on the implementation of a minimum contract level 

(MCL) for the 2011/12 academic year. Guidance Note 6 

provides a list of the types of college/training organisation/ 

employer that would be exempt from the application of 

the MCL due to the specific nature of the contractual 

relationships that the SFA has with them. Local authorities 

are not automatically exempt from the introduction of 

the MCL. 

Where there is a risk of specialist provision being 

lost, or a significant impact on the choice available in 

particular localities, for example, in rural communities, 

the agency will consider whether alternative arrangements 

should be made. 

1 

Available at: 

http://readingroom.skillsfundingagency.bis.gov.uk/sfa/ 

skills_funding_agency_-_guidance_note_6_final_-v2_.pdf 

Mr Mike Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Business, Innovation and Skills whether the process of 

reviewing and reinvigorating informal adult learning 

will include a review of the funding process for 

informal adult and community learning. [40927] 

Mr Hayes: In November 2010, “Skills for Sustainable 

Growth” announced that we would protect the Adult 

Safeguarded Learning budget of £210 million per annum 

for informal adult and community learning and that we 

would re-invigorate and reform informal adult and 

community learning to support the big society and to 

foster learning and progression for individuals, families 

and communities. Over the coming months we will 

work closely with partners to consider how public funding 

can be refocused and reprioritised for the people who 

need the most help and have had the fewest opportunities. 

I refer my hon. Friend to his question tabled on 

7 February 2011 (39061) which I answered today. 

Citizens Advice Bureaux 

Paul Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Business, Innovation and Skills what discussions he has 

had with ministerial colleagues on the future of citizens 

advice bureaux. [41032] 

Mr Davey: Government value highly the work of the 

citizens advice service but funding for citizens advice 

bureaux is not a matter for central Government but for 

local authorities who are better able to determine the 

structure and level of funding of advice services in their 

area which meets local needs. The Government do not, 

however, expect local authorities to respond to this 

freedom by passing on disproportionate cuts to other 

service providers, especially the voluntary sector. 

Due to concerns raised by the hon. Member for 

Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) about funding 

decisions by Birmingham city council and the threat 

that decision might pose to the sustainability of the 

local citizens advice bureaux, I addressed those concerns 

and the Government’s response in an adjournment 

debate in Westminster Hall on 9 February 2011, Official 

Report, column 129WH. 

Citizens Advice: Finance 

Chris Ruane: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, 

Innovation and Skills how much central Government 

funding has been allocated to Citizens Advice in each of 

the last five years. [40365] 

Mr Davey: The Department for Business, Innovation 

and Skills (BIS) provides core grant in aid funding to 

Citizen Advice (CitA), the umbrella body for the Citizen 

Advice Service in England and Wales, and to Citizen 

Advice Scotland. Core funding for the individual citizen 

advice bureaux is typically provided by their local authority, 

not central Government.

873W 




874W 

Over previous years BIS has also provided programme 

funding to Citizen Advice under the financial inclusion 

fund (for face to face debt advice project) and to both 

Citizens Advice and Citizens Advice Scotland under the 

additional hours of advice (AHA) project. BIS also 

committed in the last spending review (SR07) to provide 

programme funding to Citizens Advice Scotland to aid 

in the development and roll-out of a case recording 

system (CASTLE) to be used across the bureaux network 

in Scotland. 

Citizens advice funding 

£ 

BIS core 

funding 

Financial 

inclusion 

fund 

Additional 

hours 

project 

Total 

2009/10 21,470,000 18,579,000 7,500,000 47,549,000.00 

2008/09 21,470,000 17,949,000 2,500,000 41,919,000 

2007/08 21,470,000 13,071,000 — 34,541,000 

2006/07 21,470,000 15,443,000 — 36,913,000 

2005/06 23,605,000 — — 23,605,000 

Core grant 

in aid 

Citizens advice Scotland 

CASTLE 

project 

Additional 

hours/credit 

crunch 

project 

Total 

2009/10 3,124,000 238,000 — 3,362,000 

2008/09 3,018,000 371,000 — 3,389,000 

2007/08 2,916,000 100,000 — 3,016,000 

2006/07 2,916,000 — — 2,916,000 

2005/06 3,024,000 — — 3,024,000 

Departmental Procurement 

Catherine McKinnell: To ask the Secretary of State 

for Business, Innovation and Skills what steps (a) his 

Department, (b) its agencies and (c) the non-departmental 

public bodies for which he is responsible have taken to 

comply with the Guidance of the Office of Government 

Commerce on promoting skills through public procurement 

issued in 2009. [31316] 

Mr Davey: The Department for Business, Innovation 

and Skills (BIS) adheres to applicable guidance published 

by the Office of Government Commerce. 

This Department utilises Buying Solutions and other 

frameworks where possible. In such cases the responsibility 

for incorporating such considerations lies with the body 

responsible for establishing the framework. 

BIS’ facilities management service partners are 

contractually required to demonstrate active support to 

staff to improve their adult basic skills. This must 

include an initial assessment of staff and where found 

not to meet the criteria the service partner must make 

available suitable arrangements for appropriate training 

to assist them in attaining at least the basic level as part 

of their individual training plans. 

The Government’s skills strategy, published on 

16 November, set out how BIS will also work with 

public sector bodies to encourage and support them to 

use public procurement as a lever to raise employers’ 

engagement with skills and apprenticeships. 

I have asked chief executives of the Executive agencies 

to respond directly to the hon. Member. 

Further information could be provided only at 


Letter from Stephen Speed, dated 15 December 2010: 

The Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation 

and Skills has asked me to reply to your question what steps (a) 

his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) the non-departmental 

public bodies for which he is responsible have taken to comply 

with the Guidance of the Office of Government Commerce on 

promoting skills through public procurement issued in 2009. 

The Insolvency Service Executive Agency of the Department 

for Business, Innovation and Skills adheres to current guidance 

by following Office of Government Commerce (OGC) 

recommendations, liaising with Buying Solutions specialists. It 

utilises OGC framework agreements where possible and advertises 

contracts via the Official Journal of the European Union where 

the whole-life value of the goods and services mandates this 

route. 

The Insolvency Service is now embedding the Cabinet Office’s 

‘Principles of Good Employment Practice’ into its processes. In 

undertaking procurement activities, our trained procurement staff 

are mindful of small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) and 

are members of the Chartered Institute of Purchasing & Supply 

(CIPS). 

The Insolvency Service recently contacted all our suppliers of 

goods and services to encourage them to sign up to the Skills 

Pledge. 

Letter from Geof Russell, dated 15 December 2010: 

The majority of activity procured by the Skill Funding Agency 

(the Agency) is for education and vocational training rather than 

the provision of goods and services. All procurement of this 

activity will in future be undertaken through the Agency’s Approved 

College and Training Organisation Register (ACTOR). Through 

this process the Agency ensures that providers that hold Agency 

contracts are committed to developing the skills of their staff. 

This includes monitoring those organisations that have Investors 

in People or the Training Quality Standard (TQS). Through the 

procurement process the Agency ensures that organisations use 

skilled staff for the delivery of education and training and commit 

to the continuous professional development of their staff. Furthermore, 

all trainers, verifiers and guidance suppliers are required to have 

formal qualifications, in order to practise. 

In terms of the procurement of goods and service provision 

the Agency uses collaborative procurement where possible. These 

are purchased through pan-government frameworks, where the 

evaluation criteria (and all references to skills requirements, provision 

of apprenticeship places, and contract terms and conditions) are 

actually set by other public sector bodies. 

Where the Agency does issue bespoke tenders, the goods and 

services tendering documentation has been updated to encourage 

its suppliers to support developing the skills of their staff, and 

where relevant, the use of Apprenticeships. The need to embed 

skills and Apprenticeships is considered separately for each 

procurement and, where relevant, the wording and evaluation 

criteria are strengthened. 

Letter from Peter Mason, dated 19 January 2011: 

I am responding in respect of the National Measurement 

Office (NMO) to your Parliamentary Question tabled 15 December 

2010, asking the Secretary of State, Department for Business, 

Innovation and Skills, what steps (b) its Agencies and (c) the non 

departmental public bodies for which he is responsible have taken 

to comply with the Guidance of the Office of Government 

Commerce on promoting skills through public procurement issued 

in 2009. 

NMO takes OGC Guidance into account when carrying out 

its procurement activities and in its most recent large procurement 

exercise, the first since this particular guidance was issued, bidders 

were explicitly scored on the extent to which they had a formal 

training plan for the development of their workforce. 

Letter from Gareth Jones, dated 24 January 2011: 

I am replying on behalf of Companies House to your Parliamentary 

Question tabled 13 December 2010, UIN 31316 to the Secretary 

of State for Business, Innovation and Skills.

875W 




876W 

Companies House’s contracts are awarded in accordance with 

all relevant procurement legislation but, because of the nature of 

our business requirements, there are very few services for which 

we contract where promoting apprenticeships are applicable. 

However, we have made full use of apprentice resource as part 

of our current Building Maintenance Contract. 

Letter from John Alty, dated 10 February 2011: 

I am responding in respect of the Intellectual Property Office 

(IPO) to your Parliamentary Question tabled 13 December 2010, 

asking the Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation 

& Skills, what steps (b) its agencies and (c) the non departmental 

public bodies for which he/she is responsible have taken to comply 

with the Guidance of the Office of Government Commerce on 

promoting skills through public procurement issued in 2009. 

In line with central government guidance, the IPO use collaborative 

framework arrangements for goods and services wherever possible, 

and in these instances the supplier selection (and other evaluation) 

criteria are decided upon by other public sector organisations 

when setting up the framework. Where the IPO issue bespoke 

tender requirements, our documentation will reflect the guidance 

by promoting skills and apprenticeships where relevant to the 

requirement. We have also specifically addressed this as part of 

our overall procurement strategy, along with other corporate 

social responsibility obligations. 

Employment Schemes 

Teresa Pearce: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Business, Innovation and Skills (1) which colleges he 

expects to participate in the job outcome pilot scheme 

in 2011-12 [41140] 

(2) whether funding for job outcome pilot schemes 

will be ring-fenced in the 2011-12 academic year; 

[41141] 

(3) how many people he expects to participate in the 

job outcomes pilot scheme in academic year 2011-12; 

[41143] 

(4) whether the funding allocated to colleges under 

the job outcomes scheme will be dependent on participants 

entering employment after training. [41144] 

Mr Hayes: As outlined in ‘Investing in Skills for 

Sustainable Growth’, as part of our approach to simplifying 

the system, while ensuring it continues to deliver more 

for individuals and employers, we are introducing outcome 

incentive payments. In the 2011/12 academic year the 

Skills Funding Agency will trial this approach through 

the introduction of a job outcome payment. I have 

asked the chief executive of the Skills Funding Agency 

to write to you to provide you with further details about 

this pilot with a copy of the responses being placed in 

the House. 


Business, Innovation and Skills (1) what discussions he 

has had with the Department for Work and Pensions on 

the operation of the job outcome pilot scheme in the 

2011-12 academic year; [41142] 

(2) what discussions (a) he and (b) his Department 

have had with the Department for Work and Pensions 

on the implications of the job outcomes scheme pilot 

for that Department’s consultation on skills conditionality. 

[41145] 

Mr Hayes: We have been working closely with both 

the Department for Work and Pensions and Jobcentre 

Plus on the operation of job outcome incentive payments. 

Both have welcomed the principle of the payments. We 

are currently working through the model of how the 

proposals will operate in the 2011-12 academic year and 

will have detailed discussions as the proposals develop. 

The Skills Conditionality consultation (which was a 

joint consultation led by both BIS and DWP) closed on 

3 February. Both Departments are currently working 

through the responses and, following the publication of 

the Government’s response to the consultation, will be 

continuing to engage with the sector (including colleges 

and training providers) as we work up detailed proposals 

for implementation. 

Employment Schemes: Further Education 


Business, Innovation and Skills how much funding he 

plans to allocate to colleges for the purposes of providing 

training for those who have been out of work for six 

months or more in the 2011-12 academic year. [41139] 

Mr Hayes: As set out in Investing in ‘Skills for 

Sustainable Growth’ 1 on 16 November 2010 the total Skills 

Funding Agency programme budget will be £3.4 billion 

in 2011-12 financial year. 

As a part of the spending review we have had to look 

hard at the rationale for funding adult skills training 

and have been clear that we must do all that we can to 

support people enter the labour market. This is why full 

funding will be focused on people who are actively 

seeking work—recipients of jobseekers allowance (JSA) 

or employment support allowance (Work Related Activity 

Group; ESA (WRAG). 

It is not for us to attempt to plan the delivery of 

further education and skills from the top down. Instead, 

our simplification agenda will set colleges and training 

organisations free to respond to local need, giving Jobcentre 

Plus and employers a key role in shaping both the 

volume and content of provision for this group. We 

expect that the availability of fee remission for those on 

JSA or ESA (WRAG) will itself make them attractive 

group for colleges and training organisations. In addition 

we announced in the Skills Investment Strategy plans to 

incentivise delivery of training for people who are 

unemployed through the piloting of new job outcome 

payments for FE colleges and training organisations. 

1 

http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/further-education-skills/ 

docs/s/10-1272-strategy-investing-in-skills-for-sustainablegrowth.pdf 

Higher Education: Admissions 

Mr Crausby: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, 

Innovation and Skills whether higher education institutions 

charging more than £6,000 tuition fees for degree courses 

from 2012 will be required to join the National Scholarship 

Scheme. [40146] 

Mr Willetts: All universities that want to charge a 

graduate contribution above £6,000 will be obliged to 

participate in the National Scholarship Programme (NSP). 

Broad details were announced on Thursday 10 February 

and information was placed in the Libraries of the 

House. 

Mr Crausby: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, 

Innovation and Skills whether all higher education 

institutions charging more than £6,000 in annual tuition

877W 




878W 

fees will be eligible to join the National Scholarship 

Scheme from 2012. [40212] 

Mr Willetts: Yes. All higher education institutions, 

whatever they charge, will be eligible to join the National 

Scholarship Programme, and those that want to charge 

above the £6,000 threshold will be obliged to participate. 

Higher Education: Disadvantaged 

Mr Chope: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, 

Innovation and Skills what the purpose is of the access 

performance indicators identified in paragraph 6.1 of 

the guidance to the Director of Fair Access; and what 

the definition is of (a) lower socio-economic classes 

and (b) low-participation neighbourhoods. [41318] 

Mr Willetts: Following the recommendations of the 

National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education, 

the Government asked the funding councils to develop 

suitable indicators and benchmarks of performance in 

the higher education sector. The Performance Indicators 

Steering Group (PISG) was established on behalf of the 

Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE). 

Membership of the group is drawn from Government 

Departments, the funding councils and representative 

bodies. Since 2002/03, the Higher Education Statistics 

Agency (HESA) has published the Performance Indicators 

(PIs) HEFCE will continue to further develop the PIs 

under the auspices of PISG. 

The indicators are designed to provide reliable 

information on the nature and performance of the 

higher education sector in the UK and a consistent set 

of measures of this performance. This will contribute to 

a greater public accountability by the sector, as well as 

ensure that policy decisions can be made on the basis of 

consistent and reliable information. 

The information on socio-economic classification is 

taken from the National Statistics Socio-Economic 

Classification (NS-SEC). The classifications used are: 

1. Higher managerial and professional occupations 

2. Lower managerial and professional occupations 

3. Intermediate occupations 

4. Small employers and own account workers 

5. Lower supervisory and technical occupations 

6. Semi-routine occupations 

7. Routine occupations 

The performance indicator is the proportion of students 

from NS-SEC classes 4 to 7 out of those from NS-SEC 

1-7. 

The low participation neighbourhood indicator has 

been produced using POLAR2 (Participation of Local 

AReas). This method is based on the HE participation 

rates of people who were aged 18 between 2000 and 

2004 and entered a HE course in a UK higher education 

institution or GB further education college, aged 18 or 

19, between academic years 2000/01 and 2005/06. It 

draws on data provided by the Higher Education Statistics 

Agency, the Learning and Skills Council, the Universities 

and Colleges Admissions Service, the other UK funding 

bodies and HM Revenue and Customs. 

The POLAR2 classification is formed by ranking 

2001 Census Area Statistics wards by their young 

participation rates for the combined 2000 to 2004 cohorts. 

This gives five young participation quintile groups of 

areas ordered from ‘1’ (those wards with the lowest 

participation) to ‘5’ (those wards with the highest 

participation), each representing 20% of UK young 

cohort. Students have been allocated to the neighbourhoods 

on the basis of their postcode. Those students whose 

postcode falls within wards with the lowest participation 

(quintile 1) are denoted as being from a low participation 

neighbourhood. 

More information and the latest figures for the 

Performance Indicators can be found at the following 

link: 

http://www.hesa.ac.uk/index.php/content/category/2/32/141/ 

Human Rights and Transnational Corporations 

Lisa Nandy: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, 

Innovation and Skills what the outcomes were of his 

meeting with the UN Special Representative on Human 

Rights and Transnational Corporations on 10 January 

2011. [41250] 

Mr Davey: At our meeting on 10 January, John 

Ruggie and I discussed the focus of the Department’s 

recent consultation on narrative reporting and the 

Government’s intention to bring forward proposals shortly. 

Professor Ruggie also updated me on his work in relation 

to the draft Guiding Principles for the implementation 

of the UN ‘Protect, Respect and Remedy’ framework. I 

conveyed the UK’s support for Professor Ruggie’s work 

in relation to this project. 

National Regional Development Agency Transition 

Programme Board 

Mr Marsden: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, 

Innovation and Skills for what reasons the decision was 

made to include representatives from One North East, 

Advantage West Midlands and the East Midlands 

Development Agency on the National Regional 

Development Agency Transition Programme Board. 

[41313] 

Mr Prisk: A meeting of the regional development 

agency chief executives selected the chief executives of 

Advantage West Midlands and East Midlands Development 

Agency as their representatives on the National Regional 

Development Agency Transition Board in July 2010. 

The chief executive of One North East attends as One 

North East is the current ‘Chair of Chairs’ (the chief 

Government liaison) for the RDA network. 

Pharmaceutical Industry 

Mr Thomas: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, 

Innovation and Skills what meetings he or Ministers of 

his Department has had with representatives of the 

pharmaceutical industry since May 2010; with whom in 

each case; and what the (a) purpose and (b) location of 

each such meeting was. [39136] 

Mr Willetts: On 16 June, the Minister of State, 

Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the 

hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk), 

attended the BioPharmaceutical Ministerial Industry 

Strategy Group (MISG), co-chaired alternately by David 

Brennan of AstraZeneca and the Secretary of State for 

Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for South

879W 




880W 

Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley). MISG’s purpose is for 

the Biopharmaceutical Industry and Government to 

engage on strategic issues. The meeting was held at the 

Department of Health, Richmond House, Whitehall, 

London. MISG members are shown in List 1. 

On 21 June, I attended the Ministerial Medical 

Technology Strategy Group (MMTSG). MMTSG’s 

purpose is for the Medical Technology Industry and the 

Government to engage on strategic issues. The meeting 

was held at the Department of Health, Richmond 

House, Whitehall, London. MMTSG members are shown 

in List 2. 

In July 2010, the Secretary of State for Business, 

Innovation and Skills, the right hon. Member for 

Twickenham (Vince Cable), the Minister of State (Mark 

Prisk) and the Under-Secretary of State (Baroness Wilcox) 

attended a Business Summit for Investors in the UK at 

Lancaster House which included a round-table meeting 

at which the following life sciences companies were 

present: 3M (Garry Stapleton), Amgen (Jeremy Haigh), 

Genzyme (Steve Bates), Johnson and Johnson (Colin 

Morgan), Medtronic (Geoff Morris), Pfizer (Alistair 

Strachan), Quintiles (Andrew Szanto), Sanofi-Aventis 

(Manjit Rahelu) and Takeda (Steve Coles). The purpose 

of the summit was to announce the UK’s Foreign 

Direct Investment Results for 2009/10, to highlight the 

strength of the UK as an investment destination, and 

for Government to capture strategic investors’ views on 

the UK offer to investors to guide future strategy 

development. 

The Secretary of State led a trade mission to Brazil in 

September 2010 to promote UK business interests. GSK’s 

Senior Vice President in Latin America, Rogerio Ribeiro 

(based in Rio) participated. 

Baroness Wilcox met with GSK in September to 

discuss how intellectual property impacts upon the 

Pharmaceutical sector. Eddie Gray, President, 

Pharmaceuticals Europe, and Jon Pender, Director of 

Government Affairs, attended. 

In November 2010, the Secretary of State led a trade 

mission to Russia to promote UK business interests. 

Michael Crow, GSK’s Senior Vice President Russia and 

Developing Markets Eurasia, participated in the mission. 

GSK signed an agreement with a company called 

Binnopharm for the local secondary manufacture of a 

number of GSK vaccines. The Secretary of State attended 

the signing, alongside GSK’s then Vice President and 

General Manager for Russia, Fabio Landazabal. 

As the Minister responsible for life sciences within 

BIS, I have had regular contact with representatives of 

the pharmaceutical sector on a range of issues including 

on the long-term future for the sector and on related 

initiatives such as the Healthcare and Life Sciences 

Growth Review, as well as discussing issues with the 

recently appointed life sciences business adviser, Chris 

Brinsmead at the Department for Business, Innovation 

and Skills in London. 

Specifically, I met representatives of the ABPI (Richard 

Barker), BIA (Nigel Gaymond ), ABHI (Peter Ellingworth) 

and BIVDA (Doris Ann Williams) in September at the 

Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, 1 Victoria 

street, London. The purpose of the meeting was to 

engage with life sciences industry bodies on strategic 

issues which will help maintain the UK as a competitive 

location for life sciences business and on its future 

growth potential. 

I attended meetings of the Pharmaceutical Ministerial 

Industry Strategy Group (MISG) and the Ministerial 

Medical Technology Strategy Group (MMTSG) in 

November 2010. The meetings were held at the Department 

of Health, Richmond House, Whitehall, London. 

On 15 October, I visited the Pfizer Biotech Packaging 

Facility at Havant and met Richard Blackburn, Managing 

Director at Pfizer UK; Jim Neville, Site Lead at Havant; 

David Bevan, Head of Specialty Care Business Unit 

UK; and Lou Schmukler, Pfizer Global Senior Vice 

President Packaging and Manufacturing. The purpose 

of the visit was to open a state-of-the-art biotechnology 

packaging facility in which Pfizer invested £26.3 million. 

I met Dr Husseini Manji, Global Head of Neuroscience 

Research at Johnson and Johnson on 23 November 

2010 to discuss UK neuroscience research. On 5 November 

2010 I met Brad Sauer, Executive Vice President of 3M 

Healthcare to discuss 3M’s healthcare interests in the 

UK. On 18 January 2011 I met Patrick Vallance, Head 

of Drug Discovery at GSK to discuss issues relating to 

research and collaboration. 

I met Ian Read, President and CEO of Pfizer on 

24 January 2011 at 10 Downing street when Mr Read 

informed the Government, in confidence, of Pfizer’s 

decision to close its facility at Sandwich. 

On 7 February 2011 I visited Pfizer’s site at Sandwich. 

I met Ruth McKernan (Chief Scientific Officer) and 

various Pfizer employees to discuss the proposed closure 

of the Pfizer facility. 

Also on 7 February 2011, I hosted together with my 

noble Friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of 

State for Quality at the Department of Health (Earl 

Howe), a meeting of the Senior Industry Group (SIG). 

The SIG forum was established to complement the 

work of the Ministerial Industry (bio-pharmaceutical) 

Strategy Group (MISG) and the Ministerial Medical 

Technology Strategy Group (MMTSG). The purpose 

of the meeting was to discuss the Healthcare and Life 

Sciences Growth Review. The meeting was held at the 

Department for Business Innovation and Skills, 1 Victoria 

street, London. Those who attended are shown in List 3. 

On 8 February 2011, I hosted a roundtable with 

Venture Capitalists and Ruth McKernan (chief scientific 

officer of Pfizer) to discuss the Pfizer site at Sandwich. 

The meeting was held at the Department for Business 

Innovation and Skills, 1 Victoria street, London. 

On Wednesday 9 February 2011, the Secretary of 

State and I met representatives of Pfizer as part of a 

Local Economic Task Force formed in response to 

Pfizer’s decision to close its facility at Sandwich. The 

meeting included representatives of Kent county council 

and my hon. Friends, the Members for North Thanet 

(Mr Gale), South Thanet (Laura Sandys), Canterbury 

(Mr Brazier), Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) 

and Dover (Charlie Elphicke). 

The Secretary of State met Dr John Lechleiter, Chairman, 

President and Chief Executive Officer of Eli Lilly and 

Co. Ltd., Ramona Sequeira, Managing Director, Lilly 

UK and Rick Ascroft, Director of Corporate Affairs, 

Lilly UK on Thursday 10 February at the Department 

for Business, Innovation and Skills, in London to discuss 

Eli Lilly’s interests in the UK.

881W 




882W 

List 1: Ministerial (Bio-Pharmaceutical) Industry Strategy 

Group Membership 

Government 

Secretary of State for Health (co-chair) (Rt Hon Andrew 

Lansley MP) 

Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Rt Hon 

Vince Cable MP) 

Minister for Universities and Science (Department for Business, 

Innovation and Skills) (Rt Hon David Willetts MP) 

Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Quality (Department 

of Health) (Earl Howe) 

Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Sassoon) 

Members 

David Brennan (co-chair), British Pharma Group (CEO, Astra 

Zeneca) 

Richard Barker, ABPI Director General 

John Young, American Pharma Group and Pfizer Ltd 

Clive Dix, Chair BioIndustry Association (Chairman, Modern 

Biosciences plc) 

Simon Jose, President, ABPI (General Manager and Senior 

Vice President GSK UK Ltd 

Eddie Gray, British Pharma Group, President, Pharma Europe, 

GlaxoSmithKline 

William Burns, European Medicines Group, Head of 

Pharmaceutical International Operations 

F Hoffman, La Roche 

Haruo Naito, Japanese Pharma Group, President of Eisai Co. 

Ltd. 

Joint Secretariat 

Department of Health 

British Pharma Group 

List 2: Ministerial Medical Technology Strategy Group 

Membership 

Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health 

(Co-Chair) (Earl Howe) 

Minister of State for Universities and Science, Department for 

Business Innovation and Skills (BIS) (Rt Hon David Willetts 

MP) 

Industry 

Colin Morgan, Regional Vice President, Johnson and Johnson 

MDD (Co-Chair) 

Simon Cartmell, Chairman, Osspray Ltd 

Bettina Fitt, General Manager, UK and Ireland, GE Healthcare 

David Plotts, Vice President of Marketing, General Surgery, 

Covidien 

Herb Riband, Vice President External Affairs International, 

Medtronic International 

Philip Salt, Chief Executive, Salts Healthcare Ltd 

Gary Stapleton, Vice President EMEA, 3M 

Doris-Ann Williams, Director General, BIVDA 

Peter Ellingworth, Chief Executive, Association of British 

Healthcare Industries 

Tony Davis, Chief Executive, Medilink West Midlands 

Secretariat 

Department of Health 

Association of British Healthcare Industries 

List 3: Senior Industry Group 

Attendees of meeting on 7 February 2011 

Co-Chairs 

Rt Hon David Willetts MP, Minister for Universities and 

Science, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills 

Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Quality, Department 

of Health (Earl Howe) 

Attendees 

Chris Brinsmead, Life Sciences Business Adviser 

Michael Hunt, ReNeuron 

Jeremy Haigh, Amgen 

Matthew Speers, UCB 

Dr Mark Lloyd-Davies, Johnson and Johnson 

Simon Cartmell, OSspray 

Sue Middleton, GSK 

Bettina Fitt, GE Healthcare 

Nick Dusic, Pfizer 

Nick Burgin, Eisai 

Peter Ellingworth, ABHI 

Doris Ann Williams, BIVDA 

Nigel Gaymond, BIA 

Richard Barker, ABPI 

John Stageman, ABPI and TSB 

Aisling Burnand, Cancer Research UK 

Joe Wildy, Director of Public Affairs and Policy, BIA 

Mark Wilkinson, NHS 

Post Office Mutualisation 

Nia Griffith: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, 

Innovation and Skills what recent discussions he has 

had with representatives of the Post Office workforce 

on his proposals for Post Office mutualisation. [41563] 

Mr Davey: Co-operatives UK are currently seeking 

the views of all Post Office Ltd’s major stakeholders on 

proposals for Post Office mutualisation. They will be 

providing a report to Ministers in the spring with options 

for a how a mutualised Post Office might work. The 

relevant unions have been actively involved in their 

research, and individual sub postmasters have also 

participated, as well as staff of Post Office Ltd. I have 

had no substantive discussions on this issue with any 

trade unions or with Post Office Ltd since Co-operatives 

UK began their work. 



had with the National Federation of Sub-postmasters 

on mutualisation of Post Office Ltd. [41564] 

Mr Davey: Co-operatives UK are currently seeking 

the views of all Post Office Ltd’s major stakeholders on 

Post Office mutualisation. They will be providing a 

report to Ministers in the spring with options for how a 

mutualised Post Office might work. The National 

Federation of SubPostmasters has been actively involved 

in their research, however, I have had no substantive 

discussions with them on this topic since Co-operatives 

UK began their work. 


Innovation and Skills when he expects to receive the 

outcome of the consideration by Co-operatives UK on 

the options for a mutualised Post Office. [41632] 

Mr Davey: We expect Co-operatives UK’s report on 

options for a mutualised Post Office to be presented to 

Ministers in April.

883W 




884W 


Innovation and Skills whether he has received initial 

findings from Co-operatives UK from its study on 

options for a mutualised Post Office. [41633] 

Mr Davey: I have not received any initial findings 

from Co-operatives UK from their study on options for 

a mutualised Post Office. I expect to receive their final 

report in April. 

Post Office: Bank Services 

Kate Hoey: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, 

Innovation and Skills with reference to his Department’s 

document Securing the Post Office Network in the 

Digital Age, November 2010, what estimate he has 

made of the cost of establishing a Post Bank. [41102] 

Mr Davey: The cost of establishing a Post Office 

bank would have three main components. First, the 

need for Government to capitalise Post Office Ltd (POL) 

to allow it to obtain a banking license and lend off of its 

own balance sheet. Second, exiting existing contractual 

arrangements relating to the provision of financial services 

through the post office network. Third, operational 

costs associated with setting up and running a new 

financial services unit within POL. The overall cost 

would depend on the remit and scope of operations of a 

Post Office bank. 

We have concluded that funding for the Post Office 

network over the spending review period will be better 

used maintaining and modernising the network to safeguard 

its future, ensuring that there will be no further programme 

of Post Office closures. 




Digital Age, November 2010, what estimate he has 

made of the cost of capitalising a Post Bank. [41103] 

Mr Davey: The Government have looked carefully at 

the option of creating a state-backed Post Office bank. 

One of the main components of the cost of establishing 

a Post Office bank would be the need for Government 

to capitalise Post Office Ltd (POL) to allow it to obtain 

a banking license and lend off its own balance sheet. 

The exact level of Government funding needed would 

depend on the remit and scope of operations of a Post 

Office bank. We have concluded that funding for POL 

over the spending review period will be better used 

maintaining and modernising the network to safeguard 

its future, ensuring that there will be no further programme 

of post office closures. 


Innovation and Skills what assessment he has made of 

the merits of introducing a weekly budgeting account at 

the Post Office. [41104] 

Mr Davey: The Government set out their policy on 

the future of the Post Office network in the policy 

statement “Securing the Post Office Network In the 

Digital Age”, published on 9 November 2010. In this 

statement we were clear that we will support Post Office 

Ltd as it expands further into financial services through 

the provision of new products and by increasing access 

to UK current accounts through the Post Office network. 

Post Office Ltd will make commercial judgments on 

which products and services to deliver through the Post 

Office network, including proposals such as a weekly 

budgeting account. Within Government, HM Treasury 

has commissioned research exploring the options for all 

customers to have the opportunity to benefit from 

direct debit discounts. 


Innovation and Skills whether he has taken steps to 

assist the development of new banking products through 

the Post Office joint venture with the Bank of Ireland. 

[41105] 

Mr Davey: The Government believe that continued 

growth of revenue from financial services will play an 

important part in the Post Office network’s future 

sustainability. The development of specific new banking 

products through the joint venture between Post Office 

Ltd and the Bank of Ireland is a commercial matter for 

the companies. 




Digital Age, November 2010, what assessment he has 

made of progress on proposals for Post Office Ltd to 

(a) develop new banking products with the Bank of 

Ireland and (b) extend access to credit union services. 

[41106] 

Mr Davey: The Government are firmly supportive of 

the development by Post Office Ltd of new banking and 

financial products with the Bank of Ireland and of 

stronger links between Post Office Ltd and credit unions. 

Negotiations on the provision of new products and 

services are a commercial matter between Post Office 

Ltd and the companies and organisations concerned. 



had with Post Office Ltd on extending access to high 

street bank current accounts through the Post Office 

network. [41107] 

Mr Davey: Ministers and officials have frequent 

discussions with senior management at Post Office Ltd 

on the future of the Post Office network, including on 

the Government’s ambition for the Post Office to expand 

further into financial services and extend access to high 

street bank current accounts through the Post Office 

network. 



had with (a) HSBC, (b) Santander and (c) Northern 

Rock on providing access to current accounts through 

the Post Office network. [41108] 

Mr Davey: The Government welcome the recent 

agreement between Post Office Ltd and Royal Bank of 

Scotland (RBS) to allow RBS and NatWest customers 

access to their accounts at post offices. Negotiations 

between Post Office Ltd and banks yet to reach agreement 

on providing access to current accounts at post offices 

are commercial matters between the companies concerned.

885W 




886W 

Regional Development Agencies: Assets 

Mr Denham: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, 

Innovation and Skills what assets are held by each 

regional development agency in each region; what the 

estimated value is of each; which organisation is responsible 

for it; and what decision has been taken on future 

disposal in each case. [39799] 

Mr Prisk [holding answer 11 February 2011]: I refer 

to the answers given on 7 December 2010, Official 

Report, column 245W and 28 October 2010, Official 

Report, column 458W. The RDAs submitted detailed 

assets and liabilities plans to BIS on 31 January. These 

plans are currently being scrutinised, each disposal will 

be considered on a case by case basis. An estimated 

value of each asset cannot be disclosed, at this time, as 

this information is market and commercially sensitive. 

Regional Development Agencies: Finance 

Mr Marsden: To ask the Secretary of State for Business, 

Innovation and Skills pursuant to the answer of 8 February 

2011, Official Report, column 215W, to the hon. Member 

for Newcastle upon Tyne Central, what the indicative 

funding allocations for each regional development agency 

were for 2011-12. [41333] 

Mr Prisk: I refer to the answer given on 20 December 

2010, Official Report, column 1048W. The London 

Development Agency has not yet been given an indicative 

allocation. 

Vocational Guidance 

Alison McGovern: To ask the Secretary of State for 

Business, Innovation and Skills whether the new all-age 

careers service will be established on a uniform model 

across England. [40119] 

Mr Hayes: The all-age careers service will have three 

core elements: online, helpline and community-based 

services. The online service and the helpline will deliver 

on a national basis. Local community-based services 

will be expected to meet national standards, but will 

have flexibility to tailor their services to meet local 

need, including in response to schools, which will have 

responsibility for securing access for their pupils to 

independent, impartial guidance.

5MC 

Ministerial Corrections 


Ministerial Corrections 

6MC 

Ministerial Correction 


COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT 

Housing: Prices 


Communities and Local Government what estimate his 

Department has made of the number of domestic 

dwellings valued at £2 million or higher in each (a) local 

authority, (b) parliamentary constituency and (c) region. 

[39167] 

[Official Report, 10 February 2011, Vol. 523, c. 391-92W.] 

Letter of correction from Mr Robert Neill: 

An error has been identified in the answer given to 

the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock) 

on 10 February 2011. 

The full answer given was as follows. 

Robert Neill: The Department has not made an estimate 

of the number of domestic dwellings valued at £2 million 

or higher. This estimate would require figures on the 

individual value of all domestic dwellings in each area. 

Such data are not held by the Department. Estimating 

the current capital value of individual domestic dwellings 

in each area would require a valuation/revaluation exercise. 

The Coalition Agreement rules out a domestic revaluation 

in this Parliament. 

The correct answer should have been: 

Robert Neill: The Department has not made an estimate 

of the number of domestic dwellings valued at £2 million 

or higher. This estimate would require figures on the 

individual value of all domestic dwellings in each area. 

Such data are not held by the Department. Estimating 

the current capital value of individual domestic dwellings 

in each area would require a valuation/revaluation exercise. 

The Government have ruled out a domestic revaluation 

in this Parliament, as outlined in the written ministerial 

statement of 11 October 2010, Official Report, column 2WS.

ORAL ANSWERS 


Col. No. 

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT.................... 939 

Aid Transfers ......................................................... 948 

Friends of Yemen................................................... 941 

Haiti....................................................................... 939 

India ...................................................................... 940 

Official Development Assistance............................ 947 

Palestine................................................................. 943 

Col. No. 

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT—continued 

Sri Lanka ............................................................... 945 

Sub-Saharan Africa (Midwives) ............................. 946 

UN Women Agency............................................... 944 

PRIME MINISTER .................................................. 948 

Engagements.......................................................... 948 

WRITTEN MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS 


Col. No. 

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT .......................... 77WS 

50th Horserace Betting Levy.................................. 77WS 

DEFENCE................................................................. 

Chemical Weapons Convention 

(Protective Programmes).................................... 

Defence Infrastructure Organisation...................... 

78WS 

78WS 

78WS 

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE..... 78WS 

General Affairs Council/Foreign Affairs Council... 78WS 

Hungarian Presidency (Priorities) .......................... 81WS 

Legalisation Office ................................................. 81WS 

Pope’s Visit (Costs) ................................................ 81WS 

Zimbabwe .............................................................. 83WS 

HEALTH................................................................... 83WS 

Acupuncture, Herbal Medicine and Traditional 

Chinese Medicine............................................... 83WS 

WRITTEN ANSWERS 


Col. No. 

HOME DEPARTMENT........................................... 86WS 

Access to Elected Office Consultation.................... 86WS 

JUSTICE................................................................... 87WS 

Appointment of the next Information 

Commissioner.................................................... 87WS 

JUSTICE................................................................... 85WS 

Health Care Workers, Social Workers and 

Social Care Workers........................................... 85WS 

TRANSPORT ........................................................... 

Basic Carbon Tool (Local Authorities) .................. 

Crossrail (Woolwich Station) ................................. 

Informal EU Transport Council ............................ 

88WS 

90WS 

88WS 

88WS 

Col. No. 

BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND SKILLS ............. 871W 

Adult Education .................................................... 871W 

Citizens Advice Bureaux ........................................ 872W 

Citizens Advice: Finance........................................ 872W 

Departmental Procurement.................................... 873W 

Employment Schemes ............................................ 875W 

Employment Schemes: Further Education............. 876W 

Higher Education: Admissions .............................. 876W 

Higher Education: Disadvantaged ......................... 877W 

Human Rights and Transnational Corporations.... 878W 

National Regional Development Agency 

Transition Programme Board............................. 878W 

Pharmaceutical Industry........................................ 878W 

Post Office: Bank Services...................................... 883W 

Post Office Mutualisation ...................................... 882W 

Regional Development Agencies: Assets................ 885W 

Regional Development Agencies: Finance ............. 885W 

Vocational Guidance.............................................. 886W 

Col. No. 

COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT— 

continued 

Audit Commission: Allowances ............................. 830W 

Audit Commission: Expenditure............................ 831W 

Community Centres: Finance ................................ 832W 

Community Development...................................... 833W 

Council Tax Benefits.............................................. 833W 

Departmental Procurement.................................... 834W 

Housing: Taxation ................................................. 834W 

Landlords: Coventry .............................................. 834W 

Local Government: Conditions of Employment.... 834W 

Non-domestic Rates: Devon .................................. 834W 

North East ............................................................. 835W 

Regeneration: Newcastle upon Tyne ...................... 835W 

Social Rented Housing........................................... 835W 

Solar Energy: Planning Permission ........................ 836W 

Standards Board for England: Furniture ............... 836W 

Supporting People Programme: Liverpool ............. 837W 

CABINET OFFICE................................................... 

Childbirth: Enfield................................................. 

Government Departments: Pay.............................. 

Job Creation........................................................... 

Televisions.............................................................. 

COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT.. 

Affordable Housing: Barking ................................. 

828W 

828W 

829W 

829W 

829W 

830W 

830W 

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT .......................... 

Arts: Public Participation....................................... 

Broadband: Devon................................................. 

Broadband: Wales.................................................. 

Departmental Carbon Emissions ........................... 

Digital Economy Act 2010..................................... 

EU Electronic Communications Framework ......... 

Sport...................................................................... 

797W 

797W 

798W 

798W 

798W 

798W 

800W 

800W

Col. No. 

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT—continued 

Sport: Finance ....................................................... 800W 

Television: Children ............................................... 800W 

DEFENCE................................................................. 801W 

Armed Forces: Blood ............................................. 801W 

Astute Class Submarines........................................ 802W 

Defence: Procurement............................................ 802W 

Departmental Travel .............................................. 803W 

Ex-servicemen: Radiation Exposure....................... 804W 

Hotels .................................................................... 804W 

Nuclear Submarines............................................... 805W 

Nuclear Weapons................................................... 805W 

Trident Missiles...................................................... 806W 

ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE..................... 851W 

Biofuels.................................................................. 851W 

Chemicals: Teesside................................................ 852W 

Departmental Carbon Emissions ........................... 853W 

Green Climate Fund .............................................. 854W 

Radioactive Waste.................................................. 854W 

Solar Power: Feed-in Tariffs................................... 857W 

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL 

AFFAIRS............................................................... 837W 

Algae: Liverpool Bay ............................................. 837W 

Flood Control: Wales............................................. 838W 

Floods.................................................................... 838W 

Forestry Commission: Land................................... 839W 

Forestry Commission: Scotland ............................. 840W 

Forestry Commission: Staff.................................... 840W 

Forests ................................................................... 840W 

Forests: Bedfordshire ............................................. 842W 

Forests: Devon ....................................................... 842W 

Forests: Ministerial Statements .............................. 845W 

Forests: Public Finance .......................................... 846W 

Forests: Timber...................................................... 846W 

Irish Sea: Pollution................................................. 845W 

Land ...................................................................... 848W 

Nature Reserves ..................................................... 848W 

Plantations............................................................. 849W 

Sewage: Railways ................................................... 849W 

Squirrels................................................................. 849W 

Wareham Forest..................................................... 850W 

Wood: Licensing .................................................... 850W 

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE..... 

Burundi: Politics and Government......................... 

Departmental Flags ............................................... 

Egypt: Elections..................................................... 

Egypt: Politics and Government ............................ 

Embassies: Official Hospitality .............................. 

European Union Bill.............................................. 

North Africa and Middle East: British Nationals 

Abroad .............................................................. 

Sudan: Referendums .............................................. 

Trade Promotion.................................................... 

Tunisia: Politics and Government .......................... 

817W 

817W 

817W 

818W 

819W 

819W 

820W 

820W 

821W 

821W 

821W 

HEALTH................................................................... 858W 

Blood: Donors ....................................................... 858W 

Children: Television ............................................... 858W 

Cockermouth Community Hospital....................... 858W 

Dentistry: Qualifications........................................ 859W 


Food: Additives...................................................... 859W 

Food: Hygiene........................................................ 860W 

General Practitioners: Equality.............................. 860W 

Genito-urinary Medicine ....................................... 860W 

Health.................................................................... 861W 

Health Services: Competition................................. 862W 

Col. No. 

HEALTH—continued 

Hospitals: Food ..................................................... 862W 

Hull and East Riding NHS Stop Smoking Service: 

Correspondence ................................................. 862W 

Meat: Hygiene........................................................ 863W 

Myalgic Encephalomyelitis .................................... 863W 

NHS: Drugs........................................................... 865W 

NHS Institute for Innovation and Improvement .... 864W 

NHS: Market Research.......................................... 866W 

NHS Outcomes Framework................................... 864W 

NHS: Pensions....................................................... 866W 

NHS: Private Sector............................................... 866W 

NHS: Reorganisation............................................. 867W 

NHS: Standards..................................................... 868W 

Nurses: Pay ............................................................ 868W 

Patient Choice Schemes ......................................... 869W 

Postnatal Depression.............................................. 869W 

Prostate Cancer...................................................... 870W 

Schizophrenia ........................................................ 870W 

HOME DEPARTMENT........................................... 777W 

Crime: Drugs ......................................................... 777W 

Driving Under Influence: Drugs ............................ 778W 

Revenue and Customs: X-rays................................ 778W 

INDEPENDENT PARLIAMENTARY 

STANDARDS AUTHORITY COMMITTEE ...... 775W 

Information Officers .............................................. 775W 

Members: Allowances ............................................ 776W 

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT.................... 826W 

Africa: Young People ............................................. 826W 

Burundi: Reconstruction........................................ 827W 

Cotonou Agreement .............................................. 827W 


Fair Trade .............................................................. 826W 

Poverty Reduction.................................................. 826W 

Poverty Relief Targets ............................................ 826W 

JUSTICE................................................................... 

Children: Maintenance .......................................... 

Departmental Carbon Emissions ........................... 

Departmental Public Expenditure.......................... 

Drugs: Sentencing.................................................. 

Employment Tribunals Service............................... 

Legal Aid ............................................................... 

Legal Aid: Mental Health ...................................... 

Legal Aid: Personal Injury and Negligence............ 

Legal Aid: Rochdale .............................................. 

Legal Aid: Social Security Benefits ........................ 

Legal Aid: Third Sector ......................................... 

Legal Profession..................................................... 

National Offender Management Service: 

Qualifications..................................................... 

Offensive Weapons: Prison Sentences..................... 

Offensive Weapons: Prison Sentences..................... 

Prison Sentences .................................................... 

Prison Service: ICT ................................................ 

Prisoners: Ex-servicemen ....................................... 

Prisons: Asbestos ................................................... 

Prisons: Visits......................................................... 

779W 

779W 

779W 

779W 

780W 

782W 

781W 

783W 

784W 

785W 

785W 

785W 

786W 

786W 

786W 

787W 

788W 

795W 

795W 

795W 

796W 

LEADER OF THE HOUSE ..................................... 825W 


PRIME MINISTER .................................................. 821W 

Children’s Centres.................................................. 821W 

General Practitioners ............................................. 822W 

SCOTLAND.............................................................. 

Petrochemicals ....................................................... 

778W 

778W

Col. No. 

TRANSPORT ........................................................... 773W 

Airports: Security................................................... 773W 

British Chamber of Shipping: Secondment............ 773W 

Departmental Security ........................................... 773W 

Electric Vehicles ..................................................... 774W 

Northern Rail: Standards....................................... 774W 

Railway Stations: Repairs and Maintenance .......... 774W 

Rolling Stock: Expenditure .................................... 774W 

Shipping: Suffolk ................................................... 775W 

South Eastern Trains.............................................. 775W 

TREASURY .............................................................. 822W 

Departmental Temporary Employment ................. 822W 

EU Law.................................................................. 822W 

Excise Duties: Fuels ............................................... 823W 

James Murdoch...................................................... 823W 

Public Bodies: Accountancy................................... 823W 

Revenue and Customs: Debt Collection................. 824W 

Taxation: Aviation ................................................. 825W 

Taxation: Financial Services .................................. 825W 

VAT: Alcoholic Drinks........................................... 825W 

Col. No. 

WORK AND PENSIONS ......................................... 807W 

Atos Origin ............................................................ 807W 

Children: Maintenance .......................................... 807W 

Departmental Public Expenditure.......................... 808W 

Dichloromethane ................................................... 808W 

Disability Living Allowance................................... 809W 

Disability Living Allowance: Cancer...................... 809W 

Employment: Asylum ............................................ 810W 

Housing Benefit ..................................................... 811W 

Housing Benefit: Greater London.......................... 811W 

Injuries, Disease and Dangerous Occurrences 

Regulations 1995................................................ 811W 

Jobcentres .............................................................. 812W 

Lone Parents: Earnings.......................................... 812W 

Pensions: Females .................................................. 813W 

Poverty: Families.................................................... 813W 

Social Fund: City of Chester.................................. 813W 

Social Security Benefits: Expenditure..................... 814W 

Work Capability Assessment: Carmarthen............. 816W 

MINISTERIAL CORRECTION 


Col. No. 

COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT . 5MC 

Housing: Prices...................................................... 5MC

Members who wish to have the Daily Report of the Debates forwarded to them should give notice at the Vote 

Office. 

The Bound Volumes will also be sent to Members who similarly express their desire to have them. 

No proofs of the Daily Reports can be supplied, nor can corrections be made in the Weekly Edition. Corrections 

which Members suggest for the Bound Volume should be clearly marked in the Daily Report, but not 

telephoned, and the copy containing the Corrections must be received at the Editor’s Room, House of Commons, 

not later than 


STRICT ADHERENCE TO THIS ARRANGEMENT GREATLY FACILITATES THE 

PROMPT PUBLICATION OF THE VOLUMES 

Members may obtain excerpts of their Speeches from the Official Report (within one month from the date of 

publication), on application to the Stationery Office, c/o the Editor of the Official Report, House of 

Commons, from whom the terms and conditions of reprinting may be ascertained. Application forms are 

available at the Vote Office. 

PRICES AND SUBSCRIPTION RATES 

DAILY PARTS 

Single copies: 

Commons, £5; Lords, £3·50. 

Annual subscriptions: 

Commons, £865; Lords, £525. 

WEEKLY HANSARD 




Commons, £440. Lords, £225. 

Index: 



LORDS VOLUME INDEX obtainable on standing order only. Details available on request. 

BOUND VOLUMES OF DEBATES are issued periodically during the session. 



Standing orders will be accepted. 

THE INDEX to each Bound Volume of House of Commons Debates is published separately at £9·00 and can be supplied to standing 

order. 

WEEKLY INFORMATION BULLETIN compiled by the House of Commons, giving details of past and forthcoming business, 

the work of Committees and general information on legislation, etc. The Annual Subscription includes also automatic 

despatch of the Sessional Information Digest. 


£1·50. 


£53·50. 

All prices are inclusive of postage

Volume 523 

Wednesday 

No. 120 16 February 2011 

CONTENTS 


Oral Answers to Questions [Col. 939] [see index inside back page] 

Secretary of State for International Development 

Prime Minister 

Sex Offenders Register [Col. 959] 

Statement—(Mrs May) 

Welfare Reform [Col. 969] 

Bill presented, and read the First time 

Criminal Justice (Amendment) Bill [Col. 970] 

Bill presented, and read the First time 

Opposition Day [11th allotted day] 

Youth Unemployment [Col. 973] 

Motion—(Mr Byrne)—on a Division, negatived 

Military Covenant [Col. 1026] 

Motion—(Mr Jim Murphy)—on a Division, negatived 

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill [Col. 1074] 

Lords message considered 

Petitions [Col. 1095] 

Incinerators (Hertfordshire) [Col. 1097] 

Debate on motion for Adjournment 

Immigration [Col. 1105] 

Motion, on a deferred Division, agreed to 

Terrorist Finance Tracking Program [Col. 1108] 

Motion, on a deferred Division, agreed to 

Westminster Hall 

Economic Regeneration (Glasgow) [Col. 267WH] 

Infrastructure Planning Commission [Col. 291WH] 

Pubs (Planning Policy) [Col. 299WH] 

Renewable Energy (The Humber) [Col. 322WH] 

Financial Mutuals [Col. 331WH] 

Debates on motion for Adjournment 

Written Ministerial Statements [Col. 77WS] 

Written Answers to Questions [Col. 773W] [see index inside back page] 

Ministerial Correction [Col. 5MC]

View PDF - United Kingdom Parliament

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?